Factually, that’s what he did during his time in office as well. I’m not sure what they thought had changed.
I (and a lot of others) are not going to “Toe the line” for whoever the DNC shoves down our throats if we don’t feel like it. The DNC learned a good lesson in 2016. I’m not ashamed that I didn’t vote for Hillary just because she was “better than Trump”. I didn’t like either candidate, so I voted third party to help boost their numbers to help get away from a 2 party system. I’m not sorry for that, and whatever shit you give me isn’t going to change my opinion.
“Boosting their numbers” in the single biggest election doesn’t make them a viable party. Third party candidates got an average of 5% of the vote in the 2016 presidential election (unless you include Utah to blow the bell curve to a whopping 7%).
Getting that party’s candidates established in local governments across the nation so they gain a following, experience, and momentum is what does make them viable. It’s not easy, but it’s the only way. Zero people care who didn’t win the presidential election or why - it’s winner take all. No message is received.
I don’t care. I didn’t like either candidate and voted accordingly. 2016 wasn’t my fault. Put up a better candidate and I would have voted for them.
I mean, wasn’t it?
The only people that can claim that are folks that voted for Hillary. Not voting or voting third party, you’re still participating, you’re just pulling the lever that reads, “I’ll go with whoever the majority is”.
That year it turned out to be Trump. You did choose, a passive choice is still a choice.
In 1992, Ross Perot got about 20% of the popular vote as a third party candidate. How did that “help get away from a 2 party system”? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’m curious.
What “lesson” do you think the DNC learned in 2016?
What’s your plan to institute ranked voice voting & national popular vote?
I wasn’t old enough to vote in the 1992 election. I was only 15.
I think the DNC learned that pushing a candidate that wasn’t well liked isn’t going to win them an election, just because that’s who they wanted to put in the spotlight. (Anecdotal based on my personal conversations. I haven’t researched it.)
Reducing the 15% National electorate requirement by the FEC for presidential debates would be a start. This allows lesser known parties and candidates a voice on the national stage and gives them more national coverage.
I’m just a random person. I personally don’t have a plan how to institute ranked choice voting, but I would absolutely vote for a ranked choice voting system rather than keeping the current 2 party system.
This is what they actually learned.
- 1968, 1980, 1984: They learned that turning off moderate voters by putting too progressive of a candidate can lose you an election hard (McGovern, Carter, Mondale).
- 1992: They learned that a strong third party candidate can cannibalise voters from a weak or ineffectual major party, much like Perot took votes from the Republican Party when Bush-41 went back on his ‘no new taxes’ pledge.
- 2000: They learned that trying to placate moderates by picking a more moderate candidate costs them the election as surely as placating progressives with an ultra-progressive candidate does, just by thinner margins.
- 2008: They learned that hate for Republicans is far more effective of a strategy than building coalitions…
- 2010: …but they learned that Progressives turn into fair-weather friends when they don’t get exactly what they want.
- 2012: But that Republican hate is still useful…
- 2014: …and our fair-weather friends are still useful to Team Red.
- 2016: We relearned the lesson we should have learned in 2000 by placating moderates and running a dynasty.
- 2020: But that Republican hate is still useful!
We barely averted Biden as the Moderate Placator in 2024, running on the fear and hate of the Republican Party to make an otherwise moderate in Kamala Harris our standard-bearer, but if she keeps up with the talks about price controls, we MIGHT just find out if the lessons of 1968, 1980, and 1984 still apply.
And Jackie’s Fridge is right. In an election split 51 (Left) and 49 (Right), if you can convince 3 Left-Leaning voters to vote Third Party, you have convinced them to throw away their votes and assure all 51 voters on the Left get what they DON’T want while the Conservatives win on a 49/48/3 split. Unless and until you use a voting system that allows those 3 votes to NOT give the win to the 48 voters, voting third party is just helping the major party most opposed to your platform win. And if you need any evidence of how this screws up Leftists, look no further than our northern neighbour, Canada, specifically Ontario, where vote-splitting between the two major Left-Wing parties (Liberal, New Democratic Party) lets the Conservative party run the show.
