There have always been factions in the main parties. Obama was part of a wave of more progressive Democrats that pulled away from the moderate liberalism of Clinton.
There are also formal sub parties like the Blue Dog Democrats and the New Democrat Coalition, the us news media just doesn’t report on them the way European news does for parties.
Even AOC and “the squad” are considered a faction with followers and enemies. The fact that the media is focusing on her and de facto making her the face should be a pretty big signal to the other party leaders that they need to get their shit together or be swept aside. Hopefully they fall in line to help her.
That’s why I never believed in the rhetoric of “it’s too late to consider 3rd party!” before the elections. Here it is just 6 months later and “we don’t have time for that”. Is it disingenuous then to just say there will never be time for that, like it is being implied here?
edit: just saw your other comments, I hope your DNC-tea party plan works with some effect. It’s harder for those who have voted for decades for a party that just isn’t responsive to the citizens so we’ll see I suppose.
That’s why I never believed in the rhetoric of “it’s too late to consider 3rd party!” before the elections. Here it is just 6 months later and “we don’t have time for that”. Is it disingenuous then to just say there will never be time for that, like it is being implied here?
It takes years to get a new party off the ground and in a meaningful position to take federal offices at any significant rate. During that time, you are mostly helping your farthest opposition of the main parties win by splitting the vote.
This is literally why the Tea Party operated by internal change of the GOP and not by starting a third party. And love them or hate them, they were effective at shifting the GOP.
My concern with this take is “what are we considering this effect to be?” If we are taking the average republican who wholly considers themselves to be “Conservative”, their party was overtaken by extremists who are the antithesis to what the goal of that meaning is.
I don’t want a “Blue Maga” which takes the party away from progressive policies in an attempt to drum up fanatical support “against the tyrannical reds” while in reality they continue destroying the democracy we have. An example is a new DNC who wishes to prosecute and deport those who are on the right (there are examples on this site of individuals who are “progressives” but think the “right” should all be rounded up).
When people say they want a “tea party” I think it’s way to vague. Talking about the “effectiveness” of how the GOP has been changed is just completely scary, since in reality it just became a mask off-authoritarian free for all. I don’t need a Corporatized DNC to decide they no longer need the decorum of piece-meal policy that helps citizens since they know everyone has no other choice (like what happened with the GOP).
Again, I really hope a “Left Tea Party” would cause the DNC to capitulate to progressive ideology, but that’s not what happened on the conservative side (as evident from the big beautiful bullshit-bill).
Would it though? I’m not convinced of that. We already know what the party should look and act like based on actual progressive parties and policies around the world (even some past actions in the states itself), we really just need a name to know it by for everyone to get behind.
It’s the whole problem-solution thing, doesn’t matter what the name of the website or company is, we just need something to step in and fill that gap.
That’s not how America works. Only Democrats and Republicans can actually get elected at the level AOC plays at, because the electoral college only recognizes Democrats and Republicans.
You’re not really disagreeing. AOC is perceived as the face of the democratic party and it’s true. She’s at least offering consistent resistance while the feckless leadership of the party does nothing but line their pockets and ensure 100 percent unconditional support of Israel to the determient of all else.
I don’t even disagree with your conclusions necessary, if it’s impossible to dislodge Pelosi and Schumer. But building a party from scratch is really fucking hard. Hijacking one might be easier.
They’re going to stay there making bank off of insider trading until they’re so ancient someone accidentally walks through and disperses the dust cloud known as Pelosi, and they finally decide they have enough money to reach supply-side Jesus.
Just insider trading? Those super pacs are the fucking Democrats and Republicans at this point. Greed itself is our new overlord, business ethics are dead and rotting.
Disagree. The Democrats dont know who they are anymore. Pelosi and the old Democrats have got to go.
AOC should just make a new party.
No, we don’t have time for that. We just have to do a tea party on the Democratic party… Which is what she’s been doing
They do have to go, but we’re keeping the house and the dog
The Tea Party of the Left is what we needed back in the Obama days, better late than never.
There have always been factions in the main parties. Obama was part of a wave of more progressive Democrats that pulled away from the moderate liberalism of Clinton.
There are also formal sub parties like the Blue Dog Democrats and the New Democrat Coalition, the us news media just doesn’t report on them the way European news does for parties.
Even AOC and “the squad” are considered a faction with followers and enemies. The fact that the media is focusing on her and de facto making her the face should be a pretty big signal to the other party leaders that they need to get their shit together or be swept aside. Hopefully they fall in line to help her.
Sadly my expectations for the Democrats is that they will ignore every red flag on their way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
That’s why I never believed in the rhetoric of “it’s too late to consider 3rd party!” before the elections. Here it is just 6 months later and “we don’t have time for that”. Is it disingenuous then to just say there will never be time for that, like it is being implied here?
edit: just saw your other comments, I hope your DNC-tea party plan works with some effect. It’s harder for those who have voted for decades for a party that just isn’t responsive to the citizens so we’ll see I suppose.
It takes years to get a new party off the ground and in a meaningful position to take federal offices at any significant rate. During that time, you are mostly helping your farthest opposition of the main parties win by splitting the vote.
This is literally why the Tea Party operated by internal change of the GOP and not by starting a third party. And love them or hate them, they were effective at shifting the GOP.
My concern with this take is “what are we considering this effect to be?” If we are taking the average republican who wholly considers themselves to be “Conservative”, their party was overtaken by extremists who are the antithesis to what the goal of that meaning is.
I don’t want a “Blue Maga” which takes the party away from progressive policies in an attempt to drum up fanatical support “against the tyrannical reds” while in reality they continue destroying the democracy we have. An example is a new DNC who wishes to prosecute and deport those who are on the right (there are examples on this site of individuals who are “progressives” but think the “right” should all be rounded up).
When people say they want a “tea party” I think it’s way to vague. Talking about the “effectiveness” of how the GOP has been changed is just completely scary, since in reality it just became a mask off-authoritarian free for all. I don’t need a Corporatized DNC to decide they no longer need the decorum of piece-meal policy that helps citizens since they know everyone has no other choice (like what happened with the GOP).
Again, I really hope a “Left Tea Party” would cause the DNC to capitulate to progressive ideology, but that’s not what happened on the conservative side (as evident from the big beautiful bullshit-bill).
edit: taking=talking, fixed a confusing sentence
It would take many decades for a new party to get the recognition.
Most voters probably think Obama is still president.
Would it though? I’m not convinced of that. We already know what the party should look and act like based on actual progressive parties and policies around the world (even some past actions in the states itself), we really just need a name to know it by for everyone to get behind.
It’s the whole problem-solution thing, doesn’t matter what the name of the website or company is, we just need something to step in and fill that gap.
Sadly many of them didn’t know Kamela was even running until they couldn’t find Biden’s name on the polls come Election Night.
“MAKE A NEW PARTY!11111!!1”
That’s not how America works. Only Democrats and Republicans can actually get elected at the level AOC plays at, because the electoral college only recognizes Democrats and Republicans.
You’re not really disagreeing. AOC is perceived as the face of the democratic party and it’s true. She’s at least offering consistent resistance while the feckless leadership of the party does nothing but line their pockets and ensure 100 percent unconditional support of Israel to the determient of all else.
I don’t even disagree with your conclusions necessary, if it’s impossible to dislodge Pelosi and Schumer. But building a party from scratch is really fucking hard. Hijacking one might be easier.
They’re going to stay there making bank off of insider trading until they’re so ancient someone accidentally walks through and disperses the dust cloud known as Pelosi, and they finally decide they have enough money to reach supply-side Jesus.
Just insider trading? Those super pacs are the fucking Democrats and Republicans at this point. Greed itself is our new overlord, business ethics are dead and rotting.
Potentially with local elections first. Build it up from the ground up.
Not like the Green Party and Jill Stein’s goofy ass.