When else can people put pressure on the lesser evil to "tone down" the evil? Or take the opportunity to ensure folks know about the evil? Isn't it when things look their worst they say "well actually we need to be slightly more evil to get those swing voters"?

Maybe I don't understand the US system but I believe platforms are individual to candidates and that there are no overall party platforms that the candidates are expected to adhere to. How is there no shift to less evil under these conditions? So many individual elections for individual people and a whole lot of wack people getting elected.

and they'd rather fight the lesser evil than the greater one.

I think this is my point: when do they fight the lesser evil?

[–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Maybe I don’t understand the US system but I believe platforms are individual to candidates and that there are no overall party platforms that the candidates are expected to adhere to.

While the platforms are technically individual, they aren't really. They have to get approval from their bosses (donors) on what they get to run on. And the few actual good things that they run on has to be just empty rhetoric. If they get elected, they are expected to immediately forget those things.

when do they fight the lesser evil?

Thats the neat part, they don't. The cycle goes like this:

It's election season. You can't point out that the child-killers want to kill children, or the evil people will win.
Election season is over. The child-killers are in power, but their hands are tied because of the evil people who aren't in power. Its unrealistic to expect the child-killers to just stop helping the evil people kill children.
It's election season. You can't point out that the child-killers have been killing children, or the evil people will win.
Election season is over. The child-killers aren't in power. What do you expect them to do? They have to keep helping the evil people kill children.

Rinse, repeat

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Holy shit I thought this was a serious reply for the first few lines and I was AGHAST

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

When I initially read this I thought the reply was describing the system and saying it's normal and good actually rather than comedically pointing out the flaws.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago

Ahh

[+] Feathercrown@lemmy.world -7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Primaries mostly

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I decided against continuing the convo you are replying to because it felt like the other person and I had both explained our points of view and anything further might feel like trying to convince them to adopt mine but I had wanted to bring up primaries.

Doesn't this same thing play out in the primaries? Otherwise how could the lesser evil stay evil?

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

It can happen in primaries too, yes. But if your preferred candidate loses the primary, you can still vote for the candidate who does win the primary in the general election, so it is generally safer to voice your real opinion in the primaries rather than vote strategically.

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I guess what I don't understand is how the candidates in the general election can be so unpalatable if the primaries are the place where people can ask for what they really want.

[–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Because the Democrats spend more time fighting leftists, then they do fighting the Republicans. Check out the recent DSA elections: Democrats spent a bunch of time and energy fighting against them.

Additionally, the Democrats fight tooth and nail to keep third parties off of the ballots. They also spend a bunch of effort saying that things like "not bombing kids" or "medicare for all" are unreasonable, or unrealistic, to keep people from thinking that 3rd parties are viable.

[–] Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I can see why my wording was confusing when taken out of context. If you go up a few levels you can see that we are saying the same thing. Or at least I think?

I asked when do people get to push back against the lesser evil, and someone said the primaries. What you were responding to here was me saying I don't see how that's possibly true if the primaries keep spitting out people who have no interest in being even slightly less evil.

[–] dubs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 days ago

Totally. I was just expanding on what you were pointing out. We are in agreement :)

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works -4 points 4 days ago

Maybe I don't understand the US system but I believe platforms are individual to candidates and that there are no overall party platforms that the candidates are expected to adhere to.

Sincerely don't mean to be rude, but the first 7 words provide the answer. Even when there are no official overall party platforms, the eyebrows waggle in a certain direction. Especially where campaign funding is concerned.

I think this is my point: when do they fight the lesser evil?

I do my part. Many others do too. The fighters are in the minority, which is why it's so important that the bystanders at least make our work easier.