_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
1116 points (98.9% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
8182 readers
1114 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out:
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a Charlie Brown and the football situation. You can only fall for the same bait and switch so many times before you just give up. In a democracy it leads to voter apathy. And primaries are poorly run. If it isn't a prominent one, you likely won't find much information on the candidates prior to the primary election, and for the president, they sre pretty much decided by 4th one so if you're state does a later primary, chances are that your preferred candidate has already dropped out by the time you can actually vote for them.
To my knowledge Americans have never given Democrats a chance, the Democrats haven't had a majority capable of pushing a bill through without Republican participation since 2008 and Republicans have been remarkably consistent at pulling the party together to stonewall Democrats so they look ineffective.
I mean the Democrats are often ineffective but at least punish them for the failures they make on their own merits, like the recent agreement to reopen the government.
They had a majority in the House from 2006 to 2010 and from 2008 to 2014 in the Senate. It's not like the GOP has been in power forever. And again in the Senate from 2022 to 2024 and from 2018 to 2022 in the House.
There's a reason why some people dont really believe in them
I was referring specifically to Senate, however it's a long messy history, let me go on GovTrack.us and see if I can find the senate records to explain what I mean
Edit: there it is,
The below information is a tie which effectively allowed for stonewalling. Yes if all Democratic senators, 2 independents and the vice president voted together they could push things through. However the fact of the matter is they don't tow the party line like Republicans and vote more independently. Perhaps a party failure but I see that as a tenant of a functioning democracy.
You could make the argument against an enemy willing to use those tactics not using them Is a failure to the people but I'd argue the smarter thing as individuals would be to blame Republicans and vote them out of positions of power.
And before that the last time they had a majority was 2009 to 2011
Yes of course I am not personally sympathic to GOP but at least they seem to be giving their voters want they want on their key issues. Do D do this? If you want people to want to vote for you need to give the impression, even falsely, that you will deliver and the democrats seem to have lost the ability to do that.
Agreed but it's much easier to give voters what they want when you spend billions on propaganda either directly or indirectly through Russian state actors. More like they acted in their own interest and dreamed up a narrative to convince the common man it was there's too. Now, no doubt they're effective political tools, hats off to them but it's a lot easier to align men with their own greed than a common path forward for society.
A big part of the problem is the length of the "primary season" and spreading out votes over the course of several months.
This makes it really hard to sustain a budget, especially for grassroots candidates...but also sets up frontrunners in a big way.
IMO primaries would have a different outcome if they were all held on one day and we limited primary campaign season to like 3 months tops.
I'd say something about superdelegates but the fact is that parties and primaries aren't really a part of the process. People treat the GOP and DNC like they are official government branches when really they are just more like a private club. They let us have a primary. If the bylaws say they can override the primary, that's the bylaws. If people disagree with it, then either the bylaws get changed or a new club gets founded.
The problem, then, is that our voting system ultimately necessitates no more than two major parties. Since the winner is the one with the most votes*, it's very easy for two parties that align on many fronts to actively work against each other...see Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000. And it takes a huge shift to uproot an established party.