• demvoter@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Eh, they are becoming so extreme that they are leaving some of their voters behind. They were supposed to win the house in a landslide and they barely hung on. They are losing special elections because their candidates are too extreme. Even the Supreme Court can’t stomach some of their gerrymandering on race. I don’t buy this.

    • Jaysyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This. The GOP has lost something like 12 out of their last 10 special elections. If demographics have their way, there is a decent chance the GOP won’t even be a national party by 2028.

  • ZombieZookeeper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Conservatives are going to make it legal to outright murder progressives, so there’s definitely safety in living in a blue state

        • Grimfelion@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I actually haven’t… so honest question, what is that? Because your initial comment does seem a little out there… but I may just be ignorant of something and I’d like to be educated.

          • VirtualAlias@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Reaching totally into my asshole, it would likely be where you are misled into thinking you’re going home with a woman, find that your potential bed fellow also has a penis and you just flip out and kill them. And it’s okay because, like, whoa dude nohomo.

            Unknown if it’s ever been a successful legal defense, but nothing surprises me.

  • lynny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    It would be cool if democrats focused more on working class people, rather than just saying they do. That’s literally all they need to do to win back millions of voters.

    • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I totally get your sentiment here, but don’t they do this by (at minimum at least) the legislation that they try to put in place? Student Loan forgiveness. Expanding educational opportunities. Access to healthcare. Providing more sustainable and green energy sources. Better pay and protections for working Americans. These initiatives constantly get shot down by the other side, and then people blame Democrats for not forcing it through. As long as we have one side actively torpedoing the other’s efforts, we can’t put the blame on the people trying to do something. Just my two cents though. Plus you have the uneducated people that align with conservatives that think they are the recipients of their platform’s initiatives, when it really goes to the top 1%. So they stay in power to continue the grift.

      • tooting_lemmy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You don’t need a college degree to work in the trades. This is a point of contention because I’ve heard people say many times they don’t want their tax dollars going towards someone’s liberal arts degree. I’m a wastewater operator. I have a degree but allot of the people I work with don’t.

        • kmartburrito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree - we need a much higher focus on trades. My education angle wasn’t towards post graduate though. My wife is an elementary school teacher and teachers are underfunded, continually having their curriculum watered down, and we are seeing across the board privatization of education and erosion of the foundation of education itself. That’s diminishing access to education.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Who’s going to give up their entire quality of life to be a small snowflake hoping to make an avalanche? For the politics, it’s a very small contribution. But for the family, it’s huge. You’d be losing job prospects, friends and family, activity availability, local politics, healthcare quality and access, and most importantly: being treated like a person if you aren’t a right-wing cishet white male of means.

      Almost no one’s going to take that trade and they shouldn’t.

    • GiddyGap@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think more Democrats moving to swing states like Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina would be higher priority if people are free to move wherever purely based on political reasons.

      • Brawler Yukon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The idea is to move there in enough numbers to overwhelm the GOP majority and make the state not be a shithole anymore.

        • Meldroc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, it’s hard enough to get blue voters to stay in those red shitholes. Why would any sane person who already lives in a blue state want to move to a red one?

        • Neato@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’d have to bring a whole city. What I’d be losing moving from D.C. to Wyoming is not fixable by bringing a few friends. Museums? Enough population that shows and bands play there regularly?

          Also, who can actually convince friends and family to move themselves across the country to a shithole for politics? Have you done that?

      • reedthompson @reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        But why are all the blue states cold?

        My husband and I thought about Arizona, or Virginia to get away from one of the highest CoL areas in the country… but eventually decided to focus on Connecticut instead, because we don’t want to be in a red state. With the exception of CA, none of the liberal states are sunny and all of them are expensive!

        • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because warm states were better for a slave-based agriculture economy and the liberal/conservative divide (whose relationship to political parties has changed over time) comes, in large part, from cultural differences that emerged before the Civil War.

          • Marcy_Stella@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s likely also due to the populations living in southern states, another big part of the population in southern states are those who had jobs in the mining industries or people retiring, the biggest things the republicans are pushing are bringing back mining and making sure that people get to keep their money(such as lower taxes) where as democrats are pushing for a cleaner environment(so miners blame them for losing their jobs), and major infrastructure plans that could take a while to pan out(so people retired see that and don’t want higher taxes as they already got their grain and don’t want to pass it on).

            This is an over generalization and there is other major factors but these two groups are significant sections that the republicans are appealing to where as democrats aren’t such. Democrats might be able to get big wins if they could campaign on programs to help mine works get new jobs and revitalize the economies in mine towns and maybe some more programs for people that have retired so they feel they are getting more then what they’re putting in.

    • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s what I did. Moved to AZ, which is a purple state, from CA. I joined a writing group here, and one member is an out gay conservative. No way could he have been that outspoken in a casual writing group in CA, he’d have been chased out.

      As someone more on the liberal side of things in general, it’s incredibly refreshing to be able to hold a good-natured conversation with him involved where he didn’t feel worry or concern about discussing his ideas.

      We have another lady in the group who writes hardcore far-left poetry, and those are always followed up by great conversations. She’s nice and not condescending to the conservative guy.

      I love being in a purple state, I wish more states were battleground states.

      • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I live in a purple state in a rural area, and I HATE it. Not because there are conservatives, but because massive numbers of these conservatives are trembling with fear of the other and if they think that I am on their “side” for whatever reason, they won’t hesitate to say the most ignorant, racist, bigoted shit about “those people” - essentially anyone who isn’t straight and white, while demanding prayer of the exclusively evangelical variety in public meetings. Their world view is so insular that it’s suffocating to be around.

        • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Interesting. I don’t live in a rural area, so maybe that’s why I’m experiencing more of a balance. No one here that I know who are conservative say any of that stuff, and they didn’t say it around me before they knew my political leanings, either.

      • GiddyGap@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I joined a writing group here, and one member is an out gay conservative.

        I find it unreal that an LGBTQ person would actually even consider the current Republican Party as a viable option.

        • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How many of them do you talk to though? They certainly exsist, so seeking one out to talk about their experiences and views with might help you understand where they come from, even if you disagree with them.

          • GiddyGap@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I know a lot of people in the LGBTQ community. I have yet to meet someone who would vote for a Republican. But I’ll certainly ask about it if I ever meet one.

            • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m not surprised. Since the LGBTQ community is fairly political, they’re not very accepting of LGBTQ people who don’t align with them politically. There are lots of LGBTQ people who don’t want to be part of the community because of how rigid it is in that regard.

              These are what the LGBT people that I’ve met has said specifically.

              Other than that, it’s likely that there are some who lean conservative but don’t speak up about it for fear of being shunned by the community.

              • GiddyGap@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                The LGBTQ community is being assailed by the GOP at the moment. Literal physical threats. Whatever was left of support for the GOP from that community is quickly dissipating.

                • OceanSoap@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t know if you’ve misunderstood, but I’m not a conservative, I just enjoy having political discussions with them, especially when they seem to be a contradiction in today’s world of party-line politics.

  • Wakdem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The wealthy want us to fight a culture war to distract us from the class war we should be having.

      • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The rich waged wars on democracy since the beginning of European colonization in North America. They’ve been winning steadily, with few losses since the beginning of money in society.

      • Vyxor@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        In any war the only winner is the rich. If the rich lose, then it’s called a revolution instead.

          • marmo7ade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No they did not. Napolean was not the bourgeoisie that ruled a decade prior. The French Revolution ended their monarchy and feudalism. The Bourgeoisie lost.

      • tooting_lemmy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Democracy is good for the oligarchs. Trump is a populist. The oligarchs definitely don’t like him. Even the Koch family is against him.

  • GiddyGap@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is part of the GOP strategy.

    Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri has openly acknowledged that the GOP strategy is to make it so miserable for Democrats in red and purple states that they will move to blue states. That would, in turn, cement Republican power in the White House, Senate and thereby the Supreme Court.

      • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not going away.

        This argument needs to die. The EC is never going away, so stop pinning various strategies and hopes on it somehow magically disappearing. If people spent 1/2 as much time on actually voting and campaigning for center and left candidates as they do complaining about the EC, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in today.

        • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have worked on campaigns and studied politics for years. With the EC, the current SCOTUS, and the voter suppression and gerrymandering tactics of the last few decades , there is no reasonable long-term path to left, or even center, power. People are allowed to complain. People have been organizing, for years. Nothing has worked, and basic human rights are now being violated in ways and for groups that they hadn’t been before. You’re right that with our current governmental structure, the EC isn’t going anywhere. But democracy’s not about elections alone; it’s about the consent of the governed. A whole lot of us don’t consent, and I don’t think the current institutional infrastructure’s going to survive the blast when that pressure gets too high. And if anything (other than a Constitutional Convention based on the same principles as the EC) happens to the current arrangement, the EC goes too. No one in an underrepresented state would willingly accept those conditions.

          • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            HALF the population can’t be bothered to vote in most elections. The country is being dragged to the Right and has been for years now and election after election a massive percent of the population doesn’t seem it is worth going out to the polls. In presidential elections it is higher, but still - there are a LOT and I mean a LOT of elections that could have swung the other way if only a few hundred more people got off their butts and voted. We could have gotten rid of that blowhard Lauren Boebart (however it is spelled) last cycle. She won by only a few hundred votes in an election where less than 60% of the population of that district voted. Apparently Colorado is a mail-in state, so these people didn’t even have to go drive anywhere.

            The situation is even worse if you look at demographics. No one had more to lose than the youth of this country and their voting numbers are pitiful. What’s worse is that they have the numbers to change elections. They are a massive group that at this point in time have more people than the dreaded Boomers. Yet their numbers are abysmal.

            So when I hear about people complaining about the EC or gerrymandering or a host of other roadblocked set up by the Right for them to get their way on election day, I just think back that these are mostly just excuses. I am not saying that gerrymandering isn’t real - it absolutely is - but even some of the most gerrymandered districts could swing the other way if enough people voted.

            • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If you’re overwhelmed by the enormity of the threat the right poses, and you see structural change is impossible, I sympathize. But blaming people who are struggling for not doing something they see as unlikely to produce positive change and that the state is simultaneously actively making it hard for them to do isn’t helpful. I’ve been politically involved since 2000 (academic study, campaign volunteering/work); Barring major disaster, I’m not seeing voter numbers going up from here significantly without legistative changes. You can yell at clouds all you want, but that’s not the point of leverage you’re looking for.

              • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Making everyone a victim who is on some pre-determined path and they have no control over the things that happen to them is exactly the nonsense that I see the youth are falling for. I see posts by Zoomers all the time that essentially boil down to “we’re screwed, so fuck it” or “I give up” or some such. That’s not the America that I grew up in and I refuse to buy into this idea that change is impossible. Americans need “tough love” - coddling them in this idea of “IF ONLY so-and-so was different” then we could fix the environment/housing crisis/healthcare. Be the change you want to be. Expecting that it will simply be handled to you leads to this apathy and tuning-out that far too many Americans already fall into.

                • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t think you understand. No one in my position thinks things will he handed to/handled for us. (Your word choice is unclear.). I think we’re on the Titanic and we’ve struck the iceberg, we just haven’t done the horrible dying in the North Atlantic part. And if I wanted boomers who’ve probably studied our political structure less closely, spent less time doing actual campaign work, and seen less of the way things work than I have, telling me I’m entitled, I’d have asked one of those guys who likes talking about millennials like we’re children whose biggest problem is not laying off the avocado toast. “Kids today are weak, entitled whiners playing the victim card, and I know better because I’m older” may pass for discourse some places, but not here.

    • 👽🍻👽@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exemplified by the fact that we have started having free states again like during the civil war. The Maryland governor has been very clear and direct that the state of Maryland will take in political and social refugees from Florida and Texas. Where transpeople are being forced to die or pretend not to exist in Florida, Maryland is codifying their right to be and live as who they are.

      You can’t blame lefties and progressives for wanting to escape to freedom when their other option is death or hiding.

    • MagpieRhymes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is a real threat of harm to various minority groups living in red states. Hell, there’s a real threat of harm to women who can fall pregnant living in red states. I’d certainly not want to live there if my accidentally falling pregnant (which would likely be ectopic in my case) would result in a very high chance of my death.

      • PostmodernPythia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sure both sides are actually doing this. It’s just that only one side is actually being persecuted and forced to leave their homes.

  • artisanrox@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Then we get to watch 100% Red states shoot, disease, and work themselves to death. Then we move back in and get their stuff.

    ???

    profit!

  • MrMonkey@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, this is no better than /r/politics. Enjoy your echo chamber, commies.

  • Chadarius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a good thing. The only way the red states will change is by getting worse and worse. They will have no doctors, teachers, nurses, lawyers, or corporations that will purposefully live or do their work there if they can help it. If you are a woman, a person of color, a migrant, an LGBTQ person, a child, or anything other than an old white man, the red states are no longer safe for you.

    I basically refuse to go to most of those states if I can help it. Florida? You couldn’t pay me to set foot in that state. I feel they same about Texas and many others.

    I want conservatism to thrive. It does have a place in a healthy political system. But, my friends, the conservatives are the moderate Dems now. I don’t know what else to call the Republicans, other than fascists or cult members. It is a sickness that any person in their right mind should run as fast as they can from.

    The truly upsetting part about this is that there are people that are desperate to leave those fascist states, that can’t for a variety of reasons outside their control. I wish things were different. This is just insanity.

    • Bridger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I want conservatism to thrive. It does have a place in a healthy political system.

      What place is that? Conservatism at it’s core is about maintaining the aristocracy/hierarchy. That’s what it started as, and it’s never wavered from that mission. All of the claims towards ‘conserving what is good’ or ‘fiscal responsibility’ or ‘protecting individual rights’ are just that: claims. They have never acted in ways that would back those claims up unless their actions also helped maintain/promote the aristocracy. The rest is just noise and propaganda designed to make their positions sound palatable.

      I don’t see any place for that in a healthy political system.

      • Chadarius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree with you, but respectfully. Conservatism is basically just people who, for a variety of reasons (not all of them bad), generally vote for the status quo. This is human nature. Progressives are willing to push forward but also sometimes without regard to some of the consequences. Also human nature. Some people are bold and some people are timid. Having both around in a balanced way helps us all move forward with careful thought. That system is good overall.

        The problem is that conservatives are really moderate democrats now. The modern Republicans are not conservatives. They are fascist cultist morons. I believe I explained myself fairly well in my first post. You might want to read the whole thing next time :)

        • Ennuigo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I disagree that it is “good” overall. Conservative policies have always stood in the way of any movement to treat all people equally because the status quo benefits a sections of the population. Slavery. Racism. Sexism. Etc. None of these needed to be “conserved” and we would be a better society if we had been able to address them sooner. Also, conservative power structures when threatened by progress default to authoritarian in brutal fashion. The Holocaust. The Civil War. The Inquisition. Etc. And this is just in the West.

          The modern Republican is not an aberration. It is the final form of Conservatism.

          I have seen no proof that the consequences of rampant Progressivism are in any way equal to the horrors of rampant Conservatism. The idea that we need to validate Conservativism to “balance out” Progressivism seems to me to be a dangerous myth that is paid for with the blood of oppressed people.

          • Ghostc1212@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I have seen no proof that the consequences of rampant Progressivism are in any way equal to the horrors of rampant Conservatism.

            There have been many cases in history where the forces in society seeking positive change have caused untold damage to their societies. The French Revolution started out with the oppressed peasantry seeking liberation from a decadent and constrictive nobility, but ended in hundreds of people getting their heads cut off before the pendulum swung back and Napoleon took control, and briefly created one of the biggest empires in European history. Napoleon was less conservative than the Ancien Regime but he certainly wasn’t a revolutionary.

            Another example is the Bolsheviks, who started out as oppressed workers in Russia who wanted liberation from an exploitative and authoritarian tsar, but as soon as they actually gained power, were usurped by a complete megalomaniac who sent thousands of people to labor camps, destroyed most of Russia’s social institutions in order to subsume them into the state, committed numerous genocides (some more direct than others), and destroyed Russia’s demographics and long-term economic prosperity with a breakneck-pace industrialization. Joseph Stalin’s ideological offshoot, Mao Zedong, also did similarly horrible things in China, like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, despite starting out as the leader of a peasant rebellion seeking liberation from literal feudalism.

            Apart from the Nazis, who can only debatably be considered “conservative” considering they didn’t really wanna conserve much of anything about society, conservative insanity doesn’t tend to be anywhere near as destructive to society in the short term as progressive insanity is. Instead, conservative insanity causes society to completely stagnate, remaining behind socially and technologically while other societies rush ahead, as happened to Tsarist Russia.

            Seeing all this, you’d have to be either biased or stupid to deny the necessity of conservativism in society. Progress is often necessary, today included in many areas, but society must have a conservative wing to prevent the progressives from changing things which are better off left alone.

            • m532@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The nazis are reactionaries which means they want to go back to feudalism. If you knew about how horrible feudalism was you would have supported the french revolution and the october revolution.

    • Drusas@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Florida Republicans are working reeaally hard to kill their state’s entire economy right now. Attacking Disney (the state’s biggest employer) and undocumented immigrants (the backbone of the state’s agricultural industry and a key part of the labor force for various others such as construction and hospitality), driving away teachers by taking away their right to actually teach, etc.

  • Blamemeta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah so many have been moving to Texas its ridiculous. We can’t even build infrastructure quick enough. We’re beyond full at this point.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If I move it will be because my town was 110F in the shade Monday, not because my neighbors are morons.

  • Mdotaut801@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The rich already won the class war that we should have been paying attention to. Instead, we’re bickering about Bud Light and Disney, exactly where they want us poors while they take our money.