You’d think midterms would be a great time to get your name out there and run high profile candidates to win House districts led by charlatans…

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Bernie is okay, though. I’m sure you hear less about all US candidates in general during midterms, especially when the average congressional district is unlikely to have one running every other election.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 months ago

      Bernie does it the right way. Build a base of support to influence people who will then influence the politicians.

      Most politicians are going to make platforms based on polling numbers and a general sense about what the voters want. Kinda how things are supposed to work in a representative democracy. The politicians are supposed to represent the people when passing laws and setting policy.

      As nice as it sounds in theory to be able to check a box beside the name of a person that agrees with you already, it’s just not feasible because everyone has different ideas and different priorities. So you gotta check a box beside the person that’s most likely to be sympathetic to your ideas and priorities (and actually has a shot of actually being a representative) and then make some noise to convince them they should do something about the issues you care about.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      Bernie does it by basically replacing the local democratic party in his races though

      He’s an independent that acts as the 1st party

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is my point though. It should be a higher priority for running a candidate in every congressional district and running local ads for them.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The hard part is getting people to run for office, getting funding for the campaign, organizing events and groups and managing staff to accomplish the goal of getting on the ballot and even then having a chance of winning is a bit of a long shot.

        And worst of all, if you’re less moderate than the adjacent party then you’re going to split the vote of that party’s constituents and lead to the opponent’s party winning.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t disagree, but the hard part is how you become a serious political contender. The fact that they’re unwilling to do so speaks volumes.

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Democratic socialists also have had a small but established coalition in the house and Senate for decades too.