[hedora]

The right managed to succeed with their electoral reforms. Gerrymandering is legal, and the president is now above the law.

The left should use the same tactics: Focus on state and local elections then use those positions to fix elections so that the national majority of voters decide who runs the federal government (instead of the current 25-30% of voters).

Doing this is completely legal now that the Supreme Court has gutted the rule of law.

For starters, all states should aggressively gerrymand. That’ll basically guarantee the house goes democrat in 2026:

https://www.natesilver.net/p/democrats-can-win-the-redistric...

If the democrats fail to do this, it’s not mere incompetence. It’s probably because their financial backers actually support the changes being made by Trump.

[shigawire]

As a democratic voter I don't like this either. I vote because I want rule of law. It's not as clear cut to me that discarding rule of law to beat the GOP is the best option. There is a chance they can be defeated without undermining having a functional electoral system

[yepitwas]

This went out the window as a viable approach when McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat. We’re at minimum-two justices being on the take, post a coup attempt with the leader of said attempt back in the Oval Office, and Republicans have already declared intent to gerrymander their way to victory with no roadblocks to that in sight. And this is not an exhaustive list of ailments.

You can’t go in with legal gloves and no hitting below the belt et c. while your opponent is bare-knuckle and going for nut shots and headlocks. You’ll just get your ass kicked, every time, no matter how morally pure you feel about it.

Meanwhile, fixing gerrymandering almost certainly means getting Republican votes to do so. The only way to do that, in this environment, is going to be to make them believe their odds are better without gerrymandering, than with it. That means using it against them, until it’s made illegal.

[jjani]

They can be "defeated" that way in the sense of a classic Pyrrhic victory, exactly like in 2020, sure. That's the absolute worst out of all options available. "Losing" in 2020 would have been much better. You need to start thinking about the game, realpolitik, and the patterns that have been happening. And the long-term. You think you're thinking long-term by prioritizing the things you do, but it's the exact opposite.

The first thing you need to come to terms with is that losing in 2020 would've been better for the long-term. Once you've gained that freedom, realizing that simply winning an election can be the worse option, you can start thinking about what would instead be better.

[rickydroll]

One possible solution is to get all the liberal/progressive voters to register as Republicans and run liberal/progressive candidates as Republicans. Built on the Eisenhower platform of 1956 and his record as a military commander. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-p...

Granted, it's not ideal, but coming in the back door may be necessary.

[mandeepj]

> get all the liberal/progressive voters to register as Republicans

Sorry, didn’t quite follow that! You can vote for anyone regardless of who you Registered for? Or, was that suppose to give a misleading signal to Republicans that they have way too many voters? :-)

[rickydroll]

Sorry, you have to register as a republican so you can vote in the primary. Primaries are frequently the only competitive race in an election.

Also, running as a republican gets past the automatic "reject liberal/democrat" reflex

[hedora]

It depends on the state (in some you can register as a democrat and ask for a republican primary ballot), but I did this so I could vote against George W three times. (If only we could have him again instead of Trump…). You can register for whatever party you want, but some states have early deadlines.

One problem with creating real change with this approach is that the party elites get to decide who are on their ballots.

A while back, Colbert (?) tried to run as a republican and documented all the roadblocks he hit.

To get an idea of how it went, imagine a popular candidate going to a southern plantation to kiss the rings of the great-grandchildren of slave owners.

After deciding there is no personal upside to them, they decide to keep the candidate off the ballot and ask a servant to freshen their mint julep.

[dawnerd]

This attitude is exactly what the far right is banking on to make sure there is never another liberal gov elected fairly.

[jjani]

> If the democrats fail to do this, it’s not mere incompetence. It’s probably because their financial backers actually support the changes being made by Trump.

This has been clear for very long. Hence why they're still not doing it, and have for the last 9 years been and still[1] continue to push for Clinton-like candidates rather than whatever candidate has the biggest chance of winning elections. It isn't incompetence, and it hasn't been for ages. They're nearly just as captured. It's true that they're slightly less captured than R overall, but not to an extent that is actually meaningful.

Stating it as an "if" is copium. They have failed to, are failing to, and will continue to fail to do this, and it's intentional. What you're saying is so blindingly obvious that there is no other explanation - no Hanlon's razor for this one, the incompetence angle is not realistic.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/17/politics/2028-presidentia...

[tstrimple]

To liberals a “socialist” like Mamdani is way worse than conservatives like Trump. They are more than happy to support a sexual predator over a socialist. Trump and the DNC largely have the same donors to keep happy. Capitalism and how to make a select few fabulously wealthy isn’t a power either the democrats or republicans want to give up. Unfortunately due to the first past the post voting system we have to align to one of the two fucked up corporatist political parties. One which pretends to care about things like equality and fairness and one who has removed their mask and fully embraces all the worst aspects of humanity. I’d still much rather have a Target that pretended to care about things than a Target who fully embraces late stage capitalism.