I’m talking about a hostile takeover, we make a big enough faction and we can take the party, along with the infrastructure and less involved voters
That’d be nice, but my point is that the party will fight you tooth and nail if you try to do that, and if you choose to work within the party they’ll have a lot more leverage over you via party bylaws, appeals to party unity, etc, and they’ll use that leverage to, for example, dilute your political program and drive a rift between your base and leadership and between more and less dedicated members of the movement. These aren’t trivial concerns; handled improperly (or maybe even if handled properly) they could very well spell the end of your attempted takeover.
Why do you think they’re trying to kick out Higgs? It’s not because they think he’s more dangerous as an independent
Because he has a high-ranking office within the party and doesn’t have wide national appeal. Also note that Hoggs isn’t a leftist; he’s a liberal who simply wants Democrat gerontocrats gone. He’s running a completely different path from the one we’re talking about here, and still there’s a good chance he gets kicked out and proves my point that the DNC won’t tolerate change from within.
And what is the other option? Start up a third party? We don’t have time for that.
If the stars aligned, best case, it would take a bare minimum of 2 election cycles to get a party established. One to get enough seats to form a voting block and gain legitimacy to the average voter, then another to gain enough seats to be more than a side note
And meanwhile, Democrats will still exist, and since they hate the left more than fascism they’ll still fight tooth and nail.
Oh, I’m certain they’ll fight, but I’m not talking about changing the party. I’m talking about taking their base to take their seats
I’m talking about a hostile takeover, we make a big enough faction and we can take the party, along with the infrastructure and less involved voters
Why do you think they’re trying to kick out Higgs? It’s not because they think he’s more dangerous as an independent
That’d be nice, but my point is that the party will fight you tooth and nail if you try to do that, and if you choose to work within the party they’ll have a lot more leverage over you via party bylaws, appeals to party unity, etc, and they’ll use that leverage to, for example, dilute your political program and drive a rift between your base and leadership and between more and less dedicated members of the movement. These aren’t trivial concerns; handled improperly (or maybe even if handled properly) they could very well spell the end of your attempted takeover.
Because he has a high-ranking office within the party and doesn’t have wide national appeal. Also note that Hoggs isn’t a leftist; he’s a liberal who simply wants Democrat gerontocrats gone. He’s running a completely different path from the one we’re talking about here, and still there’s a good chance he gets kicked out and proves my point that the DNC won’t tolerate change from within.
And what is the other option? Start up a third party? We don’t have time for that.
If the stars aligned, best case, it would take a bare minimum of 2 election cycles to get a party established. One to get enough seats to form a voting block and gain legitimacy to the average voter, then another to gain enough seats to be more than a side note
And meanwhile, Democrats will still exist, and since they hate the left more than fascism they’ll still fight tooth and nail.
We don’t have time or other options.