That would be convincing if they hadn't spent money buying ads for maga candidates during that same election cycle.
I agree, that was an awful strategy. Even if it helps in the short term, it boosts fascism in the long term. It did mostly gain us seats though... https://www.npr.org/2022/11/11/1135878576/the-democrats-strategy-of-boosting-far-right-candidates-seems-to-have-worked
So your answer is no then? Representatives don't get as much contact as you think. Apply pressure wherever and whenever you can, even if that legislator does nothing in the years to come, every person applying pressure moves the needle. Doing nothing does nothing. Legislators like to keep their jobs and will suddenly have a change of heart if they feel their job is threatened. That takes hundreds of people in each district making their dissatisfaction known. Be the change you wish to see.
Parties pull funding when it's clear there is no path to victory, so they can ensure victory elsewhere. That's not them "rather have a maga chud" that's strategic. You would be just as angry if they wasted money on a loss. I've seen your views all over lemmy, whatever narrative says the party did wrong, that's the narrative you'll take. Volunteer for the next candidate that runs, prove to the party that they have support and maybe funding will actually stick around. You're an open book, no action, all anger.
I think you're making a values judgement instead of a logical one. No one was claiming the USA wasn't a democracy when only male white land owners could vote. It was just a flawed society, but still a democracy.
By definition, can you really be a democracy if you are an apartheid regime where two thirds of your "residents" have low to no rights in gotingnor determining their future?
The population of the Palestinian territories is, closer to 1/3 of the whole of Israel/Palestine. But the answer is yes either way. The people of Israel have a fully functioning democracy, and have had for some time. If they use that democracy to create a brutal militarily controlled territory, Israel is still a democracy, even if their territories are not or even if their territories have limited self determination. Democracy is just a form of government, that form of government exists for the people living in Israel proper whether or not it exists for their territories.
Just the first image on a search. But chart aside, saying something is a democracy doesn't make a country good or bad. Israel is fundamentally a democracy by any argument. That doesn't make their current far right government good. I think arguing about whether it's a democracy or not just undercuts your larger argument. Israel let's any citizen, regardless of ethnic origin, vote. Their Islamic citizens largely support the same wars the Jews do. Saying they don't let Palestinians vote is sorta like saying the USA didn't let Iraq vote while we were slaughtering them. Or more close to home if we started a war with Mexico. Even when the USA had slaves we were a democracy. We are still a democracy even when we do bad things. People are shit, and we vote.
Not the person you're responding to but it's close according to this graphic, basically Israel and Cypress.
It looks like this chick shoots porn and is an "influencer". I assume she was just advertising herself. Also she publicly seems to like Andrew Tate, weird. I think she just says what she thinks people want to hear for attention because that's how she makes money.
Well it's not completely hopeless. One of the primary things keeping those places as Republican as they are is young non-voters. South Dakota is not about to flip parties, but it could improve greatly if people didn't give up and still voted, especially in off year elections when a lot of Dems stay home.
The key is who you're lobbying. If you're in a hard right or hard left district with a rep that is inflexible your lobbying will be ineffective. But every vote has a handful of politicians that have no strong opinions or ideological grounds on that vote and are movable. With proper organizing one can target those districts and call citizens of those districts to then call their representative.
But as citizens who haven't organized, if everyone contacts their representative at least some of those communications will be with the politicians that can be moved.
I've done the former and the latter and been part of bills getting passed that otherwise probably wouldn't have. Cynicism is the strongest barrier to progress. It doesn't mean it will work every time, but it absolutely works.
Sure but Steph Curry in his first year got absolutely bullied because he was tiny and weak and still threw up points. I'm skinny and not very strong, I got bullied in basketball, but had I had better handles I could have found a role. I could shoot, rebound, block and guard despite the disadvantage, I couldn't dribble with a skill level that would get me anywhere though. I played thousands of hours of basketball in my life. I don't think people understand where value really lies in the game. Plenty of players in the NBA look uncoordinated and weak and somehow carve out significant roles. Because they're tall, or good 3 point shooters, or talented at rebounding, etc. I fail to see how talented women couldn't carve out roles in the NBA.
I also think it's worth noting that most women, even in sports, are strongly culturally discouraged from bulking up. As soon as a woman is strong enough to bully her peers she is accused of being a man. As things change, even though women don't have the muscle mass of men, some women will bulk up enough to compete as much as they need to. A lot of this stuff is far more cultural than people want to admit.
Height and muscle mass obviously make a difference. But it's important to note that uncoordinated, weaker, or shorter men all find roles in the NBA. So the argument people make that women can't match up seems suspect. No one is saying Caitlyn Clark will be able to play like LeBron in a decade, but when she hits her prime she could absolutely fit a role on an NBA team, not as a starter at her size unless she bulks up. I think especially with the newer batch of wnba players coming in it will be hard to argue that at least the top 20 wnba players couldn't fit roles in the NBA. (But most won't because they'll make more money on endorsements as stars in the wnba)
Politics is a zero sum game, they saw the money better spent on winning. Your framing of it is dishonest. Again, I don't agree with doing that, but it's pretty easy to understand why they did it, it worked.