On this topic, tangentially if @owillis will indulge me: I have been thinking too, about how party's have destroyed (Rs) undermined (Ds) themselves in pursuit of satisfying their ideological flanks. 1 party did so & the flank used the power to remove the party's founders
The other party watched that & despite making it harder for the flank to exterminate them via primaries, made all sorts of consequential rules/institutional concessions meant to placate them & win them over. But it got essentially no benefits from it & the concessions it gave up
*may* end up producing a brokered convention in an election cycle in which the fate of the Republic literally hangs in the balance- a situation that is all but certain to harm the party's chances to win the general unless everyone involved manages to recognize the existential
threat of the situation and come to a pre-arranged agreement w/o a forced vote. Could that happen? Maybe? Is it likely? Well, unless that "peaceful agreement" involved nominating Sanders-an act of suicide according to the rest of the party, no. IOW the party will have made
concessions that yielded it no benefits (the progressive faction has spent the cycle casting the DNC as corrupt, accusing it of cheating, and alleging the system is biased against their preferred candidate even WITH the significant rule changes the DNC gave them.
Ultimately, the party gave much, got nothing, & may end up paying a lot.
Which bears the question-if your House Freedom Caucuses & your progressive factions are still going to roast you anyway- why play the game when playing weaken you and emboldens them?
Which bears the question-if your House Freedom Caucuses & your progressive factions are still going to roast you anyway- why play the game when playing weaken you and emboldens them?
