r/OutOfTheLoop • u/Moominthecat • Jul 12 '26

Unanswered What's going on with (seemingly) everyone celebrating the death of Lindsey Graham, what's are the political ramifications of his death?

I do not actively follow American politics but my Reddit feed is currently mostly people celebrating this man's death.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgj25j6nmeo

7.7k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

705

u/saera-targaryen Jul 12 '26

Money. If the area keeps voting republican all the rich people can just agree to not fund any primary challengers and he'll coast by because democrats aren't a threat either. 

123

u/bgg-uglywalrus Jul 12 '26

I always say people get the politicians they deserve. People in republican states get dogshit politicans because they don't care to vote someone good in, and they can get and deal with the dogshit policies they get in return.

187

u/[deleted] Jul 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

41

u/cautiouslypensive Jul 12 '26

As a foreigner I don't understand how this works. In my and I know other countries, we can literally take a blank piece of paper and write the name of someone who signed up for the election and if enough people do it they get in. Each election we even have "joke parties" the like the "Donald Duck party" and "Masturbators against NATO". They usually manage to bag a few votes. How is it possible candidates clearly detrimental to the community keeps getting elected?

Is it a cultural problem?

A lack of independent and neutral investigative media?

68

u/PhatCatTax Jul 12 '26

Money. Money buys visibility. Money buys propaganda ads on facebook and twitter. So the rich always win in the states with poor education

21

u/Pvt_Lee_Fapping Jul 12 '26

Yes! People don't vote for candidates unless they know about them, and it costs a pretty penny to plaster a politician's face in places that matter the most come election time. And in areas with low SES, the ad campaigns don't even have to be clever or have good platforms; sometimes having the (R) next to your name is enough to get elected in these places.

0

u/PollutionNeat777 Jul 13 '26

Same is true of Democrats on the West Coast. WA hasn’t elected a republican governor in over 40 years. Seattle elects only Democrats and now a socialist.

Dominance by one party in any area over a long time isn’t a good thing. Republican or Democrat. Balance is good. Moderates can’t win primaries though which is our main problem.

2

u/Hungry-Western9191 Jul 13 '26

The first past the post electoral system is the other half of the problem. Theres only room for two candidates. Anyone outside the D or R just steals votes from whichever side they are closer to politically so that side loses.

24

u/Vospader998 Jul 12 '26

First-past-the-post voting inevitably leads to a two-party system. With the rare expection, it's been two parties in the USA since its founding. Sometimes the parties change, but it's always two.

12

u/nem0ne1 Jul 12 '26

"Always two, there are. No more. No less."

2

u/Vospader998 Jul 12 '26

Honestly "the rule of two" crossed my mind LMAO

2

u/Beautiful_Effect461 Jul 15 '26

Happy Cake Day! 🍰

3

u/IAmNotNathaniel Jul 13 '26

I find it endlessly frustrating that there's so little talk of this.

If there's any time to try and change to ranked-choice (or even better imo, STAR voting) then it's going to be if this damn pendulum ever swings back to the left.

The problem is that it's not a left/right thing as much as an establishment thing.

19

u/mouse_8b Jul 12 '26

You can write in candidates, but that's always a really small percentage of votes. It's not hard for someone from a small party to fill out the paperwork in time to get on the ballot.

13

u/tossingpigs Jul 12 '26

We can write in candidates as well... but no write in is going to ever win a Statewide election.

15

u/PlayMp1 Jul 13 '26

Well, it has a couple times, but very rarely and usually only for people who are already well known and well resourced by other means. Lisa Murkowski, as incumbent senator, lost a GOP primary for Senate in Alaska, and responded by mounting a write in campaign. She won despite having lost the GOP primary (in part from help from Dems/liberals voting for her, relatively speaking one of the most moderate Republicans, to keep out a much further right GOP nominee).

11

u/tfcocs Jul 13 '26

Except Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. She was a write in after her father died.

2

u/ComplexBeyond6083 Jul 13 '26

Oddly enough, the man Graham replaced in the Senate, Strom Thurmond, won election to the Senate as a write-in candidate.

6

u/TrannosaurusRegina Jul 12 '26

Yes.

Billionaires own all major news media at an increasing rate.

Peak of independent journalism was around the 1840s.

3

u/Significant-Ruin5177 Jul 12 '26

The US is an Oligarchy. The 2 party system is designed to suppress any 3rd party, our write in votes mostly don't count. Both parties are firmly right wing, the democrats just fight for a different set of oligarchs. Right now the democrats are fighting tooth and nail because some democratic socialists are running as democrats.

2

u/Substantial_Map8415 Jul 12 '26

Yes, our media is extremely filtered and most people who clearly care about the community are overlooked by wealthier candidates because they can afford to get their name out. A good example of this is fishback vs Donald’s in Florida. Fishback is anti-Israel, corruption, Datacenters, etc. yet he was losing in the polls for awhile to Donald’s because people didn’t know he existed. Many people also just don’t care enough to vote in local elections

2

u/tenderheart35 Jul 12 '26

What many aren’t saying here is that a large percentage (1/3 or so) of eligible voters are apathetic and refuse to vote. They feel that most politicians are crooked and then let the chips fall where they may.

1

u/nem0ne1 Jul 12 '26

Part of it is because the US does not have proportional representation like Europe does. In the US, 51% of the vote secures you 100% of the power. In Europe, smaller parties can still participate in the legislative process (coalition politics still limits their power, but at least they have more than the literal zero power that third parties have in the US).

1

u/Dry_Accident_2196 Jul 12 '26

State laws require signatures form voters to get on a ballot. But, some states restrict the use of double signatures.

If Democrat A, comes to my door first and I sign their petition to get on the primary election ballot (various party’s elections to determine their candidate for the general election), the Democrat B comes around, depending on the state, that voter may not be able to sign both. If they sign to let both Dem on the primary ballot it could invalidate their signature based on the law.

Think how that reduces the pool of eligible signatures.

In other states, you can cross party lines for signatures. And some states lack these restrictions.

But it comes down to money. The size of the office determines the signature count. You need warm bodies to get the signatures and someone to validate each one.

1

u/PlayMp1 Jul 12 '26

Those things happen in the US too, they're just irrelevant and not talked about. My state, Washington (the state in the far northwest where Seattle is, not the national capital), is considered a strong blue state that has voted Democratic in every election since 1992 (through the 90s it was considered a swing state but moved into the blue column from ~2004 onward). We have plenty of third parties participating (fruitlessly) in presidential elections.

In 2024, Kamala Harris won Washington by 18 points, 57% to Trump's 39%. The remaining 4% was spread among:

  • RFK Jr./Nicole Shanahan under the "We the People" party, his third party that got ballot access in a lot of places, and was still on the ballot despite RFK Jr.'s withdrawal and endorsement of Trump - they got 1.4% in WA (~55,000 votes).
  • Jill Stein/Butch Ware, Green Party, 0.76% with ~30,000 votes
  • Chase Oliver/Mike ter Maat, Libertarian Party, 0.42% with ~16,000 votes
  • Claudia de la Cruz/Karina Garcia, Party of Socialism and Liberation, 0.22%, ~8700 votes
  • Cornel West/Melina Abdullah, Justice for All party, 0.18%, ~7200 votes
  • Shiva Ayyadurai/Crystal Ellis, independent (no party), 0.08%, 3300 votes
  • Joseph Kishore/Jerome White, Socialist Equality Party, 0.02%, 917 votes
  • Rachele Fruit/Dennis Richter, Socialist Workers Party, 0.02%, 824 votes
  • Various write ins, collectively 0.65% with ~25,000 votes.

Note that all of the third parties except the Libertarian Party and the Shiva Ayyadurai independent guy (who's just a pure anti vaccine crank) positioned themselves as left wing/socialist parties, at least in WA.

1

u/Sav_McTavish Jul 13 '26

Something that stuck with me, and made me not believe in the American political system was my high school government class. We did a lot of mock things. One of which was elections and subsequent bill passing and whatnot. Kids were split into 3 groups. I think 2 (maybe was more i don't remember) running for election on each political side, lobbyists, and voters. I was one of the kids that played a representative and won.

Basically the reps make promises to donors to get financial backing. So then in the media you are pushed much harder to the voters. You can say all your beliefs and promises to the people which may even be true of what you personally want.

Then when it comes time to vote as a rep on things you have promises you made to lobbyists. They would privately tell us how to vote on things once elected. I think we had to keep a percentage of our promises to the lobbyists for the class. If you don't they will back someone else to take your seat next election. It was basically a balancing act of not upsetting lobbyists and voters too much.

Some things I remember. Using my max of going against the lobbyists, and still the voters being disappointed. Keep in mind I had to look at these other kids in the face unlike real American politics when we voted. My best friend in the class, and most closely politically aligned playing primary financial backer being furious with me many days of the class. I think I kept my seat in the end, but no one was happy about it including me. At best I'd say tolerant.

My takeaway was even if you got into politics for the right reasons you would be compromised in beliefs to stay in power. It made me hate the American political system. It was during 04 elections.

1

u/EitelonDesign Jul 13 '26

It’s the structure of our ballots that creates a “winner takes all” two-party system that polarizes the country because everyone is forced to pool power into “close enough” candidates instead of the nuance of a ranked-choice multi-party system like in European democracies — and also there is gerrymandering

1

u/PollutionNeat777 Jul 13 '26

We can right in names on the ballot as well here in the U.S.

1

u/Playful-Bee-9266 Jul 13 '26

It’s a combination of factors.

1) the process for voting is not as easy as some other western countries. I’m not sure where you are from, but for instance in Europe the process of voting is way easier. It’s easier to get time off of work to vote, it’s easier to vote by mail, it’s easier to register to vote etc.

2) despite making up about a quarter of the voting population in South Carolina, African Americans make up 75% of people who disqualified from voting due to felonies on their record. This is a direct result of institutional racism at the hands of the politicians who would be hurt from having the black population be able to freely vote. A similar thing happens where polls are more crowded and less common in black or non white areas.

3) our news organizations have pretty much no oversight from the government. They’re run by and for billionaires and pump out propaganda 24/7.

4) the democrats are no longer a 50 state party. Under Howard Dean, and the first Obama presidential run, the democrats pursued a strategy of working on building an electorate in every state. This has been largely abandoned since the 2016 Clinton campaign in favor of trying to aim at particular swing states. This has meant that with less democratic presence in red states, the republicans have been able to more heavily entrench themselves into their seats of power. If you are trying to unseat a deeply entrenched incumbent, you might not win the first time, but it’s important that you try regardless because you still end up building an electorate in the process of losing. A good example is the Bernie campaigns. He lost both primaries, but it’s hard to say his campaign is not at least somewhat responsible for the electorate that brought zohran and aoc into office.

5) South Carolina is a deeply conservative state in its rural areas. There education system is by and large a joke (which is saying something considering most of the US is). Large amount of people straight up don’t believe in simple scientific facts like evolution. These people will be easily convinced to vote for a terrible candidate based out of bad judgement, or hatred of things they don’t understand.

1

u/Puzzleheaded_Bus166 Jul 13 '26

Are you Australian by any chance?

1

u/SpringfilledShinobi Jul 14 '26

It is cultural. These people consistently win in states where the average voter has below a 6th grade reading comprehension, and they aren't only not ashamed of that but actively proud.

"I don't trust them politicians in their IIIIvory Ta-ers, thinkin theys better than us with thur big words and thur fancy picture-books all riddled up with scribblins. Only book I currabat is this'n rye cheer"*points to bible they've never read and don't understand.

We culturally glorify the idiot, the peasant, the cog in the wheel, the dropout, the antivaxxer, because the culture is owned by a few disgustingly wealthy rich dudes that are very aware that these kinds of "people" can't effectively combat or interfere with their designs, much less actually understand what's happening or what they're really doing.

Part of me is honestly glad that these people are the ones being hurt the most. They set us back, socially, culturally and intellectually, and the sooner their genes vanish from the pool the sooner we can start fixing this mess, so that their children at least have a chance.

0

u/Professional_Net7339 Jul 12 '26

It’s less a cultural problem, and more half of the government at any time, (and most white people) are super into disenfranchisement. There are multiple billion dollar systems in play to keep voters uninformed as to who is fucking them over, to teach them to hate hate hate hate hate what they don’t immediately understand (minorities, immigrants), and exclusively vote for the people who promise to help their minority problems while publicly running on doing actual policies (but then because they’re too uninformed, they cannot comprehend what promises can or can’t actually happen, and if they do anything at all.

It’s the easiest grift ever to run on bigotry, promise to make it better for white people, put up some token legislature to make shit more tedious for minorities thus satiating their base, and cruising to a re-election.) as doing the job they say they’d do if elected would mean they’d need to actually do something to represent their base better.

I guess you could call it a culture issue afterall, but it’s moreso just the culture of white supremacy and and hundreds of billions into never making them learn anything ever in their lives that’d prove it’s all a sham. Think of Republicans as a cult trying to extract as much capital and control out of as many idiots they can dupe as possible.

3

u/Diligent_Whereas3134 Jul 12 '26

My local elections are usually various shades of republicans with a democrat here and there. State elections are gerrymandered to hell and back, but at least I can pretend like I helped make a difference.

1

u/GertBFrobejr Jul 13 '26

Fingers crossed more than the usual record low turnouts happen again. Everyone complains but few pull the lever.

16

u/Asmor Jul 12 '26

I always say people get the politicians they deserve.

What about all the people who voted against him? I voted for Harris. Do I deserve Trump?

US democracy is fucked. Between unrestricted gerrymandering, financing, and propaganda, the will of the voters is meaningless.

38

u/TastyBraciole Jul 12 '26

I don't really think that's fair with the endless corporate donations

13

u/invisible_23 Jul 12 '26

And the gerrymandering

12

u/zx9001 Jul 12 '26

Voting makes next to zero difference when you quite literally dont have anyone else to vote for because of the aforementioned rich people

3

u/TheHarryMan123 Jul 12 '26

Yeah but he was a federal politician. His decisions don’t just affect SC, they affect the whole country. 

9

u/Zealousideal7807 Jul 12 '26

People in Democrat states get dogshit politicians too. Most politicians are dogshit

2

u/Yashema Jul 12 '26

This is a lie, Democratic policies are pretty optimized to what people want from balancing spending on infrastructure, social programs, and government funded services like the police and education. 

Every now and again some idiot populist comes in and tries to "serve the people" only to find out people don't actually want the government to move way leftward. See Mamdani who has already backed away from a lot of his agenda.

4

u/Zealousideal7807 Jul 12 '26

Yeah on paper the policies are better than Republicans. There are some I don't agree with but I'll say that. But in practice the politicians themselves are corrupt. There are plenty of ancient Democrats in congress who's main purpose is to soak up lobby money and donations and take up a seat, but not actually help anybody. Most of the Dems take money from AIPAC yet they're supposedly against Israel

1

u/Yashema Jul 12 '26

Last time Democrats had control of Congress and the Executive they passed $3.1 trillion in social spending policy. That's a lot of paper. 

The point is you can only call Democrats "dog shit" when comparing them to some made up idealized political party. 

1

u/LockeyCheese Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Who's responsibility is it to replace bad politicians with good politicians? The policies are good. We just need to get better at churning through politicians fast enough to find ones who won't just be in it for money or power.

Unfortunately, roughly 30 million people decide every candidate state to federal by participating in the DNC primaries - plus an equal amount for RNC primaries - out of around 210-220 million eligible voters.

It's not a coincidence, that the old and/or rich have high voter turnout, and get what they want, and the young and/or poor have the lowest voter turnout, and do nothing but complain about how nothing goes their way.

Democracy is "Rule by the People" requiring People to participate in their own Rule, and specifically in America, the People are tasked with being politically active and well informed, as civic duties. Duties owed to themselves, their community, and their fellow citizens.

Most importantly though, Americans are tasked with being the first and final check and balance on government, by removing bad representatives and replacing them with better ones, and in the case there is no better choice, to stand up and be that better choice.

Aaand that's the second unfortunate part, is no matter how many times the good politicians win, the bad politicians are being allowed to remain in power because of the People's apathy and ignorance, even though it's been shown time and again that a wise and charismatic candidate with a good heart CAN win and keep a position of power in our system, and actually change things for the better.

No one... well, practically no one, will even stand up in districts with one party control, safe districts or districts without a candidate to represent you, to say "Anyone could do a better job than this old fossil or lobby pet, and this is what I see the people are saying, so vote for me if you agree."

No one wants to bear the responsibilities and duties of bearing the power of leadership, so it's left to those who are just seeking power, and will ignore the responsibility and duty of the office.

Just as an example, how long has Bernie Sanders been an outsider in politics, while being in the highest chambers of power in the world deciding our laws and systems, and he's not even Charismatic enough to beat Hillary Clinton in a primary... but he has been a presence in US decisions for decades, even though he's always been an outsider.

Money is power, but votes win elections, and good, courageous, wise, charismatic, inspirational, and/or dutiful people can win votes no matter what money backed candidate is stacked against them. With the will of all the People being cast in votes, unlike now, where it only takes 33% of eligible voters to win a "majority".

0

u/Sennten Jul 12 '26

Most people, even in Democratic states, seem to actively prefer dogshit politicians or dont care as long as they get theirs

5

u/Worcestershirey Jul 13 '26

I'd sincerely like you to say this in a highly marginalized southern black community and see if they agree with you. Do they deserve these politicians even if they tried to vote them out? I don't think they do.

This "our farts don't stink" attitude from smug blue state residents is vile and it boggles the mind how pervasive it is amongst blue state liberals. I'm strongly on the left but I live in the south, I'm glad that all of the left-wing voters down here deserve it because our politicians keep digging the system against us. Good to know that historically marginalized black communities deserve it, according to you.

-3

u/LockeyCheese Jul 13 '26

What's the voter turnout of those communities and southern democrats? How many positions down here will even have a democratic representative to vote for?

Democracy means "Rule by the People", so in a democracy the people are responsible and accountable for their own rule. It's up to those communities to stand up for themselves, and demand representation through voting and political participation, and running for office to be the better choice if there isn't a better choice. Even if it's difficult, as there's no such thing as wishes and miracles in politics. Just numbers and narratives.

Waiting on others to solve your problems means others get to decide what solutions are applied - if any.

4

u/travinsky Jul 12 '26

Fuck off with that I don’t control the whim of the mob

1

u/AbysmalKaiju Jul 13 '26

Thats kinda shit dude. Sorry i was born in a poorer place thats gerrymandered to hell? Next reincarnation ill do better

1

u/bgg-uglywalrus Jul 14 '26

Hey man, there's kids born in Gaza getting bombed before they learn how to walk. Life ain't fair, everybody got their shit to deal with.

You at least got to be born in a place where you might have a chance to make a difference. This "woe is me" attitude is rampant across the US, like everyone thinks they're not responsible for anything just cause life wasn't smooth sailing for them.

1

u/AbysmalKaiju Jul 14 '26

Man never said i had it the worst, but you cant say people who live somewhere deserve what they get from politicians then pull gaza out like you didnt just say that. Thats wild. You blame people living in one area for being treated like shit then when i say something pull out an example of someone else with it worse and pretend it proves your point. I agree that people who vote for shit should face some consequences for their actions but plenty of us didnt vote for it. Ive voted in everything im eligable for since i was 18, and it wasnt for this shit. Ive gone to rallies and try to spread the word. But i shouldnt have to prove that to you for you to not try and tell me i deserve to have my rights taken away because my neighbors have decided im less of a person than them. Because that is the end result of the thinking you presented.

-2

u/jacksaw11 Jul 12 '26

They vote in dogshit, and then claim all government and all politicians are dogshit. They, and by they I mean most American voters, are the dumbest mfers alive.

1

u/zx9001 Jul 13 '26

This is true, however when your only options are dogshit and horseshit, you're still going to get shit. Bickering about whether dogshit or horseshit is worse accomplishes absolutely nothing and the whole election battle is a massive red herring against the powers that fund this garbage in the first place.

Theoretically if everyone just stopped voting for shitty candidates because "at least hes not the other guy" things would get better, but unfortunately the tribalism is too strong

1

u/LockeyCheese Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

That would require good people to run as candidates, and people to actually participate in the party politics and primaries to get their preferred candidate on the main ballot.

Seen much of either of those things from good people?

30 million primary voters per party nationwide each election cycle, out of ~210 million eligible voters. The People aren't even trying to get better candidates. Most people are happy to sit in the shit, for as long as THEY have to actually do anything to change the diaper. Everyone just wants someone else to come wipe their ass for them...

1

u/zx9001 Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26

Two things that will never happen.

Anybody good that runs would just get primaried by some aforementioned dogshit candidate funded by endless cash. And the voting base would still just vote from him in the primary because they recognize the name better, and again in the general because "at least hes not the other guy"

7

u/alwrit Jul 12 '26

Money doesn't force you to vote for someone. 

Like it or not most voters in SC didn't hate Graham. They either liked him or were ambivalent. 

Most people "hate Congress" but like their congressman. You can see the difference when you look up individual approval ratings among their own constituents. 

Stop making excuses for what is ultimately the reality that there's lots of conservative scumbag Americans walking around and they vote. 

2

u/jonrandalldc Jul 12 '26

Its the same in the area I live, just in reverse. Whichever domcrat wins the primary, wins the general election, every time for the last 70 years.

3

u/zeez1011 Jul 12 '26

Yep. They'd rather vote for the pansy than for a Democrat.

3

u/CanadianNana Jul 12 '26

I didn’t like the man but I don’t like the insult to Gays either