Public sentiment around the Congress Party's internal conflict is overwhelmingly negative, highlighting significant discontent towards party leadership, particularly Rahul Gandhi's influence, and a yearning for change exemplified by admiration for Shashi Tharoor. Many commenters express frustration with dynastic politics and the party's perceived irrelevance, leading to calls for leadership restructuring or dissolution.

Congress Party

The large margin of victory for the Democrat-led coalition, particularly in the Senate, may surprise many.

I think the high numbers of "Social Progressives" in these maps would be unrealistic to many -- after all, America "is not a socialist country." Combined with the Democrats, these two parties are the third and first largest parties by members, respectively.

But in this hypothetical scenario, today's Democrats are only split into three other parties, Social Progressives, Labor, and Greens, while the Republicans are split among five other parties (including Labor). So it would make sense that the Democratic-led coalition parties are individually larger in size. But combined together, the size of the coalitions roughly approximate the size of the GOP and Dems today.

While most of the new parties only took almost exclusively from either the GOP or Dems, the Labor Party here siphoned districts from both Democrats and Republicans. Based on these numbers, Labor would be the swing party -- whichever side they choose to coalition with would be the governing coalition in both the House and Senate.

A Labor party with a base represented in this map would probably be very socially conservative and culturally be in conflict with the other parties in the Democrat-led governing majority. In the end however, this Labor party's stance on international trade issues starkly conflict with the corporatist and globalist ideals of both Republicans and Democrats, but at least the Democrats and Social Progressives advocate on behalf of other working class and pro-union issues.

I think many Libertarians would object to the small amount of yellow on the map. Personally, I don't think the Libertarian ideology is very mainstream belief in the U.S. I believe that most Libertarian voters today are taking a contrarian position against the two-party system. With more parties to choose from, I feel that many of those people would choose another party.

I didn't take into account how FPTP, ranked choice, or other methods of voting would affect this map. I just looked at a combination of factors, including the ideology of present and past representatives of each district, as well as the demographic composition of the districts, to make a generalized guess of who each electorate would elect. These choices are my opinion only, but please do let me know if I've made any egregious errors.

I recognize that the districts for PA and NC are outdated. By the time I realized that, I was already pretty far along the process so just stuck with what I had.

misken67

This is pretty cool, I really love all of this. To add constructive criticism, if I may, Ohio’s 15th district almost certainly wouldn’t elect a labor rep. The district controls parts of northwest and southwest Columbus, and at the very least the northwest one is a super moderate suburb. The rest of the district is mostly conservative rural areas that don’t have much of a history of voting in a labor oriented way. I’d recommend switching the 15th with Ohio’s 6th. Ohio’s 6th used to be represented by ted Strickland, who is pretty progressive and carried the district even when he lost his re-election for governor in 2010, and three of its counties in Appalachia were reliable democratic strongholds up until around Obama’s second term. This is a really awesome map otherwise, and very interesting. Thanks for sharing!

OttoVonBismarck1917

I think that the Christian Right and America First parties would be fiercely competitive over similar demographics, to the extent that they might form an alliance to have a larger right wing consensus. Nice map btw!

NotionPictureShow

What does this mean in the context of the recent actions?

wellstone

I'm...kinda baffled at what you're saying here? Are you saying that the CCP needs to appease the US? Are you saying that the US has too much control over China? Are you saying that the US wants China to thrive and do well out of sheer altruism? (It doesn't, by the way, foreign policy doesn't run on altruism.)

I'll tell you one thing: the US doesn't have nearly as much control over China as you think. The only reason why the US has been able to rally such a large coalition against China now is because China has been alternatively scaring or pissing off almost everyone else in the world. China (read: the Xi regime) has spent the past decade or so aggressively saber-rattling at everyone and everything nearby. It's really easy for the US to sweep in and say, "Hey, let's team up against that asshole over there."

nopingmywayout

I wouldn't necessarily say it was the Xi constitutional amendment that broke the camel back. Xi just can't do the best fake smiles the way Hu, Jiang, and Deng could. Dude has a grumpy arrogant smuggy look about him. Adding that with the recent overt acts that have alerted the US, like giant islands in the middle of the sea and constant reminder of how Taiwan issue can't be left to next generation, doesn't help.

You can literally fool the US for decades with best fake smiles as long as you act behind the scenes like with tech theft and regulatory barriers to screw it, but when you start doing overt things, thats when things come undone.

The way how US treated the CCP for the past decades has to be one of the dumbest things in history. It is so cringeworthy. Probably thought it had a partner in maintaining world order, tone down its disputes in the region, and reform itself to give Chinese people more freedom, but man has it turned out to be cringy. A result containing combination of hubris, pity, and hope.

If only the Soviets knew all it had to do were working on face muscles to do best fake smiles for decades instead of ranting about "we will bury you", it could've won the cold war.

Linny911

They should keep doing what they are doing, suprise coivd lock downs, anti-bussiness policies, and keep giving out loans for pomzi scheme housing constructions, don't stop, actually do more. It would be even better if they return to Mao's socialist policies, isn't 不忘初心 牢記使命 their slogan? So hope they actually remember

nate11s

CheesyCharliesPizza

that's one of the dumbest takes I've ever read

apozitiv

They won't and can't even recognize themselves to be only stack and stack lies upon lies.  They have no face left or right.

heels_n_skirt

The neighbors in Asia/SEA do not have a positive view about china's rise and its military power.

&amp;#x200B;

[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/16/how-people-in-asia-pacific-view-china/](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/16/how-people-in-asia-pacific-view-china/)

&amp;#x200B;

.

BillyBobSmith333

TrueCommunistt

kz8816

Aw man. I got to USA not wanting Mao to fall. How is the rest?

chinesenameTimBudong

Yumewomiteru

Thanks for the interesting read, I agree with your points. 

Man, if China could get a leader that was cooperative with the United States and made honest, sincere efforts to address human rights issues, I would gain a totally new respect for humanity and reclaim hope for the future I felt when I didn't know as much. I actually think that intimate and effective cooperation between China and the US this decade would be one of the best things that could happen to humanity because of the implications it has on the competition to develop super dangerous and impactful technologies.

I think the most concerning problem facing humanity is probably going to be the development of a complex infrastructure of automated economic decision-making. Once such an infrastructure is too valuable to compete outside of, and too complex to replace in an attempt to cease dependence on it, then we will enter a new paradigm of power dynamics which face minimal threat of upheaval by subjects, but likely will produce significant obstacles to maintaining stability for decades of development (unless these developments destroy modern society first)

If we didn't have such a glaring prospect of destruction due to recklessly quick tech development by paranoid military adversaries, then humanity would seem to have a much better shot of modern civilization making it through the next 100-200 years.

Chemical_Ad_5520

In the 1970’s China was not a major concern. It was East Germany, the Cold War, how we we get that oil in the Middle East, Afghanistan war where the CIA built the Taliban. In SEA, it was again more oil, wanting control over the wells in Indo, PH. China was not on the radar.

yeahnope_00

Yeah…US god, China bad. What a deranged idiot, lol.

FifaTJ

You are asking China to kneel in front of America.  I’m sorry.  We don’t.

ashleycheng

TLDR but I'll say fuck the U.S.A. Enjoy the tent cities and being screwed over by both Republicans and Democrats for the sake of your corporations.

simian_ninja

Agugua

bsodoops

Donde_La_Carne

&gt;It can be said that the United States protected and supported Mao Zedong's regime because of the Cold War.

Okay.   Sure.  It  could be said and there is a kernal  of truth in that  the US benefitted from  the USSR having China along the Russian border and not friendly.  I don't know how much "support" there was  (or how  much was needed).

&gt;under the arrangement of the United States, the CCP regime replaced the Kuomintang regime

Doubt

&gt;the United States also prevented the Soviet Union from sending troops to China. Otherwise, the Polish-Hungarian incident in 1956 and the Prague Spring in 1968 are likely to be staged in Tiananmen.

Doubt, particularly if this is an assertion it was, in fact, by intent not  an accidental side effect.  Fictional James Bond wasn't as fantastically effective as this level of manipulation would require.

&gt;During the Deng Xiaoping era, American support also ensured the stability of the CCP regime. Before the 1989 Incident, the support of the United States helped to reduce the unemployment rate in China, the people no longer needed to “go to the mountains and go to the countryside”, and a large number of jobs were created.  
At the same time, people no longer worry about facing famine.

Yes.  America was very supportive and eager to sell shit to the massive untapped Chinese market.  An economic boom in China was a win-win.

And ... I'm too tired now to address the rest point by point, but, in sum,  interesting essay with an interesting viewpoint and some truth in some of the  perspectives though I disagree strongly with the assumption the US ever had as much  power, competence, and finesse as is suggested by OP.

Foyles_War

Does anyone even Know This Is a Completely Cooked Up story and Actually those elections were Held to elect the Congress President not India's Prime Minister and Sardar Patel was Chosen as Congress president as soon as he Won.

See BJP and there and Godi Media understand that the people of this country Need Masala in Everything and They also Know how to provide that masala. They'll Show 95% truth then they'll add a twist with 5% of Lie Like in this Story everything they said was completely true they Just Changed the word Congress president Election to Prime minister Election And the Whole story changed but No one Noticed 

There is a Saying that Goes Like "The best lies ever told were all 95% truth" and thats the Loophole these Godi media people and these Fake News Distributers are exploiting

Mr-_Morningstar-_

I don't understand why rw chaddis are so obsessed with the past. Fuck current political discourse, let's talk about 1946 while making the same mistakes as we did in the past, celebrating cult personalities while ignoring everything fucked up things happening in this country. Typical sham sharma sub mentality.

If anyone is interested here and who doesn't have an attention span of 12 years old who can only watch vids less than 1 min, here is an article. (Unless this was never about education and learning but was only an excuse to distract and talk about the past you should read the article.)

[Jawaharlal Nehru’s election as first Prime Minister wasn’t unanimous (theprint.in)](https://theprint.in/opinion/jawaharlal-nehrus-election-as-indias-first-prime-minister-wasnt-unanimous/34519/)

Outside-Contact-7400

Nehru was the most popular leader of India before and after Independence. He was the primary vote-catcher for Congress in 1937 and 1946 elections. He had a pan-India appeal. He won three elections after Independence.

This election was for the post of Congress President. Since this particular party election is under scrutiny, can someone explain how BJP elects its President?

Sardar Patel was a great organizer. Most of the PCCs were appointed by him. They naturally voted for him. But he was never the most popular leader in India.

Sardar Patel himself called Nehru a leader of the masses.

&gt; In his letter dated October 14, 1949, Patel writes "Jawaharlal and I have been fellow members of the Congress, soldiers in the struggle for freedom, colleagues in Congress Working Committee and other bodies of the Congress, devoted followers of the Great Master (Mahatma Gandhi) who has unhappily left us to battle grave problems without his guidance and co-sharers in the great and onerous burden of administration of this vast country. Having known each other in such intimate and varied fields of activity we have naturally grown fond of each other; our mutual affection has increased as years have advanced, and it is difficult for people to imagine how we miss each other when we are apart and unable to make counsel together in order to resolve our problems and difficulties. **This familiarity, nearness, intimacy and brotherly affection make it difficult for me to sum up for public appreciation, but then, the idol of the masses, the leader of the people, the Prime minister of the country and the hero of the masses, whose noble record and great achievements are an open book, hardly needs any commendation from me**."

&gt; Sardar Patel further adds "As one older in years it has been my privilege to tender advice to him on the manifold problems with which we have been faced in both administrative and organisational fields. I have found him willing to seek and ready to take it. **Contrary to the impressions created by some interested persons and eagerly accepted in credulous circles, we have worked together as lifelong friends and colleagues, adjusting ourselves to each other's point of view as the occasion demanded and valuing each other's advice as only those who have confidence in each other can**".

&gt; He further writes "**in the fitness of things that in the twilight preceding the dawn of independence, he should have been our leading light and that when India was faced with crisis after crisis, following the achievement of our freedom, he should have been the upholder of our faith and the leader of our legions. No one knows better than myself how much he has laboured for his country in the last two years of our difficult existence. I have seen him age quickly during that period on account of the worries of the high office that he holds and the tremendous reponsibilities that he wields**."

[Patel's 1949 letter praises Nehru as hero of the masses | India News - Times of India](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/patels-1949-letter-praises-nehru-as-hero-of-the-masses/articleshow/25527064.cms "Patel's 1949 letter praises Nehru as hero of the masses | India News - Times of India")

rishianand

People are less Angry on Nehru as PM but more angry on the Fact that how his Family Hijacked the Political party and made it their Family Owned Enterprise Creating a Bad precedent in the Political discourse of India 

Shouldn't Political Party be A Public Good Rather than a Family Oriented Party ?

Because of this India has become a Political Hostage of 20 or 30 Odd families who Directly or Indirectly Rule India .

No matter how much deserving and talented a person is If he has to Serve as a Politician he has to Bow down to these families even if they are Incompetent.

No matter how much Talented Kanhaiya Kumar is 
No matter how much Capable Jignesh Mevani is 
No matter how much Intellectual Shashi Tharoor is
The fact is they will always have to Bow down and serve under the Gandhi Dynasty which is very Illogical and Dumb.

Royal-Hunter3892

This is fake news. Elections for Congress party president not Indian PM

VayuAir

Yeah Patel had more organization skills than Nehru. I thought it was facts known to everyone.

AkaiAshu

Bhagat Singh wrote that Nehru would be a better choice to lead India rather than Bose.
(Singh and Bose were both leftists)

https://indianhistorycollective.com/bhagat-singh-jawaharlal-nehru-subhash-bose/

Contribution_Connect

Getting elected is no guarantee of being an able leader. I think people must have got this by now.  Its been almost 10 years.

[deleted]

Athiest-proletariat

There is a partial quote from Maulana Azad floating around, specifically on The Print's opinion page. Here is the full quote from this [pdf ](https://kvinshamlalibrary.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/india-wins-freedom-an-autobiographical-narrative-1959-by-maulana-abul-kalam-azad-1888-1958-z-lib.org_.pdf)if you run into this:

"...since I had been President for seven years from 1939 to 1946 I must now retire. I therefore decided that I should not permit my name to be proposed.

The next point which I had to decide was the choice of my successor. I was anxious that the next President should be one who agreed with my point of view and would carry out the same policy as I had pursued. After weighing the pros and cons, I came to the conclusion that Jawaharlal should be the new President. Accordingly on 26 April 1946, I issued a statement proposing his name for the Presidentship and appealing to Congressmen that they should elect Jawaharlal unanimously. Gandhiji was perhaps somewhat inclined towards Sardar Patel, but once I had proposed Jawaharlal's name, he gave no public indication of his views. Some people did propose the names of Sardar Patel and Acharya Kripalani, but in the end Jawaharlal was accepted unanimously.

I acted according to my best judgment but the way things have shaped since then has made me think that I may have been wrong and those who wanted me to continue for a least another year were perhaps in the right. "

bharatgooner

Nobody in India had more talents than nehru had in his left pinky. These stupid debates don't mean anything. He built institutions that are still pride of india without which we would be another third world basket case.

Rushie82

President of kangress was J B Kriplani in 1946-47 after that Bhogaraju Pattabhi Sitaramayya became president.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_presidents\_of\_the\_Indian\_National\_Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Indian_National_Congress)

[https://theprint.in/theprint-profile/acharya-jb-kripalani-the-congress-chief-in-1947-who-turned-harsh-critic-of-nehru-indira/148144/](https://theprint.in/theprint-profile/acharya-jb-kripalani-the-congress-chief-in-1947-who-turned-harsh-critic-of-nehru-indira/148144/)

conarDsilva

CheapLiterature9484

It is because Nehru came across as upitty. No one likes that.

lostsoul2016

yesh2002

* If your video submission is Non-OC, provide a link to the source below this comment. 

* If your video submission is OC, mark it as OC, or use [OC]/ (OC) in title, or mention so below this comment.

* Memes should use proper flair.

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedstatesofindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOly4n1tKBA&amp;t=34

Saw this

don1843

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Are there states with strong party chairs in the modern era? At the national level they’re weak.

RabbaJabba

The chairs of the political parties have almost no power. The DNC and the RNC are basically just fundraising operations. 

The sitting president is the leader of their political party. It's actually kind of incredible that Democrats were able to pressure Biden to step down. It wasn't the DNC that did that though. It was the Democratic leaders in Congress and their rank-and-file members. It just became clear that Biden had no hope of winning, and he had to do what was right for the party and the country. 

And I'm not aware of any state where the state political party has more power than elected officials.

katzvus

The unfortunate truth is the party head is both ineffective and fully capable. It completely depends upon the moment and the personality. Put a charismatic personality in the candidate slot that is extremely popular with cult like followers and the party head follows the candidate and is in the shadow and swears fealty. Put a presidential candidate forward that is internal or the party apparatus and comes from within and the chair has greater influence and control. This changes right at the moment of victory or defeat for both the presidential candidate and party chair. For as much influence or power the chair had prior to victory it is exceptionally limited afterwards with the seated victor. The chair will continue to move the party in the direction of the victory model, this just worked so that is what they will do until it doesn’t work. The chair has much more power in the lower parts of government vs the president. The elections are more often and require party funding and coordination continuously. This means constant local party involvement organizations up to the state chair then national. 


    So yes they are intertwined and can be extremely tight and influential in funds and policy but actual control is limited by the chair over anyone. Breaking with the party line is risky for anyone, until you hold a critical district or seat that the party can not otherwise hold. Joe Manchin is the example. I am sure that the party chair and House/Senate leaders were often upset with his against party line votes, but they still had to fund and support his campaign.

Journey2Jess

The saying of "all politics is local" is a proven adage.  But most folks don't realize it cuts in two different directions.  National, State, and Local politicians tend to form a strong bond when their party is out of power.  They all pull in the same direction for the most part.  And followers of the party hear a coordinated message no matter where they turn for news or entertainment.   However, National, State, and Local politicians for the party in power often move in disparate directions.  I think this is because the adage becomes divisive when one has the power to actually get things done vice chirping from the sidelines.  What we want on National, State, and Local endeavors are often quite different.  And therein lies the challenge of even the best politicians.  At least when they are in power.

UnusualAir1

In my view political parties only usurp power (as the Founders feared they would).

They are not a legitimate or intended construct of the system, they were an unavoidable accident (it doesn't mean a system cannot be designed today to remove party politics as we know it, but up until the time of the founders, to them, they were unavoidable).

(Ps: they are one of the reasons it says [somewhere here](https://youtu.be/UeSEx7veNKI) that, by the system's own design, the checks and balances that were originally planned, broke down almost immediately; the advent of parties)

Parties (as we know them) by their very nature have always been a means of usurping power since ancient Greece to their proper foundations in England and early U.S., before they came to be accepted as part of the system.

So from that perspective parties are just private businesses (no different structurally from gangs some have argued) that facilitate people's claim to power.

And thus from all that, to answer your question, there is no formal balance of power between the party leadership and government itself; they only exercise such power or influence as their body allows them to; which turns out to be a lot.

As people have often complained or quiped, what say do THE PEOPLE (emphasis on the people as a whole) have in which effectively 2 choices are placed before them to vote to the ultimate power, the presidency?

fletcher-g

Nothing against anyone but all I ever see is "party, party, party".

But how have we allowed it to become this when so many of our founders seemed against it?

Jesus: "a house divided cannot stand"

Lincoln said it because Jesus did.

Washington said "it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts" on his way out.

Jefferson advocated for rebellion, saying it's medicine for government like storms are for the earth, and said no honest Republican would render punishment against them such as to dissuade them, but it's illegal af for one of us to incite a rebellion.

We've lost what it means to be American, I think, and I think if the men who founded this nation came back here today, it would be a very interesting day, indeed.

Wotg33k

Tension within the Indian National Congress escalated following Shashi Tharoor's praise for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, prompting criticism from party leadership.

Congress Party Internal Conflict

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want