This all sounds logical on the surface, but I don't think it pans out like that. Once Republicans stop winning elections, Democrats stop using that as an excuse to move right to court centrists and disappointed Republicans.

Yes I know, this is your fictional baseless nonsense you keep repeating as if nobody has responded to it, including what I just wrote and that you haven't addressed. We already have examples where Democrats have won consistently and they didn't do this. You have examples right in front of you at the state and municipal level and Dems fight tooth and nail to prevent universal healthcare at the state level, they constantly bump funding for cops, they send cops after protesters, they cleave to Israel and use every bad faith excuse to go after pro-Palestine organizers, going after their schooling and careers, they implement austerity for social programs and dehumanize the unhoused. At no point did using the logic of always voting Democrat achieve anything, it is actually disenfranchising to think that way and tell others to do so.

Once Republicans stop winning, two things happen. One, the immediate contest moves to the primary, where everyone is most directly vulnerable to their constituents since turnout is especially low for these.

Primaries are controlled by the parties in power, as is ballot access. The contest "moves" there in the sense that multi-party democracy is dead on its face in those places, as the Democrats can exclusively focus on punching left in the interest of their donors and connections. They focus hard on excluding even left liberals like Greens. They then move to trying to control those primaries to keep out challengers as best they can. Redistrict to remove left politicians, for example. And don't forget, the party is not a public thing, it is a private venture that can change its own rules basically however it wants in most cases, arbitrarily moving qualification thresholds to remove challengers. Do you think cutting off ballot access for left challengers is a symptom of perma-elected Democrats moving left? Do you have literally any experience trying to make something happen electorally? You have clearly never realized who your full set of political enemies are if you want, say, to end the genocide in Palestine.

If Republicans are crushed in the election instead of narrowly losing, Democrats thinking about reelection have to make extra sure they're palatable to the base because that's who's going to sink them and replace them in the primary.

In reality they actually try to engineer the primary so that they do face the less popular Republican rather than a slightly-left-of-them Democrat, Green, socialist, etc. Depending on the structure of the primary of course, that is their ideal. You have surely already seen this in how Dems fight hard to engineer contests to be not between themselves and a milquetoast socdem (e.g. Clinton vs Sanders) but instead be between them and some braying racist (Clinton vs Trump).

I have already pointed out that palatable to "the base" is antithetical to them and that it isn't even really a base, it is their left flank that they string along. Maybe you belong to that group, the only reason I qualify is that it's unclear you have any left wing politics at all. "The base" is who they manipulate into supporting them (you're trying to do that yourself), not who they actually cater to in policy. This is a basic lesson you should realize about the party: they don't deliver for their "base". They fight as hard as they can to avoid doing so. That dynamic is the most important one for understanding the Democratic Party and what it truly is as a political project. It's why they seem "incompetent": they don't actually want to do the slightly left things that would be popular, delivering material benefit to their people, because most of those policies would come at the cost of bourgeois interests. You can go and join the party and watch that dead end in progress if you'd like. See how much time they spend on donor lists and dinners and trimming planks and undermining primaries and conventions.

Two, since a first-past-the-post voting system always inevitably results in a two party system, if the Republicans prove themselves truly nonviable, the party dies, and another takes their place.

The Democratic Party wants a viable Republican Party. They literally say this openly.

You are trying to describe a realignment in the form of an entire party displacing another. This hasn't happened since the American Civil War. Do you have any unstanding of why that hasn't happened in 150 years? What about the bourgeois electoral system prevents this from happening even though FPTP allegedly makes it locally quasi-stable? Surely there should be examples of rupture at the state level, right? Why not? Who benefits from this not happening? What function does kayfabe opposition play?

The new party is obviously going to have to move left since right has proven itself nonviable, and so the contest moves towards left wing ideas.

There are left parties that have tried this. What is their experience? Do you even know.

Every time Democrats get into power, people complain that they didn't do enough fast enough, which is a valid complaint, but then they reelect the god damn Republicans

And you don't seem to get that this is by design. The purpose of a system is what it does.

There are many states that have had Democrat majorities (even supermajorities) as well as governor for multiple elections. They always have plenty of excuses for why they can't do things in the interests of common people vs. bourgeois interests.

Even though it's apparently a mortal sin here to admit that life has prevented me from devoting every waking moment to staying abreast of current events the world over

You're still pretending to be a victim for spouting pro-genocider bullshit in ignorance. You even try to flip "they know things I don't and didn't appreciate my bullshit" into being our problem rather than yours. Perhaps this is spiritual Zionism?

Nobody requires you to know anything, actually. You can just, you know, shut the fuck up until you do. Learn to ask questions. Learn to learn. Learn that maybe you don't always deserve to have an opinion.

Though, I will point out that your hyperbole is revealing. It does not take much effort to know these things. People the world over konw them, it's not a full time job. But you have to be willing to start and to accumulate knowledge, not whine that you don't automatically know what's going on and deserve to share pro-genocider opinions despite not even trying.

I'm gonna say that while I'm aware he has historically supported Israel, I'm unaware of evidence that he's endorsed the illegal settlements.

What the fuck are you even talking about. I didn't mention "illegal settlements". But Biden has supported Israel to the hilt for his entire political life, and the premise of Israel is the settler colonization of Palestine. What do you think illegal settlements are? What does it mean when he gives them constant material support during genocide? When he brushes aside the supposed red line of killing Americans? You're not thinking critically.

Before you act like an asshole about it, reminder that I'm here willing to learn and openly inviting evidence that challenges what I thought I knew before I came in here.

No I"m not going to reverse teh way I treat you, you have not stopped beign combative. YOu say you're willing to learn and inviting evidence, but you are (1) responding to a bar I didn't set and ignoring the rest of what I said (being evasive) and (2) aren't asking for evidence. Do you know how to ask a question?

I didn't say shit about him being a good guy who made a mistake. I called him less shit than the alternative.

You absolutely framed Biden et al as people who could "do more" to "slow down" genocide, erasing their true role as active material proponents of the genocide. You absolutely did not frame them as those proponents, as enemies of Palestine. I am resopnding to your soft pedaling of Democrats' role and defaultism that they are not trying hard enough in the right direction rather than trying very hard in the wrong one.

I understand that that seems hard to accomplish in terms of a genocide

See, you still can't frame this as a genocide begun under and supported by Biden. YOur defaultism on lesser evilism presumes taht the bad things are forwarded by Republicans and Democrats are just failing to oppose or be "less bad enough". In reality, Dems are the big bad in this situation, they did the worse thing, and you cannot cope with it.

but given we're still genociding and also invading Iran, supporting an Israeli invasion of Lebanon, potentially preparing to invade Cuba, and seized a foreign head of state... Maybe that wasn't an entirely incorrect assessment.

See how we have to repeat ourselves because you don't read. I already responded to this in another comment. YOu just repeat yourself in various places because you don't read. The short of it is: you are blissfully ignoring the war crimes of Democrats to pretend that bad things happening under Republicans proves your opint. You wish to believe, again, in the default lesser evilism, and just repeat it over and over again, never actually asking how you'd do a more fair comparison, actively avoiding using appropriate language to attribute roles. THis is because you are a victim of propaganda, and you could escape it, but you have to stop resopnding to every comment and read and be honest.

The same people who want to tell me things slowed down under Trump with the "ceasefire" are the same people who ridiculed me for the fundamental idea of trying to slow it down while we work on stopping it in other ways.

Oh? What were you ridiculed for, specifically?