Not an American, but yikes does this have “Vote with us… Or else!” vibes.
That’s not to say I support Trump, but I personally don’t think this is the way to convince fence-sitters at all.
you are 100% correct, and I’m glad to see you speaking up here as well.
these kind of posts are disgusting pablum and should be discouraged.
Low afford manipulation. Any adult person within shred of constitution can see through it.
hahaha, sorry were those typos on purpose or did you do some lazy speech to text there?
It’s very funny.
Entirely agree. The people responsible for trump getting votes are the people voting for Trump.
Tactical voting is bullshit of the highest order and the undeniable sign of a fucked up political and voting system, not some sort of political astuteness.
If your voting system can’t allow people to express their true choice, you should throw it away. Yes, that means the majority of voting systems around the world are bad and need to be changed. Getting people to recognise that this is even an issue in the first place is a huge battle.
Only one party has implemented ranked choice while the other has fought against it. That would be a great first start.
That’s not quite the case. Ranked choice voting is resisted by whichever party has a comfortable majority in any given state where it is on the ballot. That’s why it failed when it was on the ballot in Massachusetts during the previous presidential election, because it is a reliably blue state and ranked choice voting would only serve to disrupt that status quo.
I still voted in favor of it, but that’s how it went down.
Yes, I understand the sentiment. But the tone is off. Sounding like fascists or Marxist Leninist should be the last thing anyone should be aiming for.
More people should be aiming to be Marxists, don’t know why you’re trying to draw an equivalence between Marxists and fascists that doesn’t exist. You should read Blackshirts and Reds, Communists and fascists have served entirely different classes, the fascists served the bourgeoisie while the Marxists served the proletariat, and funded anti-colonial and anti-Imperialist movements the world over (including funding the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine).
The “or else” is you will be remembered as the Trump supporter that you are. That’s not a threat.
This is the trolley problem. There are people on the track who will die if you don’t pull the lever. You stand and watch them die and declare, “I didn’t put the train on the track. It’s not my fault.”
The American neoliberal experiment started in 1992 when Bill Clinton was president…
The prior (edit: Dem, obviously) president was Jimmy Fuckin Carter…
How do you think the Overton Window has moved since Carter?
We can’t afford to keep going with a strategy that clearly hasn’t worked for 30+ years…
The really bad part is when you see how they react when people point out Kamala moving to the left would guarantee trump loses…
Moderates have been doing this since Bill Clinton 30+ years ago.
They always claim nothing else matters but beating Republicans, and use any excuse to move the party right. When voters complain the politician doesn’t match the party, we get the above.
They’d rather trump win then progressives, so they point a gun at everyone’s head and say it’s our fault if they have to pull the trigger.
Hell, in 08 with Obama they did pull the trigger. PUMA movement had them voting R instead of Obama. It’s just despite controlling the party, they are a statistically insignificant amount of voters.
A few months ago all these people called us trump supporters for making the (still true) statement that Kamala has a better chance than Biden, and they were all saying Kamala would be a terrible candidate and only Biden can win.
They’ll say anything in the moment with no regards to what just came out of their mouths.
I’m not speaking from a place of facts, but I think the sentiment is if you don’t purposefully vote for someone within the two-party system that isn’t Trump, your vote will mathematically be a negative towards votes against Trump.
Not voting/third-party vote = one less vote against Trump/more possible votes for Trump
And it’s crazy how normal Americans think this two party system is. It’s like no matter how bad you think your guy is, you have to vote for them because the other side is worse. They always talk about the Labour Party and the Tories as if they think they’re carbon copies of the Democrats and the Republicans and project all their issues into them. They don’t seem to realise there’s like five or six other parties that get a considerable number of votes and have representation in Parliament.
It is normal in FPTP voting systems. If you are going to vote in a national election in a FPTP system. Especially one with our electoral college system. But aren’t looking to explicitly throw your vote away. And you aren’t okay with open fascists winning. When things are this close. Yeah there really is no conscionable choice. Unless you happen to live in a state so safe your vote truly could never matter. Like california. Which even that would be unwise. And is especially at a place for anyone from there to tell people elsewhere how to vote. Since they don’t have the same privilege.
This is dishonest. You put all the onus of losing to trump on progressives and act powerless, when Kamala changing just one policy would guanatee progressive support in large numbers. We’re not buying it. She’s the one advocating a policy that has no place in a democratic party platform, and would be extreme and risky even for a far right republican platform.
I mean, yeah? Have you looked around? The or else is getting pretty bad.
Also I want to keep adding it’s not just Trump, he’s just a pawn. This is Republicans, not Trump. If row did anything hopefully it opened up some eyes to realize they have been on message for a long damn time. Dems should take note.
But it’s literally how it works in the USA with voting. It shouldn’t, but it DOES.
It’s exactly the kind of thing that feels good to say, but doesn’t convince anyone at all. Which is why Republicans keep winning despite ideas that should be extremely unpopular. They tie themselves to emotions about masculinity and patriotism and paint the other side as a source of disgust and fear. While Democrats look at people who support or don’t seem eager to stop Trump and say angry things at them, which just makes them not want to help Demcorats.
The “I’m voting, are you?” argument featuring nutty alt-right Maga crazies is far better because it says “hey, you can help stop this nutjob.”
Abstaining or voting 3rd party to “make Dems listen” doesn’t work. If anyone thinks they can play Mexican Standoff, you can’t because the Dems have an out: the center voter. Every time they lose, they go to the center to find voters.
And remember they need all 3 of presidency, house of representatives, and senate to pass pretty much anything. If they don’t have all 3 they will go to the center to find voters. Some people call this rachet effect, but really they’re looking for voters. Want them to stop ‘racheting’? Then give them consistent and overwhelming victories.
And remember they need all 3 of presidency, house of representatives, and senate to pass pretty much anything
The odds of Democrats keeping the Senate seem dismal. So it sounds like we’re giving the party license to do nothing for another two years
I like how you twist that to “party license”. If the people voters vote that way, that is the will of the people voters. Don’t like it? Vote. For Dems. (Though the GOP bear some responsibility being obstructionist pos.)
If the
peoplevoters vote that way, that is the will of thepeoplevoters.
Sorry 50M Californians, but 40k West Virginians decided to go a different way. Guess this means no civil rights for another two years.
I’ve thought about that recently.
In Germany, the 2 historically biggest parties were SPD (used to be liberal-democrat) and CDU (conservative) and they often were the ones tugging it out while the smaller parties were filling in as coalition partners for one or the other.
Over time, the SPD splintered into several semi-big offshoot parties (Linke, for example) while the CDU stayed as a whole. As a result, CDU is now commonly a favorite for getting most votes in an election.
Is that consistent with politics across the globe? And if, why do liberal or center parties tend to split up more than conservatives?
Because conservatives gravitate towards authority, and progressives are looking to break the status quo.
So conservatives value order, authority, and it causes them to fall in line.
Progressives are looking to break that order, believing that things can be better than they are right now. That causes them to infight more often.
I commonly hear the left is a loose coalition of factions (which can split apart), while the right fall in line. I think there are fewer factions on the right, or the factions are not as far apart, so coming together is easier. They also unite in absolute hatred of the left, so will fall in line to slay that beast.
100% agreed regarding coalitions, unfortunately centrists dont seem to know they are in a coalition, or that the party even has a platform. They are so spooked by trump that they will do or say anything to win. Anything.
Centrists on this thread today accuse Progressives of being members of the far right as a ploy to hide the fact that they are the ones pushing far right policies themselves. The centrists are much closer to being republicans anymore than they are to adhering to the traditional democratic party platform. Real Democrats wouldnt risk the drinking water of the whole continent to enable more fracking to big oil company donations. They wouldnt be ok with more school shootings to pander to the NRA donations (especially when the NRA is heavily infiltrated by Russia). And they wouldnt sponsor and enable a far rightwing genocidal war in the middle east – pitting us against the entire rest of the world-- to draw foreign lobbying donations. But American progressives are somehow willing to swallow every bit of that traitorous behavior except one to get over the finish line together, whereas centrists are willing to change not a single damn thing to win, and proceed to whine and threaten.
Counterexample: The European Parliament. IMHO, it looks like 4 right-wing groups, 2 left-wing ones and 2 centrist ones. While the exact positioning could be argued over, the right wing is quite certainly more fragmented than the left is.
The more elections the far right loses, the more the overton window shifts to the left.
Democrats move further right to get votes from the center but when they win it’ll go left trust me bro
I dont think thats true all the time. as we have seen with Biden, If a dem president is a centrist or far right for a dem, it shifts the entire party and the judiciary rightward. These things have monentum.
So I’d say its not simply the “D” that matters in overton shift. It also sets the topics in the political conversation, and either strengthens the party for the next election or leaves it in shattered and misaligned, like we are now about the unpopular far right wing genocide being pushed by a democratic US presidential administration.
Dems need all 3 (presidency, house of reps, Senate) to do pretty much anything. They’ve had that for [drumroll please] 4 out of the last 24 years. Or 6 of the last 32 years. Or 6 of the last 44 fucking years.
They’ve had that for [drumroll please] 4 out of the last 24 years
It was significantly shorter than that when you consider Senate control to be 60, which is what’s needed to bypass the fillibuster.
Dems need all 3 (presidency, house of reps, Senate) to do pretty much anything.
Thats not how politics works buddy. If what you said were true neither the dems or republicans would have passed any bills in the history of the “republic”. Clearly theres also horse trading, and bribery/lobbying you are pretending dont exist in order to make this weak point.
This is an incorrect framing of the situation. You aren’t being asked for a Yes/No vote on Democrats. You are being asked if you prefer Democrats or Republicans. Or for this election, if you prefer Democracy or Fascism. If you vote “no preference”, that does not communicate “I prefer the Democrats, but want them to move further left”, either logically or politically.
There are lots of ways to communicate desired policy changes: letter-writing, primaries (including campaigning/funding for candidates), protests, marches, press, social-media, etc. Voting against your interest is not one of them.
You are being asked if you prefer Democrats or Republicans.
I understand why you’d say this. But you arent trying to understand why people are trying to pressure the dem leadership to be better.
And in their trips to the centre they keep seeming to forget that they keep shifting further and further right
Centrists are a curse here
They. Are. Looking. For. Voters.
If the people voters want more right, then that’s the will of the people voters. Thus the message: If you, as a leftist, want them to go left then you have to vote for Dems.
See you have this backwards, they are supposed to change and then they are rewarded with votes.
If you vote them in before they change, they have no reason to change.
They. Are. Looking. For. Voters.
Thats. Not. What.They. Are. Doing. At All. Progressive votes and the election win are right there for the taking. All the centrists need to do is stop shipping those weapons. Im not even demanding that Kamala stop pushing fracking and gun proliferation thats murdering our children. Progressives are bending over backwards to try to make this work and they are being offered exactly nothing except threats,condescenscion, far right policies, and hostage taking talk by the centrists.
I live in a red state, and the Democratic Party cannot even get enough warm bodies to ruin for every office here. The Libertarians do better with their candidates than the Democrats.
so you think if we vote for them no matter what they do, they will start representing our wishes out of the goodness of their hearts, instead of Aipac’s who come to them with palletloads of cash? Thats… an interesting theory.
First, again, they go to the center when they lose. If they don’t lose, they don’t need to go to the center to find voters.
Second: They will do what people voters want. That is the whole point, voters. Right now the voters are voting for brutally slow progress. That’s what they get when they give Dems control of all 3 for only 4 years every 24 years. Want faster progress? Then be the voters that vote for faster progress by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
In addition to that, I really think Dems want left policy. They do it when they can despite it costing them elections. According to your logic they would never have done the ACA, or green energy, or EVs, or union empowerment (inb4), or student debt forgiveness, or Chips act, or Pact act, etc, etc. But they did, and it cost them.
voting for a third party is fine.
I personally think it’s impractical since the democrats have advanced progressive policies these past 4 years that probably dovetail with any third party candidate a voter likes, but any vote an American voter casts is a valid vote.
Third party vote is a protest vote to deny the regime legitimacy.
Voting for either party is a vote of confidence in the regime. It only makes sense to participate within this framework if you feel like you benefiting from the current arrangements.
When I vote for a third party, I am voting for the candidate I most strongly identify with.
you know, like in a democracy.
“Voting for either party is a vote of confidence in the regime.”
this is incredibly naive.
voting third party as a “protest” is like holding your hand under a blowtorch.
yeah, you’ll get some attention, but it’s not really going to help you out and you probably didn’t have a good reason for doing it in the first place.
It will only work if enough people do it to rattle the current arrangement.
I am doing my part. Some day others will join. This a generation long battle and the only valiable option to influence the system.
Voting for either party is saying you are fine with the way the regime rules us. You are not going to get result by playing by their rules.
This is a perspective than can only be held in a political system that has devolved to a two-party system.
If you step out of that, it stops making sense. A democracy allows for people to express their actual opinion. Anything less than that is not a proper democracy. I’d argue there are no “third parties” in a proper democracy.
You might be saying that the American regime is illegitimate, it’s unclear.
no, i didn’t.
I specifically meant the last 4 years.
“The third party candidates are unfiltered BS candidates that are neither experienced nor prepared to lead”
source?
it sounds like you’re just making this up, since lots of third-party candidates are good candidates who can’t get ahead because of the corrupt us electoral system.
“stopping the wars started by the GOP”.
uhhhh hahahaha! get out of here, it’s amazing you can type that right now, I see you hid it between a bunch of other bad points, but boy is this the wrongest of them all.
“only to gather attention and draw votes away from Dems.”
so you’re 12 or you’ve never paid attention to US politics before.
third party candidates are historically more devoted to all of the things you have listed above, job creation, union support, minimum wage, corporate taxes, they are good candidates with good policies who get screwed because of the US electoral system.
they are not political distractions, your narrow-minded ignorance is.
You wanna change the Democratic Party? Maybe vote more than once every four years. State and local elections have garbage turnouts and this is where right wingers shore up their power (because they ALWATS vote). You need to vote every election, always. You want left leaning Democrats in office? Their careers start small, at the local and state level. Vote for them there and support them as they gain experience and reputation.
But this griping about the electoral process and lack of choices in a national election is just lazy bullsh*t. Yes, a vote for anyone other than Harris is a vote for Trump at this point.
When do you think the last fair Dem presidential primary happened?
Every progressive I know votes in every election from dog catcher to president, but with how deregulated campaign finance laws are, how is a candidate going to compete in a non presidential year when corporations and foreign governments donate millions in the primary to the neoliberal?
Then if they do win the primary, they have to be at the Republican getting the same money, and the DNC and state parties don’t support them because they also take the same money?
Like, I get what you tried to say and I wish it was that fucking easy.
But it’s not as long as money is free speech. We can’t change that until we demand the party stops taking that money in primaries against other Dems, and backs progressive candidates that make it to the general like they back moderates.
Not understanding the concept of the Secret Ballot and it’s consequences
