I voted early in Wisconsin. There’s a ton of 3rd party candidates. I loved seeing it. Democracy is safe here.
This is the most horrible way to convince people to vote with you. I, personally, would tell you to go fuck yourself if I weren’t already voting for Harris. Please stop that. You need to convince people why they should vote for your candidate by showing them the difference, not this “or else” bullshit. and if they are not convinced, you let it go. People are free with their damn votes.
Convincing people to vote isnt a goal. Liberals, specifically US liberals have this compulsion to fingerwag at anyone who doesnt listen to their self important wankery. Irregardless of the repeated lies, policy failures, lies, can kicking, goal post moving, lies, etc.
Every election is “This is the most important election of our lives” and “Now is not the time” and “When we win we can do [insert obvious thing that desperately needs to happen]”
People buy the lies, vote for their corporate appointed vanguard candidate. Then realize they were lied to. That “The Right Time” was never going to happen. They get jaded or just check completely out of politics after the Xth election of being lied to. And its always on those people to “Save Democracy” every election. The lies and shit policies are entirely blameless. Its always the fault of those who question.
I for instance according to liberals am an EVIL Trump voter. Even though I haven’t voted since 2016 and wont vote until dems make universal healthcare happen. That’s my singular demand currently. But its a hard line. A team of wild horses couldn’t drag me to the polls until that happens. Now I will never vote for republicans. They’re evil. Period. They’re a known quantity. They will only ever do the worst possible thing. List of options, they will 100% choose the one that harms the greatest number of people, their own included. I demand the Democrats be better, which makes me a heinous villain of the highest order.
I like your view on this. This is basically how I do and look at it, but this time I had to make an exception, because Trump is actually horrible and I can’t just sit it out even though
tI hate the Democrats just as much as the Republicans. This time, I will have to fall for this fear mongering because, again, Trump is horrible and can’t be elected again. Next election when he fucks off, I’m sitting out until my demands are met.Good on you. That tiniest expression of your own individual agency makes all the difference in the world. Ultimately we on an individual level are powerless in this system. Utterly so. That you can claw back even that much choice is a wonderful thing.
Trump’s track record and intentions for his next term are crystal clear. They are clearly and demonstrably worse than harris’plans or Biden/harris’ previous term.
That info is widely available. To ignore it now, and claim to need “convincing” is madness at best, or bad faith at worst.
I already wasn’t going to vote for Trump, so threatening me with him doesn’t make me want to vote for Democrats, it makes me want both parties to lose.
No offense but taking it as “threatening” and not understanding that I’ve of them WILL win is comically short sighted.
Folks aren’t trying to find someone a date, they’re explaining the consequences of a FPTP election with limited possible outcomes.
Needing to be handled with kid gloves is privileged
No offense, but saying “support my candidate or else the bad man will win” and not understanding that people will see this as a threat is comically bad public relations.
Folks aren’t looking for someone to vote against, they’re looking for someone to vote for.
Needing to be handled with kid gloves so you don’t have to face the weakness of your own rhetoric is privileged.
If you don’t get being in a constrained system there’s nothing else to discuss. Decide for yourself on who of the two candidates you want, and vote to empower either. Even inaction has a consequence.
I work in cybersecurity, finding ways to break out of “constrained systems” is literally my job.
I also already voted, I’m just not pretending that American “democracy” is anything other than a process for legitimizing an Imperial state.
The voters have no agency, the only people who do are those who constrained the available options to “bad” and “worse”. But you’re trying to hold those people blameless by insisting that voters are answerable to the party rather than the other way around. The Democrats can’t fail, they can only be failed by potential voters who are insufficiently terrified of their “opponents”.
The Democrats only need a Republican stick so that they don’t have to offer us more carrots, the right move is to stop being a donkey and farm our own carrots.
Let the parties die, the Republican party will collapse to infighting after Trump loses anyway.
deleted by creator
Do you have a plan to effectively break out of the constrained system in the next 10 days? If not, it’s all academic
people are free with their damn votes
Until they don’t have the right to vote anymore because they threw it away in the final election
“Or else” isn’t bullshit when it comes from the perspective of anyone who actually has something to lose if Trump wins.
Everyone who is on the fence or doesn’t feel like they need to vote are just speaking from positions of privilege because they don’t personally have as much on the line. I just find it hard to sympathize with that perspective.
But the same thing can be said for the people ignoring the faults of Kamala…
Especially when they’re just begging for an end of genocide, or fracking destroying their communities, or any other of multitude issues where Kamala and Trump have the same policies even though the majority of the Dem voting base disagrees with them.
It seems odd to act like the “high road” is the one where genocide is ok, when we could just have someone who was anti-genocide…
There’s fall less people willing to hold their noses to vote for genocide and fracking than the other way around. And very few people who are only voting for Kamala because her border, genocide, and fracking policies are the same as Trump’s.
The people that want that are still voting trump, if they told you that it would change your mind…
I hate to break it to you, but they lie about this shit all the time so even if they lose they win.
No one is ignoring her faults. She is just less flawed then the alternative. People need to learn how to vote. It is literally the only zero sum game that matters.
I’m sorry, how does Trump improve any of the issues you describe?
He doesn’t, neither does Kamala…
So why get mad at someone who’s line isnt the same place as yours?
You can tell at them to throw their morals out the window, or unite with them and demand just a little more than the bare minimum you would accept
Why is no one allowed to ask for anything more than your bare minimum? And why would you risk trump to not help get more?
I don’t logically understand your position, I understand what it is, just not why it’s your position.
Can you elaborate on how this:
just speaking from positions of privilege because they don’t personally have as much on the line. I just find it hard to sympathize with that perspective.
Isn’t applicable to you wanting people to ignore genocide? In some cases where it’s literally their close family over there as the victims?
He doesn’t, neither does Kamala…
Then why even have this argument?
How about we swing this double edged sword the other way? Why try to alienate women who lost their rights with the overturning of Roe v. Wade because of Trump’s supreme court appointments? Or what about every LGBTQ+ person in the US who is trapped at the edge of their seats because members of the supreme court have stated they’d like to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges, too?
How about all of the kids who are shot to death at school because of unchecked gun proliferation that Trump’s party has blocked attempts to regulate? Or people who are drowning to death in medical and student debt that Trump blocked attempts to solve, while he just has a “concept of a plan” that no one is able to describe?
Or maybe we can look at his previous presidency, when his hateful rhetoric caused sharp rises in hate speech and crimes committed against people of color and the socially vulnerable? The rise in white supremacist/domestic terrorist groups? The election denialism that resulted in January 6? The complete and utter failure to properly manage the Covid-19 pandemic that led to the preventable deaths of millions?
The threat of fascism literally looming over our heads and being told none of that matters because Kamala is no different from Trump in my specific hand-picked list of issues, that’s what I take issue with.
If someone is not willing to do the bare minimum to keep him out of power because they don’t see a reason to vote for Kamala, I have a long list of less-kind words I’d love to say if I didn’t believe in trying to maintain civility online.
Then why even have this argument?
Because if instead of spending time and effort trying to convince voters to lower their morals…
We’d be better off uniting to hold Kamala to a higher standard, because then we’d stop trump, and get more of what we want.
I’m not sure what’s confusing about this.
Goodness you are a speed reader, replying within 2 minutes and acknowledging the very first sentence I wrote.
I am literally holding Kamala to a higher standard. Everything I wrote is the standard that anyone with half a braincell and respect for their fellow man should understand. Anyone who does not is not worth being pandered to.
It’s actually sad that you would talk about privilege. That may apply to some people. What if for example your cousin is living in Palestine? What then? What privilege do you have? If you vote for Harris, you’re guaranteed more of the same.
The privilege that you have is that you don’t have family members dying from policies that Harris endorses. And I think Trump would be even worse, so there’s a practical argument that people should vote for Harris anyway, but that’s a tough sell if it’s your immediate family or your best friends who are in the literal crosshairs.
I’m just sorry to say, but the situation in Palestine is not up for vote right now. This election will not change that outcome, short of keeping the “finish the job” candidate out of office while maybe the more reasonable of the two can eventually decide to do the right thing.
If none of the “other stuff” that is actually up for vote matters to people, though, then those people aren’t allies and apparently don’t care if they end up living under a christofascist regime that won’t need elections anymore.
I disagree. I think each voter is going to choose what the relevant issues are and then they’re going to vote. You can try to tell us what issues matter, but people are going to make up their own mind.
Also, it’s quite obvious that who becomes the next president does have an impact on what happens in Palestine.
NEVER AGAIN 🤡
I guess some people’s issues are more important than [others]
On the farm all animals are equal! But Palestinian get taken to the shed to make this equality work ;)
Which candidate will make life for Palestinians better?
They are getting genocide either way …
Weird way to call that “better”
“Or else” isnt bullshit
then pressure Kamala to change that one far far right wing policy the progressives cant live with and lets win this thing.
Everyone who is on the fence or doesn’t feel like they need to vote are just speaking from positions of privilege because they don’t personally have as much on the line. I just find it hard to sympathize with that perspective.
I agree with your first sentence, but honestly your second sentence doesn’t matter. No one has the right or ethical high ground to command or threaten another person to vote the way they want, regardless of whether they sympathize with that person’s position.
Actual Trump voters, many of whom are voting against their own best interests as well as yours and mine, have the right to make their uninformed/hateful/self-harming/selfish (pick one or more as applicable) vote, and so do folks whose vote we disagree with for other reasons.
We all think our reasons for voting the way we are (including abstaining) are valid, and at the level of the voting booth it seems to me that we have to respect everyone else’s as valid even when we don’t feel they are.
If we do not do so, I don’t see how that doesn’t lead to either:
a) commanding another to vote as you desire
or
b) thought policing people
I find either of those to be unacceptable for any purpose.
My perspective is that no one has the right to infringe on the rights of others, and to me any act that facilitates Trump entering the white house creates a greater infringement on human rights than any vote that facilitates Harris.
These are things that shouldn’t even need to be decided by an election, they should just be codified and not up for vote at all, but here we are.
Persuade all you want.
Threatening/intimidating/commanding people to vote in a particular way is not OK though. It’s not something where the end justifies the means, and it’s a pandora’s box that should not be opened. OP would be rightly called a threat if a conservative version of it was posted. It’s akin to this, minus the power dynamic.
And when I am being threatened myself by their stance?
Hey if you are convinced by the two-wrongs-make-a-right approach, that’s your business not mine.
Stovetop, no one comes here to hear your annoying yappy petulance, and you havent changed a single persons mind, just annoyed everyone who reads this thread. You are the reason the block user button exists.
Then block me instead of whining about it.
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.
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.
So vote for them regardless and then they will listen?
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.
Supermajority was 4 months, out of the last 44 years. But whenever I mention that people think I’m fixated on that for some reason.
*Oh downvoted already. Some people really don’t like hearing this.
You shouldn’t cry about fake internet points
I’m not crying, I’m laughing how certain people downvote because they don’t like hearing facts.
Somehow the terminally online tankies will still blame Democrats for that, too.
They honored the fillibuster by choice. They didnt have to.
They never had 51 votes to repeal the fillibuster. Sinema and Manchin both refused to do so. Neither of which are Democrats anymore. We should elect more Democrats to the Senate that will.
“Biden says eliminating filibuster would “throw the entire Congress into chaos”” https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/joe-biden-town-hall-filibuster/
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.
With the obstructionist MAGA caucus in your government that would rather vote no to bipartisan bills because it would give a Democrat a win, barely any bills get passed!
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.
I absolutely understand the anger at the Democratic party. I mention several useful activities to work toward fixing its many failings. The Republican party is strictly worse. Giving equal support to both is counterproductive.
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
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. You can see my other comment, they’ve only had all 3 houses for 4 out of the last 24 years.
you totally ignore that the Dems could simply represent the will of their constituents and not lose, and not need to “look for votes” outside the boundaries of their party. Kamala would be coasting to vicotry if she wasnt supporting Bidens dirty far right war. She is trying hard to not represent the Dems and take a far right stand on this, and thats the root of this problem. Not Progressive voters or the youth.
Seriously? Every time they run a left platform or enact a left policy, they lose. Why do I bother, ciao.
It’s the left’s fault for not feeling motivated to vote for a center-right party, they’ll become even more right if we don’t vote for them. Progressive candidates are dumb and unpopular.
I honestly don’t know what point you’re trying to get at. In any case, if the left wants to be effective, they have to vote for Dems. Because, again, when they lose they go to the center to find voters.
Coalitions dont work if the larger group demands unconditional loyalty or ignores their coalition partners non negotiables. Dems are a coalition of various groups that cant win alone.
actively enabling Genocide is a non negotiable for progressives. And progressives are the difference between dems winning and dems losing.
Centrist dems have been trying to hold the entire party hostage to trumps evil so they can take AIPACS dirty bribes. So now progressives will play the exact same hostage games. We’ll all go over the cliff into the bloody abyss together, or a few simple policy changes can be made. So get those changes done and lets win this election together. Or dont and our country is over. You choose. We already made our choice, and it was really no choice to be made at all. We were never going to lift a finger to enable genocide, its not who we are.
seems like if the left wants to be effective at this point it has to go far beyond voting
So stay home/throw away your vote, I’m sure they’ll realize their mistake and go to the left any decade now to chase those reliable voters.
And you throw away yours as well. We all lose. Finally a ‘together’ outcome where we are all on the same side and not just taking centrist far-right marching orders like slaves.
they don’t have to, let the whole thing collapse. Fascism never lasts long
This, but unironically.
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.
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.
The obviously the tactical strategy is to vote libertarian
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
peoplevoters vote that way, that is the will of thepeoplevoters. 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.
This is aimed at those people that think not voting or voting 3rd party is effective to “make Dems listen”. It is not. Voters have a say.
Dems are a coalition. Centrists are not powerful enough within that coalition to act like utterly unaccountable god-kings. If that needs to be beaten into them then so be it.
Lol I assume you mean that you (the leftist) will beat some message into the Dems. Dude, you will not win this Mexican Standoff because the Dems have an out: The center voter. Who, wait for it, actually shows up.
Alll your “beating” is beating yourself when you hand the overton window over to the GOP. It’s the biggest self own in history.
We’ll see wont we. If progressives stay strong and dont vote early, I’d bet real money Harris caves on the weapons shipments.
So give up? Yea, it fucking sucks and is unfair as hell but voting is too easy to claim a lack motivation. It’s not a sustained effort, it’s something happens incredibly rarely and you can definitely handle. You can even mail that shit in in most places.
If you vote then it will be hard for the democrats to win and start shifting your countries policies to leftward(even if it’s an inch at a time). If you don’t vote then it will be impossible to do it.
So give up?
If your full effort begins and ends with election season, you’ve already given up.
Who said that? Oh right, nobody. Fuck, bro, get it together.
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
peoplevoters 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.
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
peoplevoters want more right, then that’s the will of thepeoplevoters. 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.
We can go through the whole history if you want. Every time the Dems go left, they lose. Every single time. So they go to the center to find voters. Then certain people whine “Why are they going center!!! We won’t vote for them!!! Rachet!!” That’s when I say playing Mexican Standoff won’t work. Because they have an out and you don’t. If you want them to stop going center, they have to win first. Because, again, when they lose they go to the center to find voters.
well this time they are going to lose by going right. Maybe they need to think about it and make a different plan then.
See my other comment. Oh you did and all you can say is “biased”. Think about it? They have 44 years of history beaten into them. They lose every single time they go left.
You don’t reward people when they do things that you don’t want.
Cause: Politicians do the correct thing.
Effect: voters reward them.
Very good choice NoIWontPickAName, we can go over the history of how the left doesn’t show up!
Ok let’s go through this chronologically.
Carter: Tried to do some left things and got fucking yeeted from office. Aka the left never shows up.
Bill Clinton: After successive Dem losses Bill figured out “it’s the economy stupid”, aka center policy, not leftist policy. Plus when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you generally run from the center. So that’s what he did. And he won.
Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Obama: So guess what Obama learned? Don’t stick your head out. He ran on vague “hope”, hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush’s disastrous wars. And he won.
More on Obama: so he enacted the ACA. That’s great, right? The thanks Obama got for that was to lose the House of Representatives for year 3 and 4. And lose the House of reps again for years 5 and 6. And then lose both the House of reps and the Senate for years 7 and 8. He enacted left policy and: The left never shows up.
Hillary Clinton: So what did Hillary learn from the last 6 years of Obama? She learned that the left never shows up. So she ran a mostly center platform to get voters, BUT with a big position to left on the map room to climate change. She basically declared war on climate change. You know that big existential issue that all the leftists care about, right? The big important issue that the left says they will show up for, right? And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Biden: Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don’t stick your head out left on anything. Not one thing. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. And he won.
More on Biden: But did left things anyway. He Biden did green energy, EVs, drug price control, PACT act, etc. And what were the results? Lost the House of Representatives for years 3 and 4. Polls showed him losing the election to Trump. He enacted left policy and: The left didn’t show up for midterms, and was not going to show up for the next election.
Harris: So guess what Harris is doing? She’s adopting Obama’s tactic to run on vague “get ahead” and having energy. From what I know she’s not announced anything left, other than vague tax the billionaires. She has no reason to think the left will ever show up.
And people are amazed that they don’t run a big left platform? Every time they stick their head left they lose. Every Single Time. And the next guy learns to go to the center to win. Because the center voters actually show up.
With this history, you’d be an absolute fool to cater to and rely on the left. Because. They. Never. Show. Up.
So how do you get them to move left? By giving them victories first. Consistent and overwhelming victories. Show them it’s safe to take policy chances. Because when they lose, like they’ve lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, they will go to the center to find votes.
And some follow up thoughts:
-
Ok. Then you don’t get to complain how the dems move to the center, or racheting, or anything else. You know, to the voters that actually show up.
-
This is about the Overton Window. You want the overton window to move? Then you have to vote for Dems. Waiting for this magical left platform isn’t going to happen.
-
You reallllllllyyyyy don’t want to take the point that this is not a game of Mexican Standoff that you can win. They have an out. You do not. And their out, the center voter, actually shows up.
By far the most astute take on the subject I’ve read in a while.
thats a crazily biased and simplsitic summary of what actually happened.
-
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.
Progressive votes never show up. Anyone else can see my comment https://lemmy.world/comment/12867004. You’d be an absolute fool to cater to or rely on the left showing up. Because. They. Never. Show. Up. The only time Dems win is when they go to the center.
Wow another message from you. Dude, I have 6 messages all from you.
Thats pretty rich coming from you. Almost every other comment on this thread is you. “Dude”.
Why yes I made a top level comment to the post and I am responding to people that reply to me. That is not what you portray it as, so that tells me you’re here in horribly bad faith. Ciao.
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.
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.
Americans have no concept of a coalition.
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.
With any*
But I am keeping as it is rather cheeky
nice, it’s a perfect statement.
i am a
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.”
But it’s literally how it works in the USA with voting. It shouldn’t, but it DOES.
I dont see that it is “working”.
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.
How else would you propose that the Overton Window shift to the left?
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…
I’m pretty damn sure that Bush came both before and after Clinton
I thought it was obvious we’re just talking about Dems…
But I can edit that in explicitly
If I was on the fence this kind of menacing push would make me reaffirm myself into not voting Dems. For real.
What kind of shitty way of convince anyone is this?
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.
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.
Yes first past the post elections are fucked, but that’s still the system we have and the one you have to operate under. If you refuse to vote against hitler because you don’t like the voting system, you still refuse to vote against hitler.
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.
Can confirm, these awful false-equivalences have only further convinced me that liberals will never lift a finger to help anyone.
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
Mmm I’m sorry to tell you that you are wrong
🤡
The “or else” is you will be remembered as the Trump supporter that you are. That’s not a threat.
You’re not s Trump supporter if you don’t support Trump
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.”
You forgot some parts. The bystander being asked to pull the lever will enable a genocide by pulling it, and those rich people stuck on the tracks could pull a policy lever and save themselves but they refused to because someone offered them a bribe not to.
The rich people stuck on the track just want to play the vicitm when they also set up the whole scenario in the fist place by doing crazy stuff. So they crybully about it, and pretend to be victims of the scenario that they themselves created. I’d suggest they save themselves and stop doing stupid stuff. If we save them, how will they learn?
The bystander being asked to pull the lever will enable a genocide by pulling it
That statement shows you are a Trump supporter just like the meme claimed. Trump has committed to the extermination of Palestinians and even said he would deny any refugees.
The Trolley problem has 1 person on one track and 5 on the other. There’s a huge difference between Trump and Harris’s statements on Palestine.
Harris can pull her own lever anytime she wants, and that lever is to stop the weapons shipments. She then earns enough progressive votes to win, saving everyone, instead of looking for all the Dem voters to save her while she supports a far right war thats costing her a lot of votes.
How you get that I am a trump supporter from what I said is hard to imagine. But I think you’re just making it up to have something … anything, to attack with.
You need to work on your metaphors, and your basic reasoning, and your rhetoric. If you are going to call people names at least make it interesting and consistent with reality. Otherwise you are just boring.
Harris can pull her own lever anytime she wants
Harris isn’t President!
Trump has called for the extermination of all of Palestine.
Nope, you cannot blame someone for something they didn’t do
I live in California, if I don’t vote it doesn’t support Trump at all, the electoral votes go onto the Democrats if I vote for them, vote for Trump, or write in SpongeBob, it doesn’t fucking matter
If you live in a swing state then your point stands better, but I’m so fucking sick of this authoritarian “idgaf where you are if you didn’t vote exactly how I want you to then I’ll be a real pissy bitch about it” shit because I don’t like to vote in line with authoritarians
There was no retribution in the meme. Only that the person would be remembered for their lack of action.
What would you think of me if I saw your house catch fire and instead of calling the fire department, I watched your pets burn to death?
There was no retribution in the meme
Cute that you want to pretend that “well remember this false thing about you” isn’t an implicit threat
What would you think of me if I saw your house catch fire and instead of calling the fire department, I watched your pets burn to death?
Not a very good hypothetical as you can actually do something there
Its cute how hard youll grasp for a reason to justify the authoritarianism though. Gross, but cute
It’s not false. Through inaction they allowed something bad to happen. You want to have it both ways.
Not a very good hypothetical as you can actually do something there
As if you can’t vote?
Even if you are in solid Blue State, an overwhelming majority against Trump will send a message to the next fascist attempt.
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).
This is exactly why we need ranked choice voting.
Winner takes all essentially demoralizes and alienates voters and drives people who agree with each other to fight because they’re trapped in a broken system.
So instead of fighting the system, it’s easier to just blame other people and alienate more of them against your cause, shooting yourself in the foot with ignorance. It’s kind of disgusting.
Unrelated to the message - that’s a bad use of the meme, doesn’t fit at all.
As non-american I agree you guys should definitely vote Harris, despite Dems being terrible Trump would absolutely be worse on each topic Dems are bad. That being said, rethoric of this post is straight up facist. Using threats of personal consequences for “wrongly” exercising ones right to vote is wild.
I’ll vote Dem, but I am ashamed beyond measure of the Dem party. Despite the public doing all they can to stop Trump, the actual candidates running against Trump are sitting on their asses and refusing to take serious action. This “Blue Wave” is not approval FOR Harris-Walz, but rather DISAPPROVAL for Trump. Dems are ultimately more responsible for fascism in the U.S. than their voters.
All in all, the entire United States Government is at fault. This is just one reason why I want an independent Cascadia.
Interesting how everyone blames the people and not the corporate party that doesn’t represent the people. If Democrats are struggling to get leftist votes then I suggest they do things that will make leftists vote for them.
If you have a problem with this line of reasoning then your actual problem is first past the post voting.
Abolish first past the post voting and you can finally actually vote for things you like, rather than against things you hate, but we’re stuck in first past the post voting, so, you must vote strategically.
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.
So is a vote for anyone other than trump a vote for Harris?
No. There are less Republican voters. That’s why a non/3rd party vote benefits Trump more than Harris.
I am a libertarian minarchist. Look it up before you form ideas.
I don’t like Harris but I’d much rather have her over Trump. And that’s how I’ll vote.
I strongly recommend everyone should research your local elections and vote for candidates that best represent your views and mindsets on a local level. The FPtP system makes third parties mostly unviable in influencing national policy.
I too will vote Harris, but I think it’s important to understand that voting out of fear is not going to fix our extremely broken two party system. Voting third party is not a vote for Trump, I think it’s often a vote born of a broken two party system.
Despite knowing that I can’t bring myself to vote third party out of fear that I may not get another chance to vote if Trump takes power.
That is the system though. Democracy isn’t really about getting what you want. That’s impossible under any system other than a dictatorship where you are the dictator. Parasocial psychology has lead a lot of people thinking that Trump getting what he wants is what they want. But that won’t work out well for anyone.
Democracy is really about removing the worst people from power and preventing them from getting power in the first place. Over many years in something akin to natural selection you can have progress. But like evolution, it goes slowly.
Voting third party isn’t a brave choice, it’s just a fantasy. Even in a proportional representation system, it’s still a fantasy, just you’d see maybe a few powerless people sitting in a legislature complaining on C-Span (which nobody will watch) instead of on social media.
Politics is about power and compromise. Vote for a representative that has a reasonable chance of winning, and write to them to encourage them to compromise closer to your position on things. That’s actually effective, people that go on about a fantasy world where they just tick a box and whatever they want will happen are just being silly.
Voting is the feedback part of the system. If people aren’t voting honestly, politicians will take the wrong feedback. For example, democrats thinking they should move to the center to reach more republicans, rather than moving the the left to reach more third party voters.
The feedback part of the system is actually writing (or calling, or participating in public forums) to your representative. Voting is about choosing a representative that will most likely consider your point of view.
To the left of the Democrats are unreliable voters and everyone knows that. They might vote Democrat, or third party, or be “uncommitted” depending on whatever meme they last saw on social media. The Democrats know that which is why they aren’t putting a lot of effort to get those votes because it likely won’t bear any fruit. The GOP knows that too, which is why they fund people like Jill Stein.
Obviously the Democrats are going to shift right to try to entice reliable voters to vote for them. People that are a little more mature and are not living in a fantasy world where voting third party or being uncommitted are going to have any kind of positive outcome. People that understand the system well enough to know that you’re supposed to vote for someone that could feasibly win, and then write about their concerns to their representative rather than spending all day whining on social media about the system not being what they want it to be.
I disagree, the feedback comes after their actions, not before.
As for why the democrats aren’t pursuing third party voters, is because to do so would run afoul of AIPAC, and they can get politicians removed from office. Thats something your average voter cannot do. Democrats are hoping to ignore the issue as best they can until after the election, a real lose-lose.
You are right they are moving right to get voters but not based on maturity or likelihood to vote. They are simply moving right because thats where the numbers are, which is why I argue that the bigger the third parties are the more of a counter balance that is until it tips into a three party system.
If you can get past antisemitic conspiracy theories about AIPAC you’ll find out it’s a group of Jewish American citizens and they have exactly as much right to representation as you do. There are a lot of people in the pro-Palestinian movement that are in this “uncommitted” movement which is an attempt to threaten politicians with removal from office if they don’t change foreign policy to help their side in a foreign conflict. How is what the pro-Palestinian movement is trying to do any different from what AIPAC does? The only difference is AIPAC is significantly more competent at doing what the pro-Palestinian movement is trying to do. Also the pro-Palestinian movement has an antisemitism problem that they’re in denial of which means they’re doing nothing to address. So it’s obvious to any politician which of these groups they’ll be happy to associate with and which group they’ll generally avoid. The pro-Palestinian movement has to fix their problems to be able to have any kind of influence.
Third parties are simply not viable in the current system. There is a proposal to have ranked choice voting at least for congress, but it’s currently lacking the votes needed to pass. That would make third parties at least possible in congress. I’ll give you one guess about which party has proposed it.
Its shocking how little you understand what is happening in Israel and Palestine, but I’m tired today so have a nice day.
I’ve written to many of my state and federal legislators over the span of 20+ years. it’s not effective. We need campaign finance before, we need to overturn citizens United, and we need to change our two party system.
I understand your perspective but I disagree on some points.
“Even in a proportional representation system”
In a proportional system votes for other candidates aren’t lost tho, which means it doesn’t force a two party system by design.
I don’t think it is stated enough how horribly weak the current US one seat FPTP system is.Proportional representation grants all power to political parties and eliminates the representative nature that a community representation (what you call FPTP) system offers. And the votes of the parties that aren’t in the ruling coalition are lost and therefore the votes of anyone that voted for those parties are also lost.
You dont even get a representative by 2., 3. and 4. candidate votes in the 1 seat districts. Your vote is actually worth zero if it doesn’t win. My 7th party vote goes towards a party representative that can voice my cause. My vote is not lost at all.
You always have a representative in a community representation system. It may not be the person you voted for, but there is someone that’s supposed to represent your community. If they don’t do a good job of that then they get voted out in the next election. Parties don’t want to lose seats so they’re incentivized to pick people that are capable of representing community interests. This is why you get oddities where people like Josh Hawley speaking loudly against programs like FEMA, but also accepting FEMA money when his district needs it. Push comes to shove, they have to represent their communities.
Also because the seat belongs to the person (not the party as in a PR system) a party could lose a seat even between elections if they fail to serve the interests of a community. So if a party is doing something that’s really bad for your community, then you may not even wait until the next election for them to lose a seat.
In a PR system, you vote for a party that isn’t part of the ruling coalition, you have no representation at all. Because it’s not a good representative system. The power lies solely in the parties forming the ruling coalition, If you can get 50% + 1 votes for your party by screwing over minorities your party rules the country. PR systems have more of a tendency towards radical right wing politics because there’s less need to represent minority interests. In a Community Representation system if even five members of a party are in close districts in communities with a significant number of minorities that might be the deciding factor that can change party policy.
And this isn’t really theoretical either. The EU is PR and has countries leaving because they don’t feel represented and they’ve taking a turn towards the extreme right. Israel has a PR system and it’s current ruling coalition is made up of a right wing party that has to make concessions to extreme right parties to stay in power. Before claiming PR is better than a community representation system then I suggest closing the spreadsheet for a few minutes and look at the real world track record of PR systems. I’ve had conversations with people in Europe that are a little jealous of us for having community representation.
Of course any democratic system will fail without participation of the people. So make sure you go and vote.
It may not be the person you voted for, but there is someone that’s supposed to represent your community.
That’s a weird take on politics. “Hitler comes from my place so he represents me.”
As a non-EU European I vote on country politics at the national elections, and local politics at the county elections. That way I have local representation in local matters, and national representation at national matters.
The current right wing surge in Europe is mostly because people don’t like the amount of Muslim immigrants and most countries have only far right parties that rides on that matter. Plus Russian influence I assume.You do not get a good political landscape with one seat districts that can even be gerrymandered. Every fucking US state house is divided in DEM and REP, that’s not healthy.
It literally exactly is a vote for trump. We have shown you morons the math a million times by now, you’re just being willfully resistant to acknowledging what you’re doing to endanger the republic.
Is that based on the assumption third party voters would vote democrat otherwise? If I would either not vote or vote third party, how does my vote help trump?
Maybe the democrats shouldnt count votes they don’t have?
Because under FPTP no vote or a third party vote is identical to a vote for the opposing candidate.
Maybe you should stop trying to justify being a fucking traitor.
So just saying that out loud makes it true, got it. You’ve convinced me I’m wrong.
When the options are democracy or dictatorship and you choose not to vote… it’s kinda gross. I get that you got a failure of a system over there, but the fight to update your democracy should be done after you choose to have one.
It depends where you live. In my very local area my vote counts, and so it goes to democrats. If you are in a republican state, I can’t think of anything better than Democrats coming in third place there. If the democrats had a bigger third party to worry about they’d start having to move left or at least stop moving right to win voters.
That 3. party better be Election Reform.
Settle down and re-read what I wrote. I’m not voting for Trump. I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say a third party is crucial for our Republic.
The math has been explained to you endlessly. You can’t escape voting for either Harris or Trump because you want to pretend you’re above it all and superior to us who have to live with the consequences of supposed good people like you standing there and doing nothing.
I again think you need to settle down. I am not voting third party because I like you apparently will just view out of fear.
That said, The math had not been explained to me so show it to me. post it for anyone who agrees with me. Show me the math.
Next you’ve decided that I have some feeling of superiority. I don’t. I simply think the two party system has failed us and needs to change. People in power have a stake in keeping a two party system for their own benefit, and it infuriates me.
No, I think their tone is completely warranted. Frankly I, too, am sick and fucking tired of seeing this shit plastered all over this website. You are a scourge.
It’s not even math. You need 270 electoral votes to win. They are not on enough state ballots to do that. It is literally not possible for them to win.
They disappear, and then every four years they emerge from whatever hole they were rotting in, to siphon votes from Democratic party candidates. It really is that simple.
Political parties don’t become successful by disappearing, and showing up for a few months every four years. That’s not how it works. Just put some critical thought into it.
You have every right to be sick and tired of this but it doesn’t make you right. Currently they have a zero chance to win but there are rules set in place by the Dems and Reps that prevent them from competing. If a third party candidate can poll at 15 percent for instance they’ve surpassed that barrier to entry into a national debate. There are other hurdles too but constantly voting out of fear makes this impossible.
https://www.debates.org/about-cpd/overview/
In addition saying they emerge as if their only goal is to circumvent the election isn’t true at all. You can see a list of non affiliated candidates working for people all year at the link below.
https://ballotpedia.org/Current_independent_and_minor_party_federal_and_state_officeholders
The only way things change is if more people are informed and active. Do what you can to help implement ranked choice voting.
The state of Florida outlawed rank choice voting
Which is the exactly why you should be working to overturn such an undemocratic law.
Agreed. I’ve voted in every election I’ve been able to for 20 years, and I try to have reasonable conversations about things like this with people on the other side of the aisle. It becomes a bit demoralizing and I’m a bit disillusioned.
Last map I saw like half of the states have banned it.
Makes sense. There two party system is vehicular to the existing two parties. Why give a third option.
Honestly I think fears of a dictatorial takeover are way overblown. Not that I think he doesn’t want to, I just think he can’t, and even if he did I think it’d be 5min before he was shot by someone close to him (probably one of his own “security” team tbh.) And if that fails then a $100 price on his head and a greenlight is all we really need to get the job done by a private citizen, hell increase the reward and some of his own supporters will join in, they have no scruples.
I’m not saying we should vote for him, I’m just saying I don’t think we have to worry as much as some people think we do.
I underestimated Trump in 2016 because I figured it couldn’t be worse than the US under Dubya.
It’s not so much that the guy is a cunning strategist who will shrewdly consolidate power until no one is able to stop the purges and death squads.
Moreso it’s that he is just a magnet for disaster and bullshit, and being in power makes it easier for those under him to do whatever they want. His very existence enables that “mask off” behavior we see from other far-right politicians and personalities, and it’s those sorts of people who are empowered by Trump that we should be worried about if he wins again.
Sure like I said I’m not saying he’s great, I’m speaking specifically on the oft repeated line “it’ll be the end of democracy.”
Basically: I doubt that.
…i’m a progressive libertarian: the terms used represent something entirely different from the perversion of twenty-first-century political branding…
…i’ve begrudgingly voted democratic in the past two election cycles only because i draw a hard line at open fascism; i’ll never forgive the republican party for forcing my hand and look forward to a future after they’ve imploded and i can resume voting for causes i support rather than the enemy of my enemy…
Much respect.
Negging is a normal and effective way to pursuade people. Things must be going great for you.
Abstaining or voting third party is an exercise of choice. If you want your candidate to win, vote for them, as we all should do.
Vote for the candidate you support. If you don’t support any, you can choose not to vote.
These aren’t memes they’re shite propaganda
