She said to vote straight Dem ticket while at a really meant to bring out support for Harris. This article is intended to sow division instead of report in an accurate context.
Thank you for your service! This makes perfect sense. I was wondering if this was similar to Uncommitted’s non-endorsement of Harris, where they declined to explicitly endorse her due to Gaza but basically said everyone needs to out and vote for her anyways - and you answered this for me.
Whilst I respect her view on the situation in Gaza, is this not cutting your nose off to spite your face? There will be NO ability to influence a Trump and more broadly Republican government unlike a Democrat one. In fact under Trump you will see more overt support for Israel and even worse a contraction of US involvement in the situation to temper aggression. Also, given Trump’s war like provaclivity in the past, with authorising a strike in Iran, it is likely going increase the likelihood of escalation and a more widespread conflict.
100% and it takes a pretty shallow view to think otherwise.
I’d say entitled is a more apt description.
Only if you think you are going to get what you are going to need with Democrats. And we have Democrats. And we’re not getting what we need.
Sometimes you have to do things the hard way. Rashida’s job depends on her extolling the will of her constituents. Her job is to represent them not a brand called the DNC. If the DNC can’t be in the right on this matter, it truly is their problem.
I think after this cycle we see the progressive block moving back to being ‘independents’, since Democrats have proven to be an unreliable/ worthless caucus member. Which is fine. There is probably more power on the outside right now.
I think after this cycle we see the progressive block moving back to being ‘independents’
The thing is, we need to start jockeying for position immediately. Don’t wait until presidential campaigns start rolling around in 3 years before signalling a departure. These things take years to pick up steam.
Isn’t that what this article is signalling? This is Talib breaking, imo, in the strongest manner possible with the party.
Talib is a Democrat not endorsing the Democrat for president. This might be Talib doing what Talib thinks she needs to do to hold her seat.
Perhaps you are right and she is the beginning of it. It will be interesting to see if she picks up a lot more support once the election is over and the focus is no longer on blocking Trump.
Progressives need to start campaigning for the 2028 primaries as soon as possible. We cannot let the genocide wing of the party claim to have a mandate.
lol, this again? God, you’re relentless in your staunch belief that pouring more effort into the problem will solve it.
This is how you burn out your constituents. Iteration after iteration of failing while refusing to change tactics.
Ooh. Tell us again how we just have to wait for RCV to come along before progressives can do anything. I was wondering what the next “just wait until after” was going to be once the 2024 election had passed. You’re jumping the gun a bit.
Iteration after iteration of failing while refusing to change tactics.
Actually preparing for a primary as early as possible IS changing tactics. Primarying a sitting incumbent instead of meekly accepting the incumbent IS changing tactics. Accepting the constantly sliding timetable of delay tactics from centrist party leadership is NOT changing tactics. It’s what got us here.
They did so since last year. This is not last second not unexpected.
It’s a bold move. I suppose if you let in the guy who 100% supports the genocide and they go through in full with it, then you no longer have the problem 🤷♂️
So… Both parties then?
Edit: both parties support this genocide 100%.
If you want to differentiate between Trump and Harris, you need to use a different policy position to do so. Gaza isn’t it.
Every Palestinian American who has lost a cousin to an American bomb after reading your comment:
I get it. I get it that you are intentionally trying to not understand what is happening right now. But your lack of understanding doesn’t change what is hapening.
This isn’t ‘A cousin’ situation.
I have multiple friends who’ve lost the entirety of their extended families.
Aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and grandparents gone in a day.
The jackasses going around calling people ‘entitled’ for not supporting the party directly responsible for erasing their entire families from existence are entitled to be able to go through life with absolutely no empathy or imagination.
The thing about voting for Harris is that if she wins while endorsing genocide it signals to the DNC that their constituents are either pushovers who can’t make demands of their elites or okay with genocide. There’s a very real argument that setting this precedent is going to be worse for America than four years of Trump with a Democrat Senate (assuming democrat voters don’t drop the ball on Senate elections) that’s doing opposition instead of cheering on the genocide. If the Dems know they can ignore their constituents and win, they’ll pander a lot more to Republicans and hasten the decay of American democracy.
Note: I say genocide because this is the most important issue to Muslim voters, but it could be immigration, the lack of a primary, or any other DNC nonsense this election cycle.
The thing about voting for Harris is that if she wins while endorsing genocide it signals to the DNC that their constituents are either pushovers who can’t make demands of their elites or okay with genocide.
Centrists know this. They’re angry because progressives are not pushovers who are ok with genocide.
We need a competitive primary in 2028. We didn’t get one this year.
No, centrists who are against the genocide are over here thinking, you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face. The president isn’t a dictator, the country isn’t a monolith, and you don’t understand how the three chambers of US government works.
But hey maybe that’s the point, you’d rather destroy the system and get a dictator. I love having the freedom I have and it’s served me pretty well these years. I support the cause, but I’m not willing to walk with you if it means the end of democracy.
I’ll ask: What’s your plan when another Trump surfaces for years later? Will you still say vote blue no matter who? What about the four years after? Do you think the Democrats will listen to a constituency that will vote blue while they ignore them and refuse to even hold a primary?
What’s your plan when Trump wins this time? Why won’t that plan still work in 4 years if another Trump does surface? Unless you don’t have a plan and just want to rip the band aid off to get it over with. I don’t like how the DNC operates and we need to work to change it but if Trump gets elected with no plan in place to control him he will just wipe Gaza off the map and build a golf course where it used to be.
What’s your plan when Trump wins this time?
I mean I’m not American so my plan is to watch either way, but I’d hope the plan is to pressure the DNC to push actually electable candidates, hold real primaries and not ignore their constituents. I mean, I don’t expect that to happen because Democrat voters have proven time and time again to be spineless and incapable of organizing—which is what allows the DNC to get away with this nonsense—but that’s what I’d do if I was a politically active American.
Why won’t that plan still work in 4 years if another Trump does surface?
The current DNC and Democrat voters’ unwillingness to challenge it create an inherently unsustainable system that will only end with a Trump victory and the erasure of democracy (likely) or the DNC managing to push through the waves of Trumps while moving rightwards, picking up Republican policies while not allowing democracy to function until America effectively ceases to be a democracy (unlikely due to the first possibility, but possible). That’s my problem with the “shut up and vote for her” stuff: It assumes that there’s a light at the end of the bootlicking tunnel. Y’all need a way to get the DNC back on track and you need it fast, because this is a version of the gambler’s ruin where instead of money you’re gambling democracy and, to make matters worse, lose democracy even if you win the bet.
I mean I’m not American so my plan is to watch either way
So you don’t really have a stake in this.
Y’all need a way to get the DNC back on track and you need it fast, because this is a version of the gambler’s ruin where instead of money you’re gambling democracy and, to make matters worse, lose democracy even if you win the bet.
No, you’re the one gambling democracy because Trump winning right now would guarantee an attack on all the institutions we have in place to try and maintain democracy in the US. If you’re confident those institutions will hold and be able to curtail Trumps plans to subvert democracy then sure, none of this matters. But if you aren’t confident in the US Supreme Court and Congress then it’s foolish to think Trump will just leave after 4 years if he wins this time.
Sure, my plan:
- Donate & Volunteer to candidates I support
- Vote for candidates I support in the primaries
- Get as many of those people elected
- Call them and donate to causes that advocate for what I believe in (SLPC, NAACP, CCL, EFF, etc)
- Call them and donate to causes that advocate for ranked choice voting or something better than FPTP
- Throw my hat in the ring one day
I can’t control what others do, I can only strive to influence others. So to entertain the question, if a dictator gets elected - I will fight, I will protest (and have) up until the point that I can’t or it no longer presents as a viable option for change. And if we do ever get to that point, then I’d reassess my options.
And as for your ignore constituency statement, I get it. I didn’t like the way it went down either. The timing was terrible - I was with Joe up until that disastrous debate and then yea, I started to call people and voice my concern. I responded to survey saying he was unfit. Morale was low. The powers that be decided on Kamala, and I stand by much of her platform. I liked her as a top candidate in 2016.
And I’ll just present you with this idea. Wouldn’t it be so lovely to bookend this racist moron and all of his racist followers with a black man preceding him and a black woman after? I think that gives me a little bit of hope and faith in America.
I guess I just don’t have enough faith in democrat voters to do anything like this in large enough numbers, but I hope for the sake of the rest of the world that they do.
No, centrists who are against the genocide
Don’t exist.
are over here thinking, you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Already voted for Harris.
But hey maybe that’s the point, you’d rather destroy the system and get a dictator.
Already. Voted. For. Harris.
I support the cause,
Whose?
but I’m not willing to walk with you if it means the end of democracy.
I already voted for Harris.
Chance of Harris getting tough on Israel? Maybe 30%
Chance of Trump getting tough on Israel? 0%. Maybe even a negative % because he basically already gave them pointers on having a quieter genocide.
Chance of Harris getting tough on Israel? Maybe 30%
I have seen nothing that indicates that this number is that high. Or nonzero.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politics/harris-netanyahu-israel-hamas-ceasefire
She somewhat reversed course on this since then but I hope that’s due to the shitty reality of AIPAC and other Jewish and Israeli lobbying groups being a powerful group to mess with in an election year.
Expressing “serious concern” and continuing the brutal status quo is no different from Biden’s current stance.
Except Biden is a lame duck so he has less reason to hide his true feelings on the matter. I think Kamala has “moved to the center” on a few other issues as well so I’m hopeful her admin won’t just keep the status quo.
We need a party that can say no to genocide. If that can’t be the Democrats, then so be it. I’m not sure where this goes, but the American political landscape is forever changed after this election.
The problem is this:
Democrats want a peaceful solution to the Genocide.
Republicans want a faster, more complete genocide.
One of those two parties is going to lead for the next four years.
Since when has a genocide ever ended peacefully?
Democrats want a peaceful solution to the Genocide.
They certainly say they do.
This is provably a lie.
They can end the genocide right now. Implying that they can’t is trying (and failing) to provide them cover for committing a genocide. And yes, continuing to provide weapons to the grunts doing the work doesn’t absolve them of the moral responsibility for it, nor does it provide them enough cover to pretend that genocide isn’t the outcome they want.
No, they can’t, because they aren’t engaging in the genocide and Israel doesn’t need our help to commit it.
Israel absolutely can’t do this without our weapons.
This is an objective provable fact.
Why do you believe that Israel ended every other war of aggression when there US forced them to end it.
Where do you think their money for weapons comes from?
Where do you think their weapons comes from?
I can’t tell it you’re lying intentionally to justify genocide, lying unintentionally because you are just fantastically uninformed about the regions history, or just flat out delusional.
Whatever the reason, you’re wrong. Biden could end this with a single phone call. You know, like has happened multiple times in the past. Because even if you don’t want to acknowledge the truth, Israel is aware of its absolute dependence on America.
Now onto the genocide bit. Actually, I can’t. At this point it is so blindingly obvious it is it’s like trying to argue with someone claiming the sun doesn’t exist.
I’m revising my opinion about your choice to lie about how much control the US has over Israeli adventurism.
Israel can, and absolutely does, do this without our weapons. Sniper bullets are stupid cheap:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/09/09/israel-snipers-shot-killing-civilians-west-bank/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war
But the real proof is that the response to October 7th began instantly, before we even approved a dime of support, much less delivered it.
That is plain copium. Every political scientist worth their salt has said American support is essential to the modern Israeli state. America has been bombing Yemen, defending Israel diplomatically from the wider world and their neighbors and giving them billions of dollars. All naturalization treaties between Israel and its neighbors wouldn’t have been possible or sustainable without American support.
American support is essential to the Israeli state, in response to aggression from Iran and other sources which is why we continue to provide it, it’s NOT essential to the genocide, which Israel is fully capable and willing to commit with their own resources.
Responding to multiple unprovoked acts of war from Israel is not aggression.
Bombing a countries embassy in a third party nation is an act of war.
Assassinating a visiting ambassador in Iran’s capital is an act of war.
The only reason Iran didn’t respond to the first is because the US promised them a peace deal.
Edit:
No, they can’t, because they aren’t engaging in the genocide and Israel doesn’t need our help to commit it.
American support is essential to the Israeli state, in response to aggression from Iran and other sources which is why we continue to provide it, it’s NOT essential to the genocide, which Israel is fully capable and willing to commit with their own resources.
Which is it? Are they committing a genocide or not?
Israel is engaging in genocide, Americans are not. It’s two different countries.
Just because someone presents something as if there are a limited number of possibilities or outcomes, its important to keep in mind, this is often just a result of their framing. Its often more reflective of their incomplete thinking on a situation than it is reality, and cynically, its a kind of rhetorical slight of hand often used to keep a narrative structured in such a way that only certain outcomes are possible.
Democrats, and more importantly, their voters, have proven to be cowards in the face of doing the right thing. Demanding little and less from a party as weak as the Democrats has left a lane wide open. I think we’ll see that lane taken over the next couple of years.
Its often more reflective of their incomplete thinking on a situation than it is reality, and cynically, its a kind of rhetorical slight of hand often used to keep a narrative structured in such a way that only certain outcomes are possible.
Nobody is saying that another outcome isn’t possible, but no other outcome than Trump or Harris in this election is remotely plausible.
So my good faith question to you is, what do you think should be done in this election that plausibly leads to a better outcome than a Harris vote? Open-ended question, no barriers.
Nobody is saying that another outcome isn’t possible,
I mean, the person i’m responding to is. And we’re not talking about this election cycle.
But since you asked in good faith, I’ll at least respond to how I think things might shape up going forwards. Its going to take a minute so I put up a quick response and will @[email protected] here so you get it when I’m finished.
So in 2016 Bernie Sanders broke through a barrier as an independent who suddenly, a crotchety old white guy from a very white state, almost single handedly swooped in to scoop up the Democratic nod from, perhaps the most insider of party insiders, Hillary Clinton. He did so with a rag tag coalition of black, brown, lgbtq+, anti-war, and primarily progressive voters. Bernie Sanders showed that there was a viable path, where by focusing on groups not serviced by mainstream parties, you could build a coalition of voters and represent a very material electoral threat to a party structure that up until that time had proven to be unassailable. Bernie Sanders did this with an almost laser guided focus on polices which addressed the criticisms of the post-2008 era, who felt jaded and misabused by the faux economic populist/ actually corporatism politics of Obama.
At the same time, we saw a similar story play out on the Republican side of the coin. However, unlike Democrats, Republicans were not so competent in their ability to “manage” their party process internally (read: in-spite of all efforts, they couldn’t steal it from Trump the way D’s stole it from Bernie). The result was that the nationalist populist won the nomination, and would go on to win the election.
Between here and there, we had covid. So that was a bit of a zinger. Threw quite the unpredictable wrench in things. 2020 election cycle rolled in and we had basically a similar match up as we did in 2016. And again it looked like Bernard was going to be the nominee; until super Tuesday (the weekend before which 3 nominees all simultaneously ‘dropped’ out to endorse Biden). Stolen again. But this time would be different. While Biden got the nod, Bernie got the platform. Instead of burning the bridges like Hillary before him, Biden built a bridge to the now-self-evident progressive populist wing of the party. And he basically gave them control of the platform, which ended up being one of the most progressive platforms in the history of American electoral politics. And it worked! The coalition defeated Trump, even if it performed worse than perhaps polling indicated.
So now we’re in 2024. Harris makes her first move to the left with a couple announcements and the Waltz pickup. Her polling is like, mooning. Her early august number seriously looked like she could get into the 55’s by election day. During the convention, she makes a rightward pivot, and continues that through the convention and then, in-spite of declining poll numbers, keeps leaning to the right. We’ll see Tuesday how all that turns out, but with these things in mind we can make a couple of conclusions.
First, the American people are desperate for a change, an basically have been needing to scream with no mouth to do so since 2008. Trump in 2016 was a brick through the window of a two party system which simply isn’t interested in the opinions of its voters. Its clear to many voter that since almost 2008 (next Presidential election will represent 20 years), the voters of the Democratic party have either had their will suppressed or have been outright ignored.
This election cycle, had Biden not stepped down, and if West and Stein had been able to resolve their issues, I think we could have seen the greens making a legitimate stab at taking the presidency. That being said, I don’t think the greens are a particularity good party, but I do understand for strategic reasons why you just shoot for an office like the presidency when you have limited resources. The key here is that the American electorate is still looking for that better option and have been since the year 2008 when so many people in the US saw their lives turned upside down, to have never really recovered since. This is what opens up that lane. Its the grievance politics of the left, and one dismisses it at their peril. I think Talib and Omar, and maybe Porter; any Democrats that have been ratfucked by the party: becoming Independents may represent the most viable path forwards.
So this got a bit shaggy and rambly, and I haven’t really slept in days. But long and short of it, the Democrats leave a lane open because there are legitimate grievances left unaddressed by the existing party structure. I would put very, very good money that this lane gets taken (if we still have elections) in 2026/ 2028.
I agree with pretty much all of the substance of what you said. I agree, the democratic party, when feeling pressure in a presidential election, always move right instead of left. And that ends up often being the wrong choice. I think I’m just not sure we are reaching the same conclusions - if your post means you feel a non-Harris vote is rational, which maybe I am misunderstanding.
There are two issues if so.
First - and again, I don’t even know if we disagree on this - is that voting for third party candidates and hoping to shoot the moon with democratic support flipping to, e.g., green (which I feel is a joke/spoiler party in this country, not even legitimate, but just for example) just does not work in a FPTP election. Maybe you can infiltrate the Democratic party, and by force or subterfuge wear its skin over your effectively-new-party candidate - which is exactly what Trump did with the GOP. But a separate left party is at such a disadvantage mathematically that it almost assures victory for the competing right-wing party for one more more elections (which is not an option right now). And then, if by some chance it succeeds, the same people who were “democrats” will fill into the new party, immediately diluting whatever novel left-wing power it had.
Second, is that even if it’s illegitimately birthed, the right-wing propaganda alternate-reality pipeline is a hard anchor that makes left candidates legitimately fear that their blue-collar-friendly policies will be twisted by a Fox News into “communism” or never reach their blue-collar audience, leading to those voters to vote irrationally. For example, I have a different take on Biden, which is that Biden won precisely because he was able to backdoor in messaging about left policies while also appealing to the “moderate” right by being an old white guy who “reached across the aisle.” He certainly never had the image of Bernie, a left populist. And the low-info “vibe” voters that likely made a difference wouldn’t dig into policies to see if he was “left” enough anyway.
My take is it’s the wrong target to look at left policy as an “open lane,” or even the “long term” vision of losing a few elections to establish a third party (even without Trump, who changes the election to a referendum on democracy rather than policy). Looking at it that way is just arguing why it’s valuable enough to bet it all at the roulette table. But the house always has an advantage - the game itself needs changing to an actual functional multi-party democracy.
We get there by pressuring and choosing primary candidates not on left policies, but singularly, laser-focused on ranked choice voting, elimination of the electoral college, and on creating a truth-in-news law that will leash right-wing propaganda. Pretty much no candidates are even talking about those items regularly, much less campaigning on it, which means we are choosing the wrong candidates to change anything.
Theres like, way to much to un-pack under all of this, so I’m just gonna hit the highs.
First - and again, I don’t even know if we disagree on this - is that voting for third party candidates and hoping to shoot the moon with democratic support flipping to, e.g., green (which I feel is a joke/spoiler party in this country, not even legitimate, but just for example) just does not work in a FPTP election.
Yeah I don’t think we agree on that. The whole spoiler mythology has been thoroughly debunked. Also, there is a strong strategic reason why the green party focuses on only the presidential race. Its a test of your knowledge of the American political process if you know what that is. Blaming 3rd parties for the political failings of a major parity is so utterly naive, it needs far more time/ space than we have here to address. Hillary’s failures in 2016 were her own, just like Gores failure to go through the appropriate hurdles and demand a proper recount in Florida. Democrats failures are squarely to blame for two of the worst election outcomes we’ve ever had in this country. Blaming third parties when only 60% of the population votes is such a ridiculous notion, we can just write it off.
Second, is that even if it’s illegitimately birthed, the right-wing propaganda alternate-reality pipeline is a hard anchor that makes left candidates legitimately fear that their blue-collar-friendly
Ok, you need to separate out the concept of Left from Democrat. Conservative Democrats behave the way you just describe and struggle because they are chasing the same lanes as their republican opponents. But most of the successes on the Democratic side in the previous 20 years arent’ in that lane. They are on the other side of the party in the actually left side of the left, that caucuses with the Democrats, but really didn’t find their way into the party till 2016. The fact is that centrism/ moderate appeal is a demonstrated-to-fail strategy over the previous 6 election cycles. And frankley, the same is true for Republican. Neither party does well running to the center because there are no voters in the center. The electorate is, by and large, bimodal at this point. And the important point is that when you at least run, and signal and put on the fan fair thats required to drive out your base, you win (See Obama 08,12, Bernie 16, Biden 20 for examples of running to the left and winning, and see Kerry 04, Hillary 16 for counter examples).
My take is it’s the wrong target to look at left policy as an “open lane,” or even the “long term” vision of losing a few elections to establish a third party
Thats fine, but I dont really agree with the points you’ve made. And I’m also not even talking about necessarily forming a party. I’m not sure a third party is where the power is or is worth investing in. For example, I think Bernie had his greatest strength as an Independent. Its going to depend on how well the green’s do this time around (again for that secret reason that I know that 99% of lemmings don’t know about, because as much as they like to come down and spin their wheels, most lemmings really don’t know fuck about shit about politics). I gave you some hints where to look for that reason.
I guess I’m confused by this response. So you do think that one should vote for a third-party candidate in this election? Or not?
again for that secret reason that I know that 99% of lemmings don’t know about, because as much as they like to come down and spin their wheels, most lemmings really don’t know fuck about shit about politics
So as someone who admittedly knows nothing about politics, are you gonna tell us that reason or not?
Yup. This is what frustrates me here and especially the last year: everyone pretends as if Trump is the singular threat that - once defeated- we may move on to other more important things.
But Trump is a manifestation of a national disillusionment with electoral politics and a broader economic failure. We keep dismissing the progressive populism of the left, while the fascistic populism on the right grows to a fever pitch.
If tonight trump keels over from a stress induced aneurism, by tomorrow lunch an opportunistic upstart will take his place because conservatives are frothing at the mouth for retribution. If Republicans return to classical wasp conservatism now, they’ll lose the next decade of elections because half their voting base simply isn’t interested in stale fiscal policy anymore.
The longer democrats ignore the conditions creating that current of populism beyond the orbit of Big Orange, the shorter lived any victories they might squeeze out now will be. We’ll see what happens Tuesday, but i think the odds are leaning away for Harris. We might have to confront that failure sooner than we think.
Let me frame it this way then… in my lifetime, more electoral college votes have been awarded ACCIDENTALLY than have been won by a third party. That’s an absolute fact:
https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/12/enduring-mystery-america-s-last-faithless-elector/
The best shot a 3rd party had was with Ross Perot in 1992, how did that work out?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
Clinton - 44,909,889 - 43.0% - 370 EC
Bush - 39,104,550 - 37.4% - 168
Perot - 19,743,821 - 18.9% - 0No other 3rd party run has even been close.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election
Clinton - 47,401,185 - 49.2% - 379
Dole - 39,197,469 - 40.7% - 159
Perot - 8,085,294 - 8.4% - 0https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidential_election
Reagan - 43,903,230 - 50.7% - 489
Carter - 35,481,115 - 41.0% - 49
Anderson - 5,719,850 - 6.6% - 0https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election
Bush - 50,456,002 - 47.9% - 271*
Gore - 50,999,897 - 48.4% - 266*
Nader - 2,882,955 - 2.74% - 0* It was found, after Bush’s inauguration, that any correct re-counting of Florida would have awarded it to Gore.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
Perot in 1992 is what really drives home the point. He got nearly 20% of the popular vote but ZERO electoral college votes. Voting 3rd party simply isn’t reasonable given our current system.
Voting is like public transportation, get on the train going the direction that you want. In the off years work to make changes and organize, most people ignore the second part.
I like the bus analogy. You aren’t getting door to door service. You take the bus that gets you closest to your destination and put in the work to walk the rest of the way.
The Democratic bus gets you within a mile.
The Republican bus travels through the Twilight Zone and strands you in a post apocalyptic wasteland.
In the off years work to make changes and organize, most people ignore the second part.
And for some strange reason, some of the regular commenters here actively oppose this part in favor of telling us the solution is to let the GOP gain power and “send a message to the Democrats”.
Voting is like public transportation, get on the train going the direction that you want.
I hate this. It presupposes that the two trains are heading in different directions. They’re both headed to the same destination. One is an express train.
Plus it’s glib.
They’re both headed to the same destination. One is an express train.
I think we’re living in two different realities. If you can’t tell the difference I’m not sure how you even wrote this post.
Oh, which one is taking us further away from fascism? Because I’m not seeing one that is. I see one that’s hurtling headlong toward fascism and another that is coasting towards it.
I get that you want to pretend that the Democratic Party is making strides away from fascism, but they’re just fucking not.
Do you have a point you think you are making in regurgitating this? If so spit it out. Something I’ve seen repeatedly on lemmy is people for whom some answer, some framing is acceptable, being completely incapable of understanding that there are people for whom that framing isn’t acceptable. Also, to be clear, we’re talking about a congress-critter, not the big house in this article. Since thats the topic of the article, it would be appropriate to keep the discussion focused. The reality is that it doesn’t matter how small world your view of this matter is: there are other people in the world who think differently than you, and if you want to actually convince them, these tired tropes wont work.
My argument, is that Democrats have left a lane wide open, and from a purely strategic/ cynical view of things, it would be stupid for some-one/ anyone to not just hop in and take that lane. I think we see Talib, Omar, maybe Porter, any other progressives who’ve been ratfucked by the DNC/ DCCC take that lane as independents. Its a blue ocean/ wide open opportunity that rarely shows itself in politics.
The point is, the winner of our elections will be either the Democrat or the Republican. There is no viable 3rd choice.
So, you hold your nose and vote for whoever is closest to your view who will actually get elected to prevent the person farthest from your view from taking office.
And don’t give me that bullshit about “well, neither one is close to my view” because if Gore won in 2000 we wouldn’t have been attacked on 9/11 and burned trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if Clinton had won in 2016, we wouldn’t have a packed right wing Supreme Court and lost Roe.
Both sides are NOT the same, one is CLEARLY better than the other for you and everyone else.
Its like you are allergic to the plain understanding that how you present this case, is just fucking wrong. No matter how much you wish it was that there were only two choices in this race, thats just not true. You drank the kool-aid. We get it. You see no other options. Other people do. Other people in the world see things differently than you, and clearly, Rashida Tlaib is one of them.
Voters don’t have to vote. You can vote green, or blue, or red or purple. Or you can write in some other name. You can’t force your opinion on the world when your opinion doesn’t match objective reality.
This fantastic world you’ve locked yourself in, its not the real world. Its an opinion that you have (which is fine), but which is not the same as the objective reality, because people actually can (and should, my opinion) vote however they please.
Both sides are NOT the same, one is CLEARLY better than the other for you and everyone else.
I don’t disagree, but you @[email protected] , are going to have to take responsibility for the fact that this rhetorical approach you are using has done more damage to Harris’ chances than it has convinced anyone that they need to vote Democrat. Its a view point that has been cultivated, selected for across lemmy which is toxic, not based in reality, and counter productive to the actual goals you suppose to have. Everyone that thinks the way you do has been convinced. Now what are you going to do about the people who don’t think the way you do? How are you going to get the voters for whom a genocide is unacceptable? Its too late at this point, but what I’m showing you is how this this toxic culture divided the party and its ability
Blue MAGA/ Blue no matter who; they were always going to vote Democrat. You don’t need to work on them. They’re just followers and setting your rhetoric up to convince them is a waste of time, because you’ve already got their votes. Its the people for whom certain issues are a bridge too far that need to be convinced. And when you offer an argument that “they have no choice but to do what you want them to”, do you think that is going to convince them. When you abuse them and gaslight them, how convincing do you think they’ll find that?
I’m of the opinion that you can’t ask a Palestinian or Muslim voter to vote Democrat this year, since Democrats don’t even see them as people. They wouldn’t even allow a Muslim 3 minutes on stage to make the case to other Muslims why they should vote for Harris. What Tlaib is doing here is probably the right move politically if she wants to hold her seat. Her job is to represent her constituents, not the party, and if she thinks this is the right thing to do, I support her in that.
My argument, is that Democrats have left a lane wide open, and from a purely strategic/ cynical view of things, it would be stupid for some-one/ anyone to not just hop in and take that lane. I think we see Talib, Omar, maybe Porter, any other progressives who’ve been ratfucked by the DNC/ DCCC take that lane as independents. Its a blue ocean/ wide open opportunity that rarely shows itself in politics.
If the Democrats are going to keep heading to the right like Harris has, I expect more progressive Independents to start appearing, striking back to the approach that Bernie Sanders used to great effect in the senate over his tenure.
There are only two choices WHO CAN WIN.
Stein can’t win, the Greens don’t have the power and have NEVER had the power. Their best shot was Nader with name recognition and he couldn’t crack 3%.
Without Nader the very best they have done was 1.07% in 2016. Other than that? Sub 1% over, and over.
The Libertarian candidate could have pulled it out if disaffected Republicans had become Libertarians instead of Independents. Pro-Tip - they have not.
Kennedy’s out.
The idiot socialist isn’t even on the ballot in enough states to win.
West is on the ballot in fewer states than that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election
I agree, I’d love for our system to have multiple VIABLE parties, but we don’t. Your choice is the Democratic or Republican candidate, full stop.
If you want to change that, you aren’t going to do it by voting for fringe candidates who will get 1% of the vote or less.
The correct way to change it is to pass ranked choice balloting. If you have a chance to support that (we did, on our ballot!) then go for it!
She’s gonna love president Trump when there’s no Palestine left
deleted by creator
Fuckin dumb. Throwing american trans people in with the Palestinians getting alaughtered, and then turning up the slaughter dial by helping trump.
Not to mention the women denied healthcare for treatable complications during pregnancies because some republican senator/ lawyer said so.
The Palestinian American who likely lost or knows someone who lost family to Israel’s rampage is “fuckin dumb” while you’re a genius, got it.
Cute how many of you haven’t noticed Harris is pivoting against trans people already.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest, but I would like to see your evidence.
I was wrong actually apparently her anti trans stuff is longstanding 😒
It still wouldn’t surprise me, and I would still like to see your evidence.
