I don’t understand why these people who pretend to be supreme leftists are putting alt-right dogwhistles in the Democratic candidate’s name. I guess you can just call everyone you don’t like a Nazi when everyone who disagrees in your echo chamber gets banned.
I mean, they’re in there praising nations that are state capitalist and producing hundreds of billionaires, so it clearly isn’t the leftist economy part that they like.
They want Donald to win so that China and Russia can gain more global influence. I guess they are bad at propaganda and just forwarding what their MAGA allies invent or something. Makes sense, they all have the same goals this election.
Looks like rage bait/ trolling to me.
The thing is that it is on their own internal instance from which most other instances have defederated, so the audience they are trolling are mainly themselves. That kinda debunks the “they are only trolling/baiting” claims in my view.
And yet here we are, reading it and reacting to it
Florida has seen a huge increase of Republicans moving here from states where they were the underdogs. I expect a much wider margin in red favor this year. I would expect the compliment is true, that their states will have a wider blue margin. That is as long as they aren’t committing voter fraud in one or the other state.
Never understood the “throw your vote away” thing. Only one person will win. Almost 50% of people will not vote for them in any given election. Did they “throw their vote away” by not voting for the winner? That’s just what voting is.
In the US, the statement only truly applies when voting for a 3rd party, due to how our absolutely fucked FPTP + gerrymandered + electoral college system works, which additionally gives rural (predominantly conservative) areas disproportionately more electoral power. The bar is very literally higher for liberal (in the American sense of the term, not the European/global sense) presidential candidates. So if you vote green or socialist or whatever, you are absolutely voting against your ostensible interests in a statistically-provable sense.
I fear the expression leads to voter fatigue. Why bother if 65% votes one way and I’d vote the other. But what they don’t factor in is that if EVERYONE voted, those margins are small.
For me, I go through the motions under the assumption that the other side is going to show up in droves, and am then pleasantly surprised if they don’t and it’s not that close. But that’s the nature of voting - you don’t really know whether YOUR vote will “make the difference” until after the fact.
But realistically, it really doesn’t matter in more than 3/4 of the country, due to how the Electoral College works. If your preferred candidate lost by more than all third party votes combined, there’s zero way your vote could’ve changed anything.
And that’s the situation I live in. My state (Utah) almost always gives 65%+ of the vote to the R candidate. In 2016, Trump won w/ only 45% of the vote, but that’s because the other 20% or so went to Evan McMullin (Hilary got ~27% of the vote). I even tried voting Biden in 2020 because I figured people hated Trump enough (he got dead last in the primary here in 2016, below candidates that had already withdrawn), and I guess I helped because Trump only got 58% of the vote to Biden’s 38%. Excluding McMullin (basically a conservative), third parties got 5.5% in 2016 and 4.2% in 2020. I’d be very surprised if Trump gets less than 60% of the vote this election.
It really doesn’t matter who I vote for, so I make my vote count by voting third party. If they get enough votes, people will take them more seriously and politicians might take some of their policy positions.
If they get enough votes, people will take them more seriously and politicians might take some of their policy positions.
Eh, the best way to be taken seriously is relevant experience. Flight simulator enthusiasts don’t immediately become fighter pilots, frycooks don’t immediately become Michelin star Chefs, nurses don’t immediately become neurosurgeons.
President is a high level job with high complexity and high skill requirements. When a candidate’s highest office held is “community organizer”, that’s not a serious candidate and their policy positions don’t carry any credibility.
I’m absolutely for progressive policy, I just didn’t think voting 3rd party in the presidential election helps, even in shifting sentiment. What will help is relentlessly voting for progressive down ballot and locally. Get those community organizers into real political offices where they can build real experience and forward real policy.
Politics is a long game, trying to skip the middle stages is shooting yourself in the foot.
Oh absolutely. But you only get so many options for each position, so it’s best to maximize the utility of each of those votes.
In my case, pretty much every office will go to the GOP by a 20%+ margin. We used to have a competitive House district, but they gerrymandered that away and now every House seat is uncompetitive. In fact, many seats have no competition at all (my State House rep seat hasn’t been contested since I moved here, and the State Senate seat has been contested once). So I leave those uncontested seats empty or write-in (if write-in is an option), and I vote for the best candidate for the job for the other seats. What ends up happening is that my ballot looks something like this:
- 50% - biggest third party
- 25% - Democrat - occasionally a decent candidate runs
The rest are uncontested (e.g. State House) or non-partisan seats (e.g. school board).
And yes, it’s a long game, hence why I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when that lesser evil has zero chance to win.
I wouldn normally agree with you, but I think there are several red states that could be a lot more competitive this year.
Sure, I know Texas could be more competitive, and there may be others. That’s why I point out the vote spread, if it’s bigger than 10% in the past few elections, it’s not going to flip this year.
Totally agree. It’s like saying scoring a goal was a waste when your team still lost. Just score the damn goal and move on.
IMO people often attach way too much meaning to what a vote even is. It doesn’t mean that you are swearing fealty to or even agree with them, it literally just means you think that person is better for the seat. I vote in every single election for every single race, it’s just not even a consideration that someone wouldn’t live up to my moral code on every issue because that’s not what a vote even means to me. Vote early and vote often, and stop letting candidates define you.
While I strongly disagree with the dogwhistles here, it’s true. If your state voted for Trump or Clinton/Biden with >10% margin in the last two elections, there’s almost zero chance the Trump/Harris election will go any differently.
I personally dislike both major party candidates (but dislike Trump more) and since my state (Utah) voted for Trump with ~20% margin in both prior elections (even in 2016 w/ McMullin taking >20% of the vote), I feel comfortable voting my conscience. I even voted for Biden last election on the off-chance that people here hated Trump enough to matter, but no, >20% spread.
So I’m back to voting third party. Even if every third party vote went to Harris, my state would still elect Trump with something like 15-25% spread. The only way that changes is if Kamala converts to my state’s predominant religion and Trump literally outs himself as worshipping Satan, and even then we’d probably still go with Trump for some stupid reason.
So I vote for the next most popular third party, and in this case, that’s Chase Oliver from the Libertarian Party. I’m also registered Libertarian, mostly because I think they have the best chance to actually get a message out about voting reform, but also because I’m probably closest to their views (though I disagree with the LP on a ton of issues, especially recently, and especially the local UT LP). He’ll probably get 2-3% of the vote, perhaps less this year because he’s gay. If that instead were the Green Party, I’d vote for them (even though I have even less in common), because my goal here is to send a message that the 2-party system sucks.
If your state is that polarized, there’s really no point in voting for the minority party candidate, go third party and make a statement.
I’m glad you’re sending a message about the two-party system in a way that actually matters. Voting third party in a state that will never change is like, the one time it’s safe and effective to do that.
Exactly, yet I get so much pushback on that.
Yes, if your state has any chance of flipping, choose the lesser of two evils. And don’t just look at the last election, look at the last 5 or so. If any of them were anywhere near close, vote for the lesser of two evils. Or if your state is trending toward being competitive, vote for the lesser of two evils. If you’re not willing to check, vote for the lesser of two evils.
But if your state consistently votes a certain way with a huge margin, then vote your conscience. For me, that’s the most popular third party.
believing your state is hard locked in one party is exactly the mindset that makes it hard locked. My state is ‘hard red’ but it wasn’t always like that. California was a solid red state but no longer is. Until we have ranked voting, we’re stuck with two parties at the federal level. Voting 3rd is only serves to signal to the majority parties where to not waste their energy.
Voting 3rd is only serves to signal to the majority parties where to not waste their energy.
No, voting 3rd shows that voters are more willing to “throw their vote away” than support either major party candidate. If the minority candidate wants to snap up some of those votes, they’ll need to adjust their policies to at least bring in some of the top third party candidate’s views. The closer they get to those third parties, the more of those votes they’ll get.
If my state gets within a 10% spread, I’ll probably start voting for the lesser of two evils (in this case Harris). But when the spread is going to be something like 4x the total votes for all third parties combined (something like 5%; vote spread for major party candidates is typically >20%), there’s literally no value in supporting either major party candidate.
Removed by mod
I hope your sense of moral superiority is worth more to you than the lives and livelihood of some of the US and all of Palestine.
Removed by mod
It’s not about “rewarding” the politicians. They exist to implement policies. It’s about choosing the policies that materially benefit the causes you care about the most. “Logic”. Jfc.
