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.
These are just fascist nerds cosplaying as commies. Not a genuine Communist in the bunch
What I find funny is that they idolise China as some form of left wing communist utopia. When in reality it’s a very conservative and hyper capitalistic society, just with tonnes of authoritarianism and government control.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
It takes a lot of personal discontinuity to say that either the KKK or the SS would be voting for a black woman.
And yes, personal discontinuity is meant to be a nice way to say: you dumb.
these people remind me of 4chan. idk if they’re trolling, and there’s definitely a chance that they’re not. also yeah most seem like idiots or sadly really brainwashed
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.
Hexbear is legitimately filled with right wing trolls pretending to be leftists.
I’m not unconvinced that the whole leftist presence on that federated side of Lemmy is a psyop.
Lemmy is far too small and unimportant to attract any governments or psyops. Extremism comes in all flavours.
Sounds like something the feds would say
Get out of my walls or I’ll turn up the thermostat again
My bet is on troll factory workers slinging ideas around to see what and who sticks, and then they continue to sling ideas with their growing group. That was what the early days strategy of The_Donald on reddit were.
It doesn’t matter that lemmy is relatively unimportant, what matters to them is having a testbed for what is and isn’t sticking along with growing a crowd of supporters they might be able to take elsewhere where it matters.
Why do you think this?
Wrong. They’re just extreme.
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.
The political spectrum is a circle. If you go to far left or right, authoritarian ideas start making sense to you, you parrot authoritarian talking points, everyone who doesn’t agree with your extreme ideas about how the world ought to be is either weak or evil, and you end up kissing the boots of some authoritarian leader or other.
Horseshoe theory is bunk. The extreme left is full of anarchists, not authoritarians. What appears to be authoritarian left cares more about replacing US worldwide influence with Chinese or Russian influence than actually building a more leftist society.
deleted by creator
Tankies aren’t leftists. They’re not agitating to take apart hierarchies, but replace the existing hierarchies with their own.
Im not even on hexbear but i see it fairly often. Im also not american so maybe that gives me some different perspective, but do you really not get it or are you just being obtuse? Kamala and biden are actively supporting a genocide, and thats not even hyperbole. Theyre sending billions of dollars of weapons. Its not like they just wont publicly condemn israel, theyre explicitly and outright supporting them. Say that trump would be worse all you want, but the nazi association seems obvious when you considee that theyre actively supplying weapons to a genocidal regime.
You’re fucking high.
You’re very quick to draw on the nazi card.
I don’t recommend it.
Oh, you have an answer? Perfect! What should we do instead of voting for Harris?
I probably would vote for her. But i also wouldnt attack people raising legitimate concerns, and i would try to put as much fucking pressure on the democratic party to stop fucking around as i could, which means not unconditionally supporting them no matter what they do.
I get it, but stop pretending that Trump wouldn’t be so much worse. Trump has literally said he would give Isreal carte blanche.
That is your alternative. Voting 3rd party is just going to help Trump since he has never won the popular vote.
If you vote, I say raise your standards and vote for a third party.
Do not reward those that are for another genocide and for more forever wars.
By suggesting people vote for a third party, all you’re doing is betraying the fact that you don’t understand (or, perhaps, are intentionally misrepresenting) the realities of the American electoral system
Which third party? The most successful third party in the US is the Libertarian Party, and they want capitalism to become the worst version of itself. The next most successful are the Greens, who have a candidate that’s fine taking dinner invitations with Putin and Michael Flynn, and believes in the power of healing crystals. After that, we’re getting into parties that are so small and poorly organized that they’re not worth talking about.
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
Well if they troll hard enough they can be sure to be featured here
Abortion is on the ballot in ten states that isn’t good for Republicans at all. Expect to see way more trolls talking about how they are suddenly voting for the green party despite there being an actual socialist candidate to vote for. Republicans are desperate and know they’re in for big losses if they can’t pull something out.
Is the socialist candidate in the room with us right now?
Wait… Who is the socialist candidate?
Claudia de la Cruz literally running in the socialism and liberation party.
Oh hey, another third party candidate coming out of the woodwork to run for president despite no experience in political office. I’m all for socialist candidates, but they should set their sights a little lower and start with County Commissioner or something to build experience.
0% chance that a truly progressive candidate will win the general election without 1. significant experience themselves and 2. significant progressive representation in Congress and state offices. If the “both sides” parties can’t navigate the gridlock when they’re supposedly on the same team, how on Earth is an outsider going to get anything remotely effective accomplished without massive support from the legislative branch?
Vote progressive down ticket and in local elections. When we have a healthy progressive bloc in Congress, then we can seriously consider a progressive presidential candidate. And for the love of God, they need actual experience first(Senator, Governor, Attorney General, something).
To be clear I’m not advocating for Cruz I just think it’s hilarious that people who claim to lean left are hyping up the green and not the labeled socialists.
To be honest I support my DSA locally because they actually take up council seats and attempt pushes into legislature and help with union actions.
seriously kkk! i cant even.
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.
That is as long as they aren’t committing voter fraud in one or the other state
I hope you realized it as you were typing it
I agree; swing states seem to be the only ones that matter when you vote duopoly and all you care about is “winning.”
I, on the other hand, prefer to have standards, so stop wasting your vote on the status quo, be it Harris or Trump, you will be rewarding genocide.
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.
I, on the other hand, have standards
It doesn’t matter to you at all that they’re double standards, does it?
How?
Voting for Harris or Trump, you will be rewarding another genocide and more forever wars.
The duopoly only helps the owner-class, while it continues to pander to the working class with crumbs.
And not voting will fix this how?
Trump hardly represents the status quo.
I disagree.
Policy wise, more for the owner-class and less for the working class.
Crumbs here and there by both, but ultimately the status quo will continue.
LGBT lives and women’s rights are crumbs to you.
These are culture war and identity politics, used to divide the working class again and again.
The duopoly and the owner-class will always have minorities to use as scapegoats.
So let’s just ignore the people who would suffer in the immediate future to instead “focus” on the indeterminate #revolution that will totally then deal with it. In the meantime I shouldn’t be bothered about the suffering of really any oppressed group and their actual lives. I see, I see. But what if I’d like for my queer folks to not be criminalized back into the closet? Not in the future after the #revolution but instead the immediate future?
If your so willing to sacrifice folks current ability to live their lives for the perceived high ground of not engaging with electoral politics then just go ahead and sacrifice yourself. Or is your immediate suffering too much of a concern?
Didya know you can both vote for Dems knowing the whole duopoly and electoral bullshit and still be a radical leftist? Crazy concept, I know. But let’s not forget that while economically and foreign policy wise the Dems and Republicans are the same, they are not the same in all regards. And unless you plan on dismantling the US government in the next few months, I’d like people I care about to be a liiiiiiiittle safer than the alternative.
But hey, the current lives of oppressed groups is just crumbs to you so, empathy is probably not the best way to convey this so let’s talk in terms you understand.
Queer folk are overwhelmingly leftist. Maybe you’d like to keep that potentially radicalizeable pop alive and put rather than dead or in the closet.
Or would you rather accelerate their oppression and hope the loss of rights causes a radicalization swing?
Or do you not give a shit either way cause once again, they are just crumbs to you.
I disagree with your framing.
You are bringing in talking points from the duopoly, which I am against and do not support.
Fighting for minorities has always been the role of grass-roots movements and third parties.
Bringing the working class and local communities together to push past the status quo is the long-term goal, instead of being stuck on duopoly talking points that continue to be problems decades later.
“fighting for minorities” ahem. The word you used earlier was crumbs. Don’t forget that. Your trying to appear pro minority whatever but when faced with the immediate future of those folks you summed their existence and problems up with the word “crumbs”. I do not believe you give a shred of a shit outside economic considerations. You got so econ brained that you lost your empathy.
Imma double up my post and give you a lil bit of theory since you seem like the kinda person who enjoys that jazz. Intersectionality. Slap that into Google and start doing some reading.
“crumbs”, such as reproductive rights?
I suggest checking out how many times Roe v. Wade could have been codified by the Democrats over the past couple of decades.
Caution: you may not like what you learn in that rabbit hole as well, though.
Which would have done fuck all as soon as a cycle came around where Republicans had control of Congress and the White House. Reversing a Supreme Court decision, OTOH, took decades of planning to line up just the right justices at just the right time.
deleted by creator
I don’t think it’s relevant to compare abortion pre 2000 to post.
So with that caveat, when was there congressional support? Enough votes in both the house and Senate? With president ready to sign?
Ooh, I remember this one when some other snot tried claiming the could have so many times, the answer is 1 (one) time between 77 & 79 when Carter was president just 4 years after the original scouts ruling.
Other than that, there hasn’t been a 60 vote Democrat super majority in the Senate since.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/jun/25/control-house-and-senate-1900/
I don’t think it’s relevant to compare abortion pre 2000 to post.
hahaha, wow.
Anyway, here ya go:
@russelldobular
[Image, image to text below]
Screenshot:
History of Democrats Refusing To Codify Roe v Wade when they could have:
Jimmy Carter: Supermajority 1977-1979, Majority 79-81
Bill Clinton: Full Majority 1993-1995
Barack Obama: Supermajority for 72 days, Majority from 2009-2011. (plus independents who agreed to vote for the Freedom of Choice Act Obama promised to codify “first thing” after winning the election. But, Obama quickly said after winning, it’s not his “highest legislative priority.”)
Joe Biden: Full Majority 2021-2023
When Democrats say “we didn’t have enough votes” and then fundraise for anti-abortion dems over pro-choice dems, they are telling you they don’t support choice.
edit suggesting the edit Carter or Clinton era is appropriate comparison to the appetite for, or viability of abortion legislation today, as relates to the supreme court ruling and what should be done now is silly.
So did they have the votes or not? Looks like not.
Edit edit just having dems in seats is not a vote, automatically. To be clear, I acknowledge your points about supermajority, and move no goalposts as my original reply said “support”.
Last edit: I edited several times to clarify. I understand if you are already replying and don’t see em.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
Read and digest both, then explain how your list stacks up to ‘multiple opportunities’.
Eh, if you’re in a red state that doesn’t do proportional voting with their electoral college votes, they’ve got a point.
If you have allowed someone to convince you that your vote doesn’t matter, then they have already defeated you, and you have helped them achieve their political objectives.
Democracy cannot work for you if you do not participate in it.
I mean, I don’t, but that’s because I’m not in the states.
It’s only true because they believe it. Every vote counts, even if it’s for a losing candidate. The parties pay attention to the vote totals, where they are winning and losing, and what issues are connecting with voters. The parties may choose to run more moderate candidates in areas that are changing, and will set their platform based on what gets people to the polls.
Even if you’re going to lose, you should still show up and vote.
Yeah, yeah, we know. But voting for a candidate you know isn’t going to win your area must surely feel like pissing into the wind.
Oh no, it feels bad to do the right thing
You’re right, but that’s why we should encourage those voters just as much as the swing states.
deleted by creator
States can change color over a longer time if you dont do that shit. Is calling the candidate KKK/SS a good point?
