Voting for the lesser evil can enable this strategy to be more effective. Is it easier to organize against the system in the streets today or in a future where the military enforces the president’s whims via emergency powers? I think the answer is fairly obvious.
Lesser evil voting is a rational response to a broken system, but it also isn’t mutually exclusive with fighting against that system in other ways. And I believe it’s even synergistic in many cases.
No you do both. Voting is the hedge if the “tear down the system” plan doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked here for 250+ years and a civil war, but it is because of voting and labor action and protests we have made any progress.
Fuck no. You don’t get to pull out “less effective” within a day of Pelosi shuffling a 74 year old cancer patient into the most critical committee position for fighting Trump. That’s exactly the effectiveness you get with Democratic establishment habitual losers.
The Democratic establishment has absolutely dominated Democratic policy and messaging for at at least 50 years now. The Republicans have a super majority in the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the majority of state governors, and an astounding majority of state legislators.
Establishment Democrats couldn’t possibly be bigger losers. You don’t think that maybe it’s time to review Democratic strategy and leadership?
The establishment loves to scapegoat progressives but, Kamala ran and lost on the most centrist strategy arguably possible. The only thing remotely progressive about her was her race and gender. That’s the neoliberal way, to run a token candidate that doesn’t even have the support of her own demographics.
The biggest delusion in Democratic politics is the idea that voters all sit on a left to right spectrum with victory going to whichever side captures the middle. It was a poor model in the 90s, and it’s disastrously wrong today.
And how’d that turn out? Being 1 out of 3 against a guy who campaigns on Arnold Palmer’s Dick isn’t exactly something to brag on. Also, in what might be a shock to many Democrats, there are thousands of elected offices between the Federal and state governments. The Democrats massively underperformed everywhere and with every demographic. But sure, it’s ridiculous to think that should lead to some reflection and reform. Maybe next time the Republicans will find someone weaker than Trump and we’ll be golden.
Yes! Let’s have some reflection and not pick the timescale to suit a narrative. The “habitual losers” won 3 of the last 5. Pelosi, Clinton, Biden etc. were all very present when Obama was in the Whitehouse.
I totally agree that it’s ridiculous to lose to Trump, but you can’t claim that they lost because their platform could never win, because it already has - including against Trump.
Why did they lose? I don’t know - but I do know that you aren’t going to find the answer if you start from a false premise.
Let’s have some reflection and not pick the timescale to suit a narrative.
You picked the timescale of two elections. Then I expanded it to three and that was out of bounds, but five is fine again? You make it difficult to assume you are arguing in good faith.
The “habitual losers” won 3 of the last 5
Apparently you missed the point that the presidency isn’t the only office that matters. Anyways, in the course of winning 3/5, Democrats lost the working class and gen-z. That indicates a trend.
I would also argue that Obama’s first win shouldn’t count. Hillary was the establishment candidate and she lost to Obama running on a reform platform of “change”. Then he got elected and suddenly became just another manager of the status quo. In the course of Obama’s two terms, Democrats lost over 1000 seats across the country. Even in victory, Obama was massive loser for the Democrats.
Obama held on well enough while Republicans kept ran establishment candidates. That ended when Trump ran a right wing populist campaign. He was full of shit, but he was the only candidate actually talking to most of the country.
Democrats won in 2020 because of Trump’s obvious mishandling of the COVID crisis. Even so, it was a close race in three critical swing states.
Why did they lose? I don’t know
They lost because we are living in a populist age. We have record income inequality and an economy that feels more and more like a scam every day. People see that and want someone to blame. Republicans have villains and narratives and Democrats don’t. Democrats could put the blame where it belongs (with Wall Street and corporate America) but they won’t. That leaves a vacuum where Republicans blame minorities. A bigoted narrative beats no narrative.
I am taking issue with your calling them “habitual losers” since it’s demonstrably untrue. If you only look at the last election, you can’t call it “habitual”. If you widen the timescale, the worst possible is the last 3, in which they still won 1/3. In any other timescale, they were even or won more. Sure, there are other offices, but the presidency is quite a big one to overlook.
I said that you aren’t ever going to understand what really happened if you start with a false premise, and you’re obviously going to defend your false premise to the end, so I’m out.
What did we “win” by electing Obama twice? A healthcare plan assembled by the same right wing think tank that brought us Project2025? Obama didn’t even win his supreme court nominees. That’s a big part of what I mean by habitual losers.
I’ll go ahead and bring this up a third time since you are still ignoring it. It’s not just about the Presidency. Radical candidate Obama took the House, a (sort of) super majority in the Senate, and swept in state government as well on his coattails. Then he rescued Wall Street on the backs of working Americans and lost everything but his own office.
Obama also redirected funds that usually go to the DNC to his own campaign coffers, which was a big part of how he saved his own ass at the cost of the party. That’s what setup the DNC to need a bail out which Hillary provided in exchange for their help in the primary. That’s where the emails came from that fucked her campaign.
Candidate Obama was great, but President Obama was a total loser.
Over the last 50 years the working class has been absolutely pummeled, with little difference between Democratic and Republican presidencies, since the Democrats can’t win and keep Congress. Electoral reform might help, but they can’t win at the state level to get that done either.
The Democrats aren’t a sports team to be judged by wins and losses for a single office. Losing youth and working class voters is a total disaster for a supposedly progressive party. Democrats are now officially the party of the professional and investor class, and nobody else. Do you not see how fucked that is?
Who voted Trump in? You got the centrist campaign of your dreams in Harris and Trump won the popular vote after gaining in every key demographic. The American people voted Trump in because the Democratic party is completely out of touch.
The left isn’t telling Democrats how to get our votes. Progressives are the most reliable voters in the country. We’re telling the Democrats how to reach the vast majority of apolitical Americans who pay attention for a month or two every four years. That’s exactly the group that voted Trump in.
When people have limited choices to vote on, voting for a or b does not make them like a or b.
It just means it’s a “boiling the frog situation” when gradually changing the goalposts makes people not notice the real issues.
The average American really has not changed that much from the past generations, but the candidates that are allowed to run in either party have drifted rightward.
If I want to vote for green, and I can choose only on a greyscale, my interpretation of which shade of gray might be closest to green might be a personal choice, highly disputed.
Yes, what shade of grey is closest to green is unclear, but there are only two shades of grey that can win. I’d be ecstatic about dumping my shade of grey if anybody could explain how it would bring us closer to green.
No, you should vote for a different lesser evil that they prefer even though it will be even less effective
No, you should band together and grind the system that only presents evil options to a halt.
That is something you do outside of electoral politics. You will not achieve that by not voting for the lesser evil.
Voting for the lesser evil can enable this strategy to be more effective. Is it easier to organize against the system in the streets today or in a future where the military enforces the president’s whims via emergency powers? I think the answer is fairly obvious.
Lesser evil voting is a rational response to a broken system, but it also isn’t mutually exclusive with fighting against that system in other ways. And I believe it’s even synergistic in many cases.
Very altruistic and yet completely unrealistic.
Be real.
No you do both. Voting is the hedge if the “tear down the system” plan doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked here for 250+ years and a civil war, but it is because of voting and labor action and protests we have made any progress.
Fuck no. You don’t get to pull out “less effective” within a day of Pelosi shuffling a 74 year old cancer patient into the most critical committee position for fighting Trump. That’s exactly the effectiveness you get with Democratic establishment habitual losers.
The Democrats having practically negative effectiveness is still infinitely more effective.
Obviously voting for dems isn’t going to produce the fundamental changes we need, neither is voting third party or not voting.
Dems will at best slightly slow our descent into fascism. That gives us slightly more time to build dual power and engage in direct action.
We’re far behind, and need every second of time we can squeeze in.
The Democratic establishment has absolutely dominated Democratic policy and messaging for at at least 50 years now. The Republicans have a super majority in the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the majority of state governors, and an astounding majority of state legislators.
Establishment Democrats couldn’t possibly be bigger losers. You don’t think that maybe it’s time to review Democratic strategy and leadership?
The establishment loves to scapegoat progressives but, Kamala ran and lost on the most centrist strategy arguably possible. The only thing remotely progressive about her was her race and gender. That’s the neoliberal way, to run a token candidate that doesn’t even have the support of her own demographics.
The biggest delusion in Democratic politics is the idea that voters all sit on a left to right spectrum with victory going to whichever side captures the middle. It was a poor model in the 90s, and it’s disastrously wrong today.
It would be a ‘critical position for fighting Trump’ if you hadn’t voted Trump in.
The “habitual losers” won last time around.
And how’d that turn out? Being 1 out of 3 against a guy who campaigns on Arnold Palmer’s Dick isn’t exactly something to brag on. Also, in what might be a shock to many Democrats, there are thousands of elected offices between the Federal and state governments. The Democrats massively underperformed everywhere and with every demographic. But sure, it’s ridiculous to think that should lead to some reflection and reform. Maybe next time the Republicans will find someone weaker than Trump and we’ll be golden.
Yes! Let’s have some reflection and not pick the timescale to suit a narrative. The “habitual losers” won 3 of the last 5. Pelosi, Clinton, Biden etc. were all very present when Obama was in the Whitehouse.
I totally agree that it’s ridiculous to lose to Trump, but you can’t claim that they lost because their platform could never win, because it already has - including against Trump.
Why did they lose? I don’t know - but I do know that you aren’t going to find the answer if you start from a false premise.
You picked the timescale of two elections. Then I expanded it to three and that was out of bounds, but five is fine again? You make it difficult to assume you are arguing in good faith.
Apparently you missed the point that the presidency isn’t the only office that matters. Anyways, in the course of winning 3/5, Democrats lost the working class and gen-z. That indicates a trend.
I would also argue that Obama’s first win shouldn’t count. Hillary was the establishment candidate and she lost to Obama running on a reform platform of “change”. Then he got elected and suddenly became just another manager of the status quo. In the course of Obama’s two terms, Democrats lost over 1000 seats across the country. Even in victory, Obama was massive loser for the Democrats.
Obama held on well enough while Republicans kept ran establishment candidates. That ended when Trump ran a right wing populist campaign. He was full of shit, but he was the only candidate actually talking to most of the country.
Democrats won in 2020 because of Trump’s obvious mishandling of the COVID crisis. Even so, it was a close race in three critical swing states.
They lost because we are living in a populist age. We have record income inequality and an economy that feels more and more like a scam every day. People see that and want someone to blame. Republicans have villains and narratives and Democrats don’t. Democrats could put the blame where it belongs (with Wall Street and corporate America) but they won’t. That leaves a vacuum where Republicans blame minorities. A bigoted narrative beats no narrative.
I am taking issue with your calling them “habitual losers” since it’s demonstrably untrue. If you only look at the last election, you can’t call it “habitual”. If you widen the timescale, the worst possible is the last 3, in which they still won 1/3. In any other timescale, they were even or won more. Sure, there are other offices, but the presidency is quite a big one to overlook.
I said that you aren’t ever going to understand what really happened if you start with a false premise, and you’re obviously going to defend your false premise to the end, so I’m out.
What did we “win” by electing Obama twice? A healthcare plan assembled by the same right wing think tank that brought us Project2025? Obama didn’t even win his supreme court nominees. That’s a big part of what I mean by habitual losers.
I’ll go ahead and bring this up a third time since you are still ignoring it. It’s not just about the Presidency. Radical candidate Obama took the House, a (sort of) super majority in the Senate, and swept in state government as well on his coattails. Then he rescued Wall Street on the backs of working Americans and lost everything but his own office.
Obama also redirected funds that usually go to the DNC to his own campaign coffers, which was a big part of how he saved his own ass at the cost of the party. That’s what setup the DNC to need a bail out which Hillary provided in exchange for their help in the primary. That’s where the emails came from that fucked her campaign.
Candidate Obama was great, but President Obama was a total loser.
Over the last 50 years the working class has been absolutely pummeled, with little difference between Democratic and Republican presidencies, since the Democrats can’t win and keep Congress. Electoral reform might help, but they can’t win at the state level to get that done either.
The Democrats aren’t a sports team to be judged by wins and losses for a single office. Losing youth and working class voters is a total disaster for a supposedly progressive party. Democrats are now officially the party of the professional and investor class, and nobody else. Do you not see how fucked that is?
Who voted Trump in? You got the centrist campaign of your dreams in Harris and Trump won the popular vote after gaining in every key demographic. The American people voted Trump in because the Democratic party is completely out of touch.
The left isn’t telling Democrats how to get our votes. Progressives are the most reliable voters in the country. We’re telling the Democrats how to reach the vast majority of apolitical Americans who pay attention for a month or two every four years. That’s exactly the group that voted Trump in.
When people have limited choices to vote on, voting for a or b does not make them like a or b.
It just means it’s a “boiling the frog situation” when gradually changing the goalposts makes people not notice the real issues.
The average American really has not changed that much from the past generations, but the candidates that are allowed to run in either party have drifted rightward.
If I want to vote for green, and I can choose only on a greyscale, my interpretation of which shade of gray might be closest to green might be a personal choice, highly disputed.
Yes, what shade of grey is closest to green is unclear, but there are only two shades of grey that can win. I’d be ecstatic about dumping my shade of grey if anybody could explain how it would bring us closer to green.