Come mid-terms I’m going to proudly vote democrat everywhere I can so hopefully we can get some control of the country again.

even if said dem supports genocide and war crimes? vet carefully. vett? vette? whatever. boba vett your votes carefully. :)

If it’s a choice between republicans and democrats I will vote for democrats every time.

I will vet during primaries but mid-terms aren’t the time for that with what’s happening at home in the states and aboard with the current administration.

Democrats who support genocide can’t win, and candidates aren’t static.

If at any point you are supporting a Democratic candidate who holds unelectable policies, you are doing work to support the opposition. Your only option is to move the candidate when they hold a policy which will prevent them from winning the election.

When you say something like “Any Blue will do” in the face of a genocide, you are doing work to get the Republican in the race elected.

If you read my entire comment you’ll see I’m not advocating for ‘any blue will do.’

Not voting for the only other viable option is actually doing the work to vote in the republican.

Please, address the issue on its merits: If you advocate for a candidate who has a policy which will prevent them winning a race, you are doing work for their opposition.

This is what happened with Biden/ Harris. By supporting them (ABWD) instead of being critical, you set up the permission structure necessary for them to recognize they’ve got your vote without having to change policy positions. The permission structure you and I do me you because you are maybe the most clear and consistent Blue MAGA voter on lemmy, that permission structure allowed Harris to maintain a pro-genocide stance into November. Since holding that stance would prevent her from winning the election, shifting the responsibility from a candidate who is one person, of one mind, running one campaign to change their policy, you shifted that responsibility to the millions of unwashed masses, whom have no great track record for making good decisions when it comes to November, and for which there is no credible mechanism to move the minds of millions of people in the period of a few months or weeks. There is no tool a campaign can operate which changes millions of minds from “I will not support a genocide” to “I will support a genocide”, and I’m glad that this is the case.

Framing elections as if its a matter of individual choice shows an explicit and intentional illiteracy when it comes to how campaigns, electoral-ism, and electorates work. One voter is like a grain of sand. It acts and behaves like a solid, and has other properties we would liken to “its a tiny rock”. But when millions of grans of sand are moving together, their behavior is nothing like an individual grain. When we take individual votes and scale them to millions of voters, their properties and behaviors are different. What and how an individual voters should act is fundamentally irrelevant. We’re not talking nor are we ever talking about what individual voters do. That’s what oil companies in the 90’s did with recycling: they convinced you that your individual choice was what mattered, when they controlled the levers of power to determine what choices were available to you.

The candidates and campaigns have all the power to change their polcies or approaches in this system. Voters as individuals have practically 0 power in this system. There is no practical mechanism to get millions of voters to do whatever it is you would have them do (at least not over the course of months and weeks, like an election). There is an abundance of tools to operate on individual politicians to get them to change.

If you allow a politician who is competing for your vote to maintain an unelectable position, you are doing work to support their opposition.

So Trump 2.0 was a better option than Harris because she wouldn’t/didn’t say the words you wanted to hear?

So Trump 2.0 was a better option than Harris because she wouldn’t/didn’t say the words you wanted to hear?

For the 9000th time, we’re having a conversation about what voters do, not what any one individual does. And no matter how long you keep your head in the sand about the matter, voting isn’t a binary. Any one voter has a range of choices about what to do with their time available to them.

I don’t know if you are fully aware of this, but: SHE LOST THE FUCKING ELECTION!

I don’t really believe any of you blue maga fascists are actually operating in good faith at this point, but I’ll at least offer you the grace of addressing the following issue.

We’re going to run two experiments, @[email protected] , which will both start with the following premise:

It’s August 2024, the night before the convention, and you are Kamala Harris’s campaign manager. You are just coming off the big bump in polling you got from naming Tim Walz your vp. So far, your polling has been meteoric. You managed to got from the low forties/high thirties to high forties in a few weeks. Its one of the most dramatic and staggering increases in polling in history.

You’ve got 1.5 billion dollars to spend, and a week of captured media going into the convention. You have three months.

The experiment (0, 1) is conducted by you answering the following questions follows:

0 You are not allowed to change the candidates policy positions. Explain how you would use 1.5 billion dollars and 3 months to win an election.

1 You are allowed to change the candidates policy positions. Explain how you would use 1.5 billion dollars and 3 months to win an election.

If you can’t identify a coherent strategy that creates a path to victory under premise (0), we have to conclude that the only way Harris could win the election was to change their policies.

… voting isn’t a binary.

Yes it is. Will I vote in the next election? Binary choice. Will I vote Democrat or Republican? Also binary choice.

Any one voter has a range of choices about what to do with their time available to them.

Only if you include options that are not related to voting does it become a non-binary choice. Since we are talking about voting, which is a binary choice, the other options are either irrelevant or still boil down to yes I will vote or no I will not vote.

I don’t know if you are fully aware of this, but: SHE LOST THE FUCKING ELECTION!

As a news service your timeliness is horrible.

I don’t really believe any of you blue maga fascists are actually operating in good faith at this point, but I’ll at least offer you the grace of addressing the following issue.

People who don’t agree with your opinions are fascists. Got it!

Now, allow me to reword my previous point:

Stop making excuses for the people who didn’t vote in 2024 and therefore allowed Trump to win the election. Every Dem KNOWS Harris and the DNC screwed the pooch and blame them for their loss. But, and this really important, we also blame those Dems who didn’t vote. What percentage of blame is assigned to Harris, DNC, and non-voters gets probably differs greatly between individuals. Personally, 40-40-20.

Yes it is. Will I vote in the next election? Binary choice. Will I vote Democrat or Republican? Also binary choice.

Then how did the millions of vote difference between Harris 24 and Biden 20 not end up in the Republican column. Voters always have another choice and its the one they are making by default because its where all voters begin: to stay on the couch.

Only if you include options that are not related to voting does

So not voting isn’t related to voting? The whole point here is that the game theoretical strategy of “strategic voting” or “voting for the lessor of two evils” falls apart when it meets reality. It doesn’t work, as in, it doesn’t give you the strategic outcomes you want it to because you didn’t represent the game correctly. Voting isn’t a binary, no matter how much so you insist that it is. A voter can simply not vote, or not even register. Or vote third party, or write in the name of their cat. You approving of or not approving of those things doesn’t mean they aren’t available as options to a voter.

If you want to blame voters, then you need to offer a mechanism to move them. I know how we can move individual politicians and campaigns because we’ve done it before. I don’t think we disagree about that. But there is no credible mechanism for changing the inarticulate mass which is the “electorate” to adopt your perspective that they should have just voted to support genocide. There is no tool which performs that operation. You can’t move voters in this manner. A single voter is a grain of sand. It behaves like a solid, like a tiny rock. A mass of voters is a river of sand. They have fundamentally different properties.

You are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding how elections work, how they function. Effectively, you are subject in the same kind of propaganda that the petroleum industry used to convince consumers that individual actions, specifically recycling plastics, was going to save the world. This is a bad faith approach because it shifts the responsibility for the outcomes or consequences of elections from those who actually have power in the system, like parties, political campaigns, and candidates, to those who effectively have the least power in the system: voters. That perspective you hold, is the result of a long effort on the parties to dismiss the responsibility they hold for actually appealing to voters and their demands.

There is one path to winning elections: understand the electorate, and then move candidates into adopting those positions. You can’t shame, badger, or otherwise abuse voters into voting how you want them to. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like that. Trying to do so is counterproductive.

Blame percentage (Harris, DNC, and non-voters): 100, 0, 0

All Harris had to do was change her policy on Gaza and she wins the election. One person could have made a different choice and we would have a different outcome.

Stop making excuses for the people who didn’t vote in 2024 and therefore allowed Trump to win the election.

Putting the responsibility of a failed campaign on the backs of voters just shows more electoral illiteracy on your part. If you can’t offer a credible mechanism for how you get 6 million people to do what you want them to do, its fucking irrelevant.

Just wanted to check: how has not voting gone for y’all, so far?

Huh. Wonder what the losing strategy is.

Listening to voices like yours is the losing strategy.

Hmm…

The most popular and effective policy… Competent and compassionate base… Political strategy of emphasizing protest non-voting…

Huh. I wonder why we aren’t winning, yet? I mean, we have everything going for us!

We lost the last election, after all! The protest non-voting was a huge success! Why are we still losing???

Always vote! Let’s primary these genociders!

The fact is, if you didn’t support motivating the candidate to change their policy on a genocide, you weren’t opposing fascism.

It follows that you make the arguments you do because you support both the genocide and fascism.

There was one path to stopping Trump: get Harris to change.

Huh, from my perspective, I’m anti-genocide and anti-fascism. On the other hand, you opted to support a platform of “allow the state of America to worsen and deepen further into the pit of authoritarianism so that people die and eventually revolt”, which is de facto supporting genocide and fascism.

I guess we both think that the ends justify the means. The difference is that my means is… voting for the least bad candidate so the least amount of people are harmed… and yours is… not voting so the maximum amount of people are harmed.

Cope :)

You supported a pro-genocide candidate, and through some extraordinary mental gymnastics you think that makes you anti genocide.

If you didn’t demand the candidate change their policy in genocide, you are neither anti genocide or supportive of the candidate, since I’m there was no way for the candidate to win supporting a genocide. They had to change their policy to win the election.

I’ll remind you that your plan was to intentionally allow as much harm as possible.

No see, allowing as much harm as possible is what YOU did, whether you intended to or not. You are a wrecker if you didn’t advocate that Harris shift her position on Gaza.

Oof… gonna go ahead and put those Iranian lives lost on your head as well, as well as all the people the inevitable war is going to kill. Nice job.

Please. Alleging your concern for Iranian lives only highlights your hypocrisy.