What? Trump’s second term is largely the result of not strategically voting for lesser evil.
What alternative, actionable strategy would have led to a different outcome? Actionable means “Everyone votes for the same third party” doesn’t count. So go on, what was the alternative strategy that had any chance whatsoever of succeeding?
I think you’re missing the point. The strategy out of the DNC going on two decades has been “our horrible candidate is less horrible than their candidate,” and it took a worldwide pandemic and thousands of deaths for it to work once.
They need to stop and find someone who isn’t horrible if they ever want to win again. That or just let the world burn and hope it’s only the neolibs that survive. I wouldn’t bet on that myself.
On the contrary, you missed the point. I do not set DNC policy, it does no good to tell me what they should be doing. If “making them lose” was going to affect their strategy, it would have worked in 2016.
I am but a lowly voter, who has to live in this country. As a human being, there are many options available to me to try to effect change. As a voter, I am functionally limited to choosing between the two most popular candidates.
Voting for the less fascist of the two is not what I want to be doing, but it is the most likely to support all the other non-electoral options available to my fellow humans, without sacrificing the vulnerable to the greater evil.
You’d have to have pretty abysmal reading comprehension to come to that conclusion. That couldn’t be farther from what I said. Try again, pay attention this time.
Look where that got us. It’s a bad strategy and needs to be retired.
It being a bad strategy and also the best available strategy are not mutually exclusive. No presently actionable strategy has a better outcome.
So there’s no strategy that has a better outcome than Trump’s second term? You sure about that?
What? Trump’s second term is largely the result of not strategically voting for lesser evil.
What alternative, actionable strategy would have led to a different outcome? Actionable means “Everyone votes for the same third party” doesn’t count. So go on, what was the alternative strategy that had any chance whatsoever of succeeding?
I think you’re missing the point. The strategy out of the DNC going on two decades has been “our horrible candidate is less horrible than their candidate,” and it took a worldwide pandemic and thousands of deaths for it to work once.
They need to stop and find someone who isn’t horrible if they ever want to win again. That or just let the world burn and hope it’s only the neolibs that survive. I wouldn’t bet on that myself.
On the contrary, you missed the point. I do not set DNC policy, it does no good to tell me what they should be doing. If “making them lose” was going to affect their strategy, it would have worked in 2016.
I am but a lowly voter, who has to live in this country. As a human being, there are many options available to me to try to effect change. As a voter, I am functionally limited to choosing between the two most popular candidates.
Voting for the less fascist of the two is not what I want to be doing, but it is the most likely to support all the other non-electoral options available to my fellow humans, without sacrificing the vulnerable to the greater evil.
“I don’t set DNC policy, I just blindly promote it no matter what.”
“I’m not a fascist, I just loudly promote actions that benefit them”.
Hi, yes, calling communists fascists is certainly a strategy that makes a lot of sense.
I’d ask you to define both terms but I don’t want to cause you distress.
So in other words, you’re just trying to assuage your own guilt for being powerless in the face having to actually do something to change things.
You’d have to have pretty abysmal reading comprehension to come to that conclusion. That couldn’t be farther from what I said. Try again, pay attention this time.
Is it truly a bad strategy? Or is there much less direct action than what’s needed?