It’s an objectively raw deal. For the presidential race there are functionally only two choices.
That being the case, everything you said falls apart. Voters are not “the only ones we can criticize,” we can instead focus our criticism on the people deciding what our two choices are.
I could just as easily say that it’s the fault of Democratic voters for splitting the vote instead of rallying around PSL or the Green party. The only real counterargument to that is that there are a lot more of them than there are of us. But there are also a lot more of us compared to the singular individual of Kamala Harris. So why does it make sense to say we should be the ones to change instead of her? It’s nonsense. The only reason I can see is that we’re regular people and she’s ruling class.
If you want to make the argument that I’m the long run trump is a cold shower that we deserve to shock the whole system
I don’t want to make that argument, no. My position has never been that it would be better for Trump to get elected than Harris, and I have never argued for voting for Trump.
I mean you can criticize whoever you want and I’m happy to support you doing that. The idea of rallying around a 3rd party candidate is unfortunately a pipe dream. How would anybody know who to rally around because they aren’t allowed to participate in debates or even really participate as a first class candidate? It sounds good on paper but it just isn’t and has never been a reality. It looks a lot more possible if one election like 20% of people vote third party, but it hasn’t ever happened.
There’s no “gotcha” here to be had. There are 2 predictable choices at present and they both suck, but it is clear which is the least worst.
How would anybody know who to rally around because they aren’t allowed to participate in debates or even really participate as a first class candidate?
It looks a lot more possible if one election like 20% of people vote third party, but it hasn’t ever happened.
All the more reason to support them, then. You even spell out the logic yourself, even if they can’t win, if they reached a certain threshold then they’d have to be taken seriously.
Elections are about more than who wins and loses, they’re also about setting precedent. If a third party gets enough votes, if a faction within a party demonstrates a credible threat of defection, then a major party has to start making concessions if they want to bring them into the fold. The Democrats, however, did nothing but spit in our faces, because they made the incorrect calculation that the left’s opposition was just blowing hot air and that we’d come around to the lesser evil (which is generally what has happened in the past and how we got here in the first place).
I see three possibilities, one where the democrats remain stubborn, and a third party eventually emerges and supplants them (as has happened before in history), a second where the democrats start taking the left seriously and start responding to our demands, and a third, by far the worst, where the left gets cold feet and gives up, desperately rallying around the “lesser evil,” thereby ensuring that nothing ever gets fixed, that conditions will continue to decline, and that fascism becomes inevitable.
That being the case, everything you said falls apart. Voters are not “the only ones we can criticize,” we can instead focus our criticism on the people deciding what our two choices are.
I could just as easily say that it’s the fault of Democratic voters for splitting the vote instead of rallying around PSL or the Green party. The only real counterargument to that is that there are a lot more of them than there are of us. But there are also a lot more of us compared to the singular individual of Kamala Harris. So why does it make sense to say we should be the ones to change instead of her? It’s nonsense. The only reason I can see is that we’re regular people and she’s ruling class.
I don’t want to make that argument, no. My position has never been that it would be better for Trump to get elected than Harris, and I have never argued for voting for Trump.
I mean you can criticize whoever you want and I’m happy to support you doing that. The idea of rallying around a 3rd party candidate is unfortunately a pipe dream. How would anybody know who to rally around because they aren’t allowed to participate in debates or even really participate as a first class candidate? It sounds good on paper but it just isn’t and has never been a reality. It looks a lot more possible if one election like 20% of people vote third party, but it hasn’t ever happened.
There’s no “gotcha” here to be had. There are 2 predictable choices at present and they both suck, but it is clear which is the least worst.
All the more reason to support them, then. You even spell out the logic yourself, even if they can’t win, if they reached a certain threshold then they’d have to be taken seriously.
Elections are about more than who wins and loses, they’re also about setting precedent. If a third party gets enough votes, if a faction within a party demonstrates a credible threat of defection, then a major party has to start making concessions if they want to bring them into the fold. The Democrats, however, did nothing but spit in our faces, because they made the incorrect calculation that the left’s opposition was just blowing hot air and that we’d come around to the lesser evil (which is generally what has happened in the past and how we got here in the first place).
I see three possibilities, one where the democrats remain stubborn, and a third party eventually emerges and supplants them (as has happened before in history), a second where the democrats start taking the left seriously and start responding to our demands, and a third, by far the worst, where the left gets cold feet and gives up, desperately rallying around the “lesser evil,” thereby ensuring that nothing ever gets fixed, that conditions will continue to decline, and that fascism becomes inevitable.