It’s way easier to run a campaign this way, though. Who wants to acknowledge that the US issues are structural and require solutions that would go against the lobbyists and donors’ best interests?
But due to the first-past-the-post system, these are the only two options. The primaries are when you choose the candidates, and the election is when you choose the winner of the candidates. That’s the system you have. You really need to switch to a preferential voting system if you want to have more than two options in the presidential election.
1- vote for Biden: democrats maintain the current path as that’s literally what’s happening now
2- vote Trump: either they maintain their current path or democrats have to pivot
3- vote third party: if that party gets enough votes one of the main parties will catwr to the messaging of that party to take those voters in the next cycle as it’s an easy win
4- don’t vote: if enough people don’t vote they’ll cater more to them next cycle but that’s harder to aim in the direction you’d want to promote.
Is that a good enough breakdown? So if I were to rank my options I’d go for 3,4,2,1
You’ve said that choosing options 3, or 4 will send a message to change party opinions for the next cycle. But the message it sends is ambiguous at best. It could be interpreted to mean that people are unhappy with the system and demand change; but it could also mean that people are indifferent, or disengaged, or ill-informed, or have been prevented / dissuaded from exercising their right to vote. Or perhaps it could be interpreted on policy grounds: perhaps votes are unhappy with genocide… or perhaps not, perhaps they are war-hungry. Perhaps want stricter rules to control anti-social behaviour … or the opposite.
If you don’t vote at all, your message is basically just noise. It communicates nothing, because whatever message you think it sends it could also be sending the opposite. Voting third-party would be less bad, except that many third parties are exist disingenuously as a tactical way to split votes, to increase the change of victory for the party of opposite values to what the third party purports to represent.
If lets say 10% of people vote for the green party. We know that what people want relates to their messaging and they’d try and take voters away from them as it’s easier than taking republicans or people that refuse to vote since you know what the green party stands for. That’s different than voting for the social democrats and so on.
You can’t lump options 3 and 4 together like that.
Not voting sends the message that people are dissatisfied or feel disenfranchised. Now if the Democrats win they won’t care to change. Or even if they nearly win. But if they loose badly they’ll have to cater to these voters. And thus a pivot would be in order. But like we’re both said, not voting harder to take get a party to move in that direction
I’ve wanted Biden to croak and the party be forced to get behind Kamala sooo bad. Boom, younger candidate, female, minority(Indian mother, Jamaican father) incumbent that can be elected 2 more times. Maybe the plan is for it to happen next term? Idk. I don’t know a single thing she’s done besides be a VP, but damn give me someone who doesn’t look like they gonna die any second.
Kamala isn’t very likeable, and I saw a recent interview (about Biden’s debate performance) where she acted pretty unhinged. She talked at Anderson Cooper like he was a child, had a wierd speech cadence, and smiled psychotically.
Only thing I know about her is she was a DA and prosecuted a lot of people for cannabis.
I’m actually not sure if she’d have a better chance at winning than Biden.
If, somehow, Biden wins, I’d bet she’d be president soon after. Rumors are Biden’s sundowning, and isn’t very coherent after 3pm. That’s only going to get worse, forcing him to step-down (or one would hope).
Harris would probably be a status-quo (i.e. actual conservative) president. Not good, but not as bad as a fascist president.
I like how Democrats always frame this as the only two choices. They really, REALLY want to lose.
It’s way easier to run a campaign this way, though. Who wants to acknowledge that the US issues are structural and require solutions that would go against the lobbyists and donors’ best interests?
But due to the first-past-the-post system, these are the only two options. The primaries are when you choose the candidates, and the election is when you choose the winner of the candidates. That’s the system you have. You really need to switch to a preferential voting system if you want to have more than two options in the presidential election.
The unstated choice is a different candidate for Dems. Joe ran in 2020 as…
…oh fuck nevermind.
You have a better solution for tens of millions of voters to organize behind in the next 4 months?
They had 4 years to light l find and line someone else up. Biden’s age isn’t a surprise that snuck up on anyone
Soooo no other solutions? Gotcha, I’ll stick with the plan to vote Biden and let Harris take over if he steps down.
So as an individual you have 4 options:
1- vote for Biden: democrats maintain the current path as that’s literally what’s happening now
2- vote Trump: either they maintain their current path or democrats have to pivot
3- vote third party: if that party gets enough votes one of the main parties will catwr to the messaging of that party to take those voters in the next cycle as it’s an easy win
4- don’t vote: if enough people don’t vote they’ll cater more to them next cycle but that’s harder to aim in the direction you’d want to promote.
Is that a good enough breakdown? So if I were to rank my options I’d go for 3,4,2,1
You’ve said that choosing options 3, or 4 will send a message to change party opinions for the next cycle. But the message it sends is ambiguous at best. It could be interpreted to mean that people are unhappy with the system and demand change; but it could also mean that people are indifferent, or disengaged, or ill-informed, or have been prevented / dissuaded from exercising their right to vote. Or perhaps it could be interpreted on policy grounds: perhaps votes are unhappy with genocide… or perhaps not, perhaps they are war-hungry. Perhaps want stricter rules to control anti-social behaviour … or the opposite.
If you don’t vote at all, your message is basically just noise. It communicates nothing, because whatever message you think it sends it could also be sending the opposite. Voting third-party would be less bad, except that many third parties are exist disingenuously as a tactical way to split votes, to increase the change of victory for the party of opposite values to what the third party purports to represent.
If lets say 10% of people vote for the green party. We know that what people want relates to their messaging and they’d try and take voters away from them as it’s easier than taking republicans or people that refuse to vote since you know what the green party stands for. That’s different than voting for the social democrats and so on.
You can’t lump options 3 and 4 together like that.
Not voting sends the message that people are dissatisfied or feel disenfranchised. Now if the Democrats win they won’t care to change. Or even if they nearly win. But if they loose badly they’ll have to cater to these voters. And thus a pivot would be in order. But like we’re both said, not voting harder to take get a party to move in that direction
I’ve wanted Biden to croak and the party be forced to get behind Kamala sooo bad. Boom, younger candidate, female, minority(Indian mother, Jamaican father) incumbent that can be elected 2 more times. Maybe the plan is for it to happen next term? Idk. I don’t know a single thing she’s done besides be a VP, but damn give me someone who doesn’t look like they gonna die any second.
Kamala isn’t very likeable, and I saw a recent interview (about Biden’s debate performance) where she acted pretty unhinged. She talked at Anderson Cooper like he was a child, had a wierd speech cadence, and smiled psychotically.
Only thing I know about her is she was a DA and prosecuted a lot of people for cannabis.
I’m actually not sure if she’d have a better chance at winning than Biden.
If, somehow, Biden wins, I’d bet she’d be president soon after. Rumors are Biden’s sundowning, and isn’t very coherent after 3pm. That’s only going to get worse, forcing him to step-down (or one would hope).
Harris would probably be a status-quo (i.e. actual conservative) president. Not good, but not as bad as a fascist president.
It’s this endless litany of “Just because our guy sucks…” and I can’t imagine what that message is going to do to turnout in three months