28% of Americans rate economic conditions as excellent or good, a 9 percentage point increase from last April. And the share who say economic conditions will be worse a year from now has fallen during this timespan, from 46% to 33%.
I have two alternatives. Cornel West and Jill Stein. I can’t believe I can actually vote for Cornel fucking West this year. At least, if he gets on enough state ballots.
Voting third party is splitting the vote. Give me ranked choice voting and I’ll never make a Neo-lib one of my top choices. But, until then, it’s functionally a binary choice. And right-wingers toe the line, and their line is literal fascism. Easy choice. Shitty, but easy.
That’s entirely beside the point. You think the fascists are more likely to give you ranked choice than the neo-libs? This line of thinking is nonsensical past superficial idealism. What’s your alternative, the greater evil? You think that’s going to magically make the ever-so-sightly-further-left corporate party turn progressive?
How’d that work after 2016? If the wake-up-call strategy was going to work, that would’ve been the time. And oh look, we got a geriatric neo-liberal. Fun.
I’m not going to wager a potential fascist dictatorship against the pipe dream that choosing not to vote is a cheat code that what, unlocks the secret actual Leftist candidate? What’s the praxis here? This is like sovcit levels of batshit copium fantasy.
Edit: Downvotes, but no practical alternatives. Idealistic circle jerking.
Voting for anything but one of the top two parties is pointless, voting for the lesser evil is marginally better than voting for the greater evil, not voting is tacit approval of the greater evil. Please tell me, exactly, how does “not voting for the status quo” improve anything? Not rhetorical. I’m asking.
I need to tell you something: perfect is the mortal enemy of better. Both options are bad. One is objectively worse, if you don’t recognize that I assume you’re just part of Putin’s Geopolitik poisoning of the left, whether you know it or not.
Smugly refusing to participate doesn’t make the options better, it just makes it easier for the worse one to win.
Voting for your interests isn’t “refusing to participate”. It’s the bare minimum in a democracy. It sounds like you’ve chosen to participate in a way which is counter to your own interests, and you’re calling out others for not following your flawed logic.
Look, I know that many of the candidates I vote for are long-shot candidates. It’s highly unlikely that they will win. But if I don’t vote for them, then I’m part of the problem. I’m helping to make it even less likely that they win.
Being part of the winning team feels good, but politics isn’t like football or hockey. This is an important civic responsibility.
Do you live in a swing state? Because I don’t. As far as I see it, voting third party won’t have any effect on the election, but might at least signal that I want change. It’s not like the popular vote matters in this country.
Do you really think that eh neo-libs are more likely than the fascists?
Significantly? Hah, no. Mathematically? Yes, absolutely. Extremely unlikely vs. “Oh, you wanted to keep voting? Lol”
Better than your idea.
Which is? I’m waiting.
What’s the praxis here?
What’s yours?
Use every tool I have in the way it can be used. Voting for the lesser of two evils does not preclude literally any other action you could want to do.
Anybody who votes for genocide Joe deserves Trump anyway.
You think Trump would do less Palestinian genocide? He was pretty open about being very pro-Israel and very anti-Palestine. Genocide Trump would be substantially worse for Gaza, and also Ukraine too. That’s what “lesser of two evils” means: yes, Biden is awful, but the alternative is worse.
Until you can show me an actionable alternative, I assume you support increased genocide of Palestinians and genocide of Ukrainians. Because it’s a binary choice, and refusal to choose against any option is tacit approval of every option.
Genocide Trump would be substantially worse for Gaza
Don’t believe you.
and also Ukraine too
Don’t believe you
Okay? So you’re uniformed or just illiterate? Your beliefs mean nothing to me, the evidence already suggests you’re a Russian State propagandist, or you’ve fallen for one.
Because it’s a binary choice
Actually it’s not, and I know much it makes you fascists seethe that you can’t force me to vote for you.
It’s very simple math. If you can’t grasp it, maybe you should change your username to just “box”.
So long as you continue to antagonize every leftist who disagrees with you, all you’ll ever have is impotent idealism. What exactly is your plan of action? Where is your grassroots, your revolution, if every mathematically and politically literate leftist is a fascist to you?
I’m substantially left of center. Who do you think the proletariat are? How do you expect to mobilize them? How do you get three hundred million people to march in unison, when you call them all genocidal fascists? If they are all fascists, how do you ever hope to win?
Except you’re compromised by propaganda, specifically designed to weaken the left (and the US) in order to empower Russian oligarchs. I don’t expect you to propose any actual action. I expect you to continue to insist that letting Putin’s puppet win will somehow rid the world of billionaire oligarchs.
No, their platforms are vastly different. You could argue that Jill Stein and Cornel West are splitting each other’s votes, because they are very similar, but they are both worlds apart from Genocide Joe and Orange Hitler.
The mathematics of First Past the Post elections drastically disincentivizes third parties, to the point of irrelevance. The winner will be one of the top two choices, so the only rational strategy (primarily in swing states, because of the fuckery that is the Electoral College) is voting against the worse of those two option.
Which is to say: when looking at third party options, would those voters be more likely to vote for the worst of the two main options, or the second worst of the two main options? Those are the only two candidates from which splitting votes is pragmatically relevant.
The evidence suggests to me that Orange Hitler is worse than Genocide Joe, since Orange Hitler would likely enable at least the same amount, if not more, Palestinian genocide; while also actively engaging in Ukrainian genocide; while also enabling Project 2025, which fundamentally threatens the thin veneer of democracy the US does have. I am not an accelerationist, I do not think that the probability of revolution it offers is high enough to counteract the probability of descending into fascism.
If you live in a deep red/blue state, then sure, vote third party so they get more visibility and funding, and encourage others in your state to do the same. But otherwise, vote for the second worst of the two main options, and don’t encourage those in swing states to vote third party.
I have two alternatives. Cornel West and Jill Stein. I can’t believe I can actually vote for Cornel fucking West this year. At least, if he gets on enough state ballots.
Voting third party is splitting the vote. Give me ranked choice voting and I’ll never make a Neo-lib one of my top choices. But, until then, it’s functionally a binary choice. And right-wingers toe the line, and their line is literal fascism. Easy choice. Shitty, but easy.
Removed by mod
That’s entirely beside the point. You think the fascists are more likely to give you ranked choice than the neo-libs? This line of thinking is nonsensical past superficial idealism. What’s your alternative, the greater evil? You think that’s going to magically make the ever-so-sightly-further-left corporate party turn progressive?
How’d that work after 2016? If the wake-up-call strategy was going to work, that would’ve been the time. And oh look, we got a geriatric neo-liberal. Fun.
I’m not going to wager a potential fascist dictatorship against the pipe dream that choosing not to vote is a cheat code that what, unlocks the secret actual Leftist candidate? What’s the praxis here? This is like sovcit levels of batshit copium fantasy.
Edit: Downvotes, but no practical alternatives. Idealistic circle jerking.
The least you can do is not vote for the status quo, but you won’t even do that.
Voting for anything but one of the top two parties is pointless, voting for the lesser evil is marginally better than voting for the greater evil, not voting is tacit approval of the greater evil. Please tell me, exactly, how does “not voting for the status quo” improve anything? Not rhetorical. I’m asking.
Removed by mod
I need to tell you something: perfect is the mortal enemy of better. Both options are bad. One is objectively worse, if you don’t recognize that I assume you’re just part of Putin’s Geopolitik poisoning of the left, whether you know it or not.
Smugly refusing to participate doesn’t make the options better, it just makes it easier for the worse one to win.
Removed by mod
Voting for your interests isn’t “refusing to participate”. It’s the bare minimum in a democracy. It sounds like you’ve chosen to participate in a way which is counter to your own interests, and you’re calling out others for not following your flawed logic.
Look, I know that many of the candidates I vote for are long-shot candidates. It’s highly unlikely that they will win. But if I don’t vote for them, then I’m part of the problem. I’m helping to make it even less likely that they win.
Being part of the winning team feels good, but politics isn’t like football or hockey. This is an important civic responsibility.
Do you live in a swing state? Because I don’t. As far as I see it, voting third party won’t have any effect on the election, but might at least signal that I want change. It’s not like the popular vote matters in this country.
I live in a blue state. Using that same logic, voting for Biden here is pointless, because the state’s going to go to Biden anyway.
Removed by mod
Significantly? Hah, no. Mathematically? Yes, absolutely. Extremely unlikely vs. “Oh, you wanted to keep voting? Lol”
Which is? I’m waiting.
Use every tool I have in the way it can be used. Voting for the lesser of two evils does not preclude literally any other action you could want to do.
You think Trump would do less Palestinian genocide? He was pretty open about being very pro-Israel and very anti-Palestine. Genocide Trump would be substantially worse for Gaza, and also Ukraine too. That’s what “lesser of two evils” means: yes, Biden is awful, but the alternative is worse.
Until you can show me an actionable alternative, I assume you support increased genocide of Palestinians and genocide of Ukrainians. Because it’s a binary choice, and refusal to choose against any option is tacit approval of every option.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Voting is one more thing than you.
Okay? So you’re uniformed or just illiterate? Your beliefs mean nothing to me, the evidence already suggests you’re a Russian State propagandist, or you’ve fallen for one.
It’s very simple math. If you can’t grasp it, maybe you should change your username to just “box”.
So long as you continue to antagonize every leftist who disagrees with you, all you’ll ever have is impotent idealism. What exactly is your plan of action? Where is your grassroots, your revolution, if every mathematically and politically literate leftist is a fascist to you?
I’m substantially left of center. Who do you think the proletariat are? How do you expect to mobilize them? How do you get three hundred million people to march in unison, when you call them all genocidal fascists? If they are all fascists, how do you ever hope to win?
Except you’re compromised by propaganda, specifically designed to weaken the left (and the US) in order to empower Russian oligarchs. I don’t expect you to propose any actual action. I expect you to continue to insist that letting Putin’s puppet win will somehow rid the world of billionaire oligarchs.
Removed by mod
No, their platforms are vastly different. You could argue that Jill Stein and Cornel West are splitting each other’s votes, because they are very similar, but they are both worlds apart from Genocide Joe and Orange Hitler.
The mathematics of First Past the Post elections drastically disincentivizes third parties, to the point of irrelevance. The winner will be one of the top two choices, so the only rational strategy (primarily in swing states, because of the fuckery that is the Electoral College) is voting against the worse of those two option.
Which is to say: when looking at third party options, would those voters be more likely to vote for the worst of the two main options, or the second worst of the two main options? Those are the only two candidates from which splitting votes is pragmatically relevant.
The evidence suggests to me that Orange Hitler is worse than Genocide Joe, since Orange Hitler would likely enable at least the same amount, if not more, Palestinian genocide; while also actively engaging in Ukrainian genocide; while also enabling Project 2025, which fundamentally threatens the thin veneer of democracy the US does have. I am not an accelerationist, I do not think that the probability of revolution it offers is high enough to counteract the probability of descending into fascism.
If you live in a deep red/blue state, then sure, vote third party so they get more visibility and funding, and encourage others in your state to do the same. But otherwise, vote for the second worst of the two main options, and don’t encourage those in swing states to vote third party.