because she was more likely to succeed in the electoral process so that I could continue my fight
How? She lost every branch. Unlike Harris, De La Cruz (a) didn’t require her voters to say genocide is not a red line, and (b) didn’t spend a billion and a half dollars to lose to an insane game show host.
Who is your current pick for president in 2028?
Unless you’re going to remove the current Democratic leadership (which you can ONLY do by willing to be withholding your vote) you’re getting Harris or Grusome Gavin.
For me, Tlaib is the compromise. But it ain’t gonna happen. So I doubt I’ll be voting for a Democrat in 2028 either.
Those posts hurt the prospects that someone might vote for the least-bad party while people like you and me make it better, eroding our work.
I hope they do! That’s the exact point.
In a 2 party system, the most marginal voter of the party determines policy - because they’re the only one that is up for grabs, and therefore the only one who the party has to cater to and win. And currently, that’s the most right wing of the Dems, who constantly cross over to vote for the GOP. Which is why the party is far to the right of its base.
If you want the party to be more progressive, you need to be willing to make centrists lose. Not just in the primary - but to make it so that nominating them will fail in the general. Too many Democrats have as their only policy “keep the GOP out”. Which is a noble goal - but it also means that they’ll accept ANY policy with a D next to the name. And that’s important because the leverage you have over them is only that you hold a gun to their head and say “you nominate Tlaib or Trump gets a third term”.
That’s the same thing the center does to the left, after all. Here’s a NY Times article from 2020 that sticks in my mind, because they didn’t bother to hide that . . . Democratic Leaders Willing To Risk Party Damage To Stop Sanders. Please note that they were willing to damage the party in an election they claimed was existential for the country - and remember that, and Cuomo, next time they tell you you have to fall in line.
We’ve mostly left the Palestine angle again, but that’s OK with me.
How? She lost every branch
… So did Claudia. She was in the same race and she also lost. She just lost by… like… way more. Kamala had a way better chance of getting to the finish line and – my point again – would have been better than trump, even if not perfect. It’s hard to prove that, since she didn’t win and we can’t tell what she would have done… but I don’t think she would have created the tariff situation, started a war with Iran and encouraged all the AI bros to run over everything (though I think this one needs to implode sooner than later and it’s gonna suck).
Unless you’re going to remove the current Democratic leadership (which you can ONLY do by willing to be withholding your vote)
I think this is where we disagree. And to be clear, combined with
Too many Democrats have as their only policy “keep the GOP out”.
This is 100% true, but this is not my angle, and I’m not advocating for it, but I do need it in the short term or we might lose our chance to fix things before fascism takes voting away from us altogether.
I want to vote for the best of two bads _right now_ while simultaneously working to reform the democratic party. The Democratic Leadership can be changed. And Is. Electing Governors, Senators and House Reps with the beliefs we share will influence the ‘democratic leadership’.
Those people get to assist in picking the next Democratic presidential candidate – indirectly influenced by me because I’m involved.
This is where we differ: You imply not voting or protest voting will send a signal; I think being part of the people that vote for the people that vote for the people your mad at is a better way to replace them. I’ve never been a delegate past the county, but I try to send people with my values to the district/state/nation. I don’t always get my pick. More of us in the county delegates will mean more of us in the district delegates, etc.
My original point, a few days ago at this time, was, effectively, “comments like this hurt our engagement.” And that engagement is necessary to fix the problem. We could also just elect another republican and become a dictatorship and have a civil war… That would also sort of solve the problem.
But I don’t want that. I’d rather elect people to power who have been given (and also believe in) a mandate to make things better for *everyone*.
How do you think this can be accomplished, if not by engagement? Running away is not an option. This problem will follow us all.
How? She lost every branch. Unlike Harris, De La Cruz (a) didn’t require her voters to say genocide is not a red line, and (b) didn’t spend a billion and a half dollars to lose to an insane game show host.
Unless you’re going to remove the current Democratic leadership (which you can ONLY do by willing to be withholding your vote) you’re getting Harris or Grusome Gavin.
For me, Tlaib is the compromise. But it ain’t gonna happen. So I doubt I’ll be voting for a Democrat in 2028 either.
I hope they do! That’s the exact point.
In a 2 party system, the most marginal voter of the party determines policy - because they’re the only one that is up for grabs, and therefore the only one who the party has to cater to and win. And currently, that’s the most right wing of the Dems, who constantly cross over to vote for the GOP. Which is why the party is far to the right of its base.
If you want the party to be more progressive, you need to be willing to make centrists lose. Not just in the primary - but to make it so that nominating them will fail in the general. Too many Democrats have as their only policy “keep the GOP out”. Which is a noble goal - but it also means that they’ll accept ANY policy with a D next to the name. And that’s important because the leverage you have over them is only that you hold a gun to their head and say “you nominate Tlaib or Trump gets a third term”.
That’s the same thing the center does to the left, after all. Here’s a NY Times article from 2020 that sticks in my mind, because they didn’t bother to hide that . . . Democratic Leaders Willing To Risk Party Damage To Stop Sanders. Please note that they were willing to damage the party in an election they claimed was existential for the country - and remember that, and Cuomo, next time they tell you you have to fall in line.
We’ve mostly left the Palestine angle again, but that’s OK with me.
… So did Claudia. She was in the same race and she also lost. She just lost by… like… way more. Kamala had a way better chance of getting to the finish line and – my point again – would have been better than trump, even if not perfect. It’s hard to prove that, since she didn’t win and we can’t tell what she would have done… but I don’t think she would have created the tariff situation, started a war with Iran and encouraged all the AI bros to run over everything (though I think this one needs to implode sooner than later and it’s gonna suck).
I think this is where we disagree. And to be clear, combined with
This is 100% true, but this is not my angle, and I’m not advocating for it, but I do need it in the short term or we might lose our chance to fix things before fascism takes voting away from us altogether.
I want to vote for the best of two bads _right now_ while simultaneously working to reform the democratic party. The Democratic Leadership can be changed. And Is. Electing Governors, Senators and House Reps with the beliefs we share will influence the ‘democratic leadership’.
Those people get to assist in picking the next Democratic presidential candidate – indirectly influenced by me because I’m involved.
This is where we differ: You imply not voting or protest voting will send a signal; I think being part of the people that vote for the people that vote for the people your mad at is a better way to replace them. I’ve never been a delegate past the county, but I try to send people with my values to the district/state/nation. I don’t always get my pick. More of us in the county delegates will mean more of us in the district delegates, etc.
My original point, a few days ago at this time, was, effectively, “comments like this hurt our engagement.” And that engagement is necessary to fix the problem. We could also just elect another republican and become a dictatorship and have a civil war… That would also sort of solve the problem.
But I don’t want that. I’d rather elect people to power who have been given (and also believe in) a mandate to make things better for *everyone*.
How do you think this can be accomplished, if not by engagement? Running away is not an option. This problem will follow us all.
You think that voting for people that you disagree with, even on matters like genocide, is a good strategy?
Honestly, why don’t you just vote for Trump by that logic? After all, he’s better than Stephen Miller, right?
Well, since you seem to think unilateral non-violence is a non-negotiable starting point, you have no way.