It sounds like you’re proposing primary-ing transphobes in the Democratic party, which I support. But your argument is also not really rebutting “vote blue no matter who” in the general election.
There’s two main goals for voting: Harm reduction, and progress. Sometimes you can’t have both. In those cases, you vote for progress in the primary, and if you don’t win, you vote for harm reduction in the general. That’s what “vote blue no matter who means” - just the second part of that.
If you want to make an argument rebutting “vote blue no matter who” in the general, you really would need to address the harm reduction part. To do that, you’d need to compare to the GOP opponent and their beliefs, or if there’s a third party candidate, whether they have any plausible path at victory or are just a spoiler.
For a house seat, two years of harm can be better than being stuck with them as the representative of the Democratic Party indefinitely due to the rarity of successful primary challenges to incumbents.
Are two years of harm right now better? I dunno, it’s certainly a fraught time, but it’s also unlikely an individual seat is going to be the tipping point. And these centrists are particularly unreliable defenders of liberal democracy should they end up in that position.
Yeah, that is the real argument and calculus. None of us know the future, but every vote counts, and every house member counts, even the “impure” ones. We’ve seen time and time again, unless there’s a large numerical majority, some will always use the threat of defections to stagnate policy.
Certainly right now is a bad time, and of course some will say, “But when??” That is understandable but unfortunately not a great argument because for at least ten years all of our elections have been on a knife’s edge with fascism looming. “Not now” is still true even if it’s been true for a long time.
Really, the thing “just don’t vote” or “protest vote” advocates don’t seem to understand is that progress is very very rarely made by holding out for the mythical One Perfect Candidate. We can’t control who runs, and if we lose seats, we undermine the goals, quite simply. Letting the GOP gain any ground will always leave us with more ground to make up.
It sounds like you’re proposing primary-ing transphobes in the Democratic party, which I support. But your argument is also not really rebutting “vote blue no matter who” in the general election.
There’s two main goals for voting: Harm reduction, and progress. Sometimes you can’t have both. In those cases, you vote for progress in the primary, and if you don’t win, you vote for harm reduction in the general. That’s what “vote blue no matter who means” - just the second part of that.
If you want to make an argument rebutting “vote blue no matter who” in the general, you really would need to address the harm reduction part. To do that, you’d need to compare to the GOP opponent and their beliefs, or if there’s a third party candidate, whether they have any plausible path at victory or are just a spoiler.
For a house seat, two years of harm can be better than being stuck with them as the representative of the Democratic Party indefinitely due to the rarity of successful primary challenges to incumbents.
Are two years of harm right now better? I dunno, it’s certainly a fraught time, but it’s also unlikely an individual seat is going to be the tipping point. And these centrists are particularly unreliable defenders of liberal democracy should they end up in that position.
Yeah, that is the real argument and calculus. None of us know the future, but every vote counts, and every house member counts, even the “impure” ones. We’ve seen time and time again, unless there’s a large numerical majority, some will always use the threat of defections to stagnate policy.
Certainly right now is a bad time, and of course some will say, “But when??” That is understandable but unfortunately not a great argument because for at least ten years all of our elections have been on a knife’s edge with fascism looming. “Not now” is still true even if it’s been true for a long time.
Really, the thing “just don’t vote” or “protest vote” advocates don’t seem to understand is that progress is very very rarely made by holding out for the mythical One Perfect Candidate. We can’t control who runs, and if we lose seats, we undermine the goals, quite simply. Letting the GOP gain any ground will always leave us with more ground to make up.