The Dangerous Illusion of a Presidential Third Party in 2024
thirdway.org
Really you don't need to read more than one chart:
If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you're voting for Trump:
You are viewing a single comment
Really you don't need to read more than one chart:
If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you're voting for Trump:
The argument is always that "A vote for Not X is a vote for Y", forgetting how many third party voters would simply skip the ballot line or refuse to vote at all if these options weren't available.
Calling Jill Stein and Chase Oliver "fascist enablers" for appearing on the ballot misses the entire reason they have a vote base at all.
Eh...we call em as we see em.
https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/democracy-now/clip/why-jill-stein-attended-moscow-dinner-with-putin-and-flynn
When I was younger I liked stein...now that I've seen her just show up for the last 3 or 4 elections and not much else...the pieces all came together.
She's definitely past her expiration date.
I guess you can always write in Claudia de la Cruz with the PSL party.
The entire reason they have a vote base at all is not dissimilar to Trump: civic illiteracy. Unfortunately she appeals greatly to these newcomers to politics or those who care not about watching the other side literally take a sledgehammer to the country but rather point to the other side for not fixing the damage quickly enough. There was a brief moment in time when I was a new voter and at a very shallow level liked the Green Party platform and Stein...
... But it didn't take long for me to realize that was utterly self-defeatist. And if Stein actually cared about the issues she pretends to care about, then she would simply run for Congress as AOC or Sanders have done and influence change in the Democratic party. Changing the party from the inside is far easier than going against the mathematically-impossible 3rd-party vote that ultimately results in a proven Spoiler Vote. So you're right... Some naive folks do support Stein; and those naive folks absolutely have more in common with the Democratic coalition than the Republican ones. So why would they ever want to support Republicans via Spoiler vote?
Anyways, we should all be advocating for Campaign Finance & Election Reform so we can truly vote for who we most ideally want without risk to supporting the person or party furthest from our views.
You're not going to get that with an incumbent party. How do you abolish FPTP inside an organization that won't give DC it's statehood?
https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-democrats-demand-statehood-for-dc-defend-district-s-right-to-home-rule
An Incumbent party already supports DC statehood and it would benefit their party greatly no less. It is completely possible to transform a party (e.g., how Democrats used to be what Republicans are now) and also push another party out (e.g., the Whigs) from within. We do that one Representative at a time, such as how Bernie Sanders and AOC have transformed the Democrat party.
I've written extensively elsewhere on the topic of abolishing & replacing FPTP and more, and ultimately, I believe it's going to require a groundswell bipartisan effort state-by-state on a scale as big as the civil rights movement to pressure for a new Constitutional Amendment, along with an accompanying state-level Constitutional amendment in each state. To me it's the only way to truly fix all the core problems while also making it immune to the corrupt Supreme Court.
They failed to pass a statehood bill in 2009 and again in 2017. That would suggest the party does not, in fact, support the change.
In both cases the outcome was overwhelmingly a result of Republican obstructionism with the vast majority who voted to support DC Statehood being Democrat. There is no reason Democrats wouldn't want another state that would be the bluest in the country to statehood lol. Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority for like, two months, and if you recall that kind of had other things going on at the time in 2009—including but not limited to health care reform and recession recovery.
In 2017... You know who was President and who controlled the Senate, right...?
Democrats claiming they need 60 votes to do anything are as big a pack of liars as Republicans claiming Unitary Executive is a thing.
These are institutions that are hostile to a majority black state.
They did and they do. Especially for partisan policies.
Show me the Republican Senators in 2017 willing to support DC statehood that would get it across the finish line.
Major Citation need for an extraordinary claim. Where is your proof Democrats of today whose presidential nominee is black is trying to stop this? Lmao?
How is DC statehood bad for Dems? Lol.
If you were sincerely never going to vote for either I honestly don't care. Throw your ballot in the garbage physically or technically, I do not give a shit.
But MAGA propagandists are also on here campaigning for Donald every day by trying to turn voters against the only reasonable viable candidate.
If your primary strategy for winning elections is diverting people into third parties, your election prospects are bleak.
A big part of Trump's problem is that he's glued to his base. He can't say anything appealing to a general audience without pissing off the anti-government haters at his flank.
I don't see anyone on this site trying to argue for Trump. They're all closeted in other communities, where any criticism of the GOP is forbidden.
Their primary strategy is using propaganda on fear-addicted racists to bring their voters to the polls, along with gerrymandering to maximize the effects of vote suppression strategies.
Vote suppression strategies includes not only closing polls and other bullshit, but also MAGA propagandists cosplaying as third party voters and attempting to deter votes that would otherwise go Dem.
When your strategy clearly cannot lead to your stated goal given the circumstances, you are either not smart enough to recognize that, or you are lying about your goal.
That doesn't change even if someone agrees with your stated goal. Ignoring the circumstances doesn't make them go away.
Fuck Jill Stein. Never forget the dinner she attended
If people can tolerate Trump being on the Epstein flight logs and Harris taking enormous sums from the Crypto-Bros, I don't think Stein's dinner with the Russians is going to phase them.
But I guess you can always default to the Libertarians. Can't think of anything problematic about a bunch of Americans that idolize Milei.
And the enormous sums she taken from AIPAC, and refusing to prosecute one of the architects of the 2008 housing crisis, opposing body cams on cops, locking up parents of truant children, etc. etc.
Oh sure, but this is all far-right pro-Trump propaganda. Don't let it influence you in any way.
Facts are not propaganda, you may believe that everything you disagree with is propaganda. She has a well-documented history of an being authoritarian right-wing cop
also I believe that was sarcasm and they were agreeing with you.
edit: unless they weren't. I honestly don't know anymore lmao. cause they're right about propaganda but that doesn't mean it's cool to just disregard facts that make you feel less good about doing something. One should take in the whole picture.
I don't bother trying to decipher sarcasm anymore when a majority of the bullshit isn't sarcasm.
Ben Shapiro ass response.
Selective release of and focus on information is a classic propaganda technique.
It is selective because those are pretty significant issues to be selective about. When she is in a position of authority like she was in California, she is very right-wing. She's very Draconian she's very authoritarian.
When she was VP, she went south of the border to tell civil war refugees to... what? Go back home and die? Absolute fascist freak.
The enablers of fascism are the 2 capitalist owned parties
Scratch a liberal...