I am dismayed that Harris has curried favor with the Cheneys and the natsec establishment, and moreover, leaned on an administratively complex, tax break-first social welfare strategy rather than pushing for a generational effort to un-submerge the state, with universal benefits such as more public housing and child cash allowances.
However, I’ve made the calculation that millions (perhaps billions) more people worldwide would suffer and die from climate change and the harmful policies that worsen it, under a Trump administration than a Harris administration. Even though the IRA and executive action are weak first steps, they are meaningful ones that turbocharge the transition to a just, net-zero economy, and help America avoid millions of tonnes of GHG emissions. Likewise, there’s a good chance that even without an excellent anti-price gouging statute, a Harris administration would try grasping the problems Lina Khan, Jon Kanter, Jen Abruzzo and co. are tackling, whether or not they’re gone. And I can at least get behind some of the pro-YIMBY housing proposals like a $40 billion supply research fund. While I’m reluctant to reduce a lot of decisions down to cold equations, the leeway of leftists to protest and do civil disobedience would be lesser under Trump. So I voted for Kamala.
It does feel like she's spitting in the face of every leftist and decent person by campaigning with the Cheneys. Also a horrible political decision, in my opinion. He's very unpopular.
Or: sometimes campaigning is campaigning? She's neither offered nor requested anything from the Cheneys other than their endorsement, they have nowhere left to go and no strings they can attach to anything or favor left to give; just like the other "rinos" sticking their necks out, they are pretty worried about the promised retribution by Trump.
It feels frankly kind of bizarre the that idea they could be a prop to try to attract a specific demographic of people to vote and nothing more seems inconceivable on the left.
For all of their nearly infinite failings, Republicans have managed to continue to cause extensive damage by realizing they need to do what it takes to win and sometimes a person they loathe on stage is just a tool to that end (they'll actually celebrate that fact), not rejecting incrementalism, continuing to get more seats at the table within their own party's coalition, and so on and so on.
Then again, being able to do that assumes a lot in the face of the ~30 year trend to reject the electoral system (which feels like the "real" op against the left more than anything) but that's an entirely new topic.
Anyway thank you for the article, interesting perspective and I agree with your top line arguments.
I’m not withholding my vote from either Harris or Trump. I voted for Jill Stein because she embodies a politics of urgency that I share. Neither Harris nor Trump earned, or sought, my vote.
Voting is but one way to participate in our democracy*. We can volunteer, caucus, join, serve as a surrogate, contribute our perspectives to the public domain, protest, donate, raise money, or run for elective office. I’ve done them all in my almost 50 years of adulthood. I’ve also spent time in behind bars for my activism. None of the principal advances that I’ve seen or benefitted from came about because of how I voted. They came about because of people pushing back hard against the political class, swimming against the tide as opposed to lining up like sheep.
I vote for what I want, not for what I think I can get. Voting is easy- it requires nothing but a certain age and minimal amount of effort. The hard work begins after the votes are counted.
I don't doubt Stein's (or any 3rd party) sincerity, but how is their strategy urgent? As I wrote, they've gained +2% of the vote over two decades. If they plan to get to 5% (which is a long shot), how many more elections until Americans feel the material benefits of voting Green? I think they should give us that answer.
I personally have some doubts about Stein's sincerity given her investment choices and connections with Flynn and Putin. Whether she's serious or not, though, the bigger problem for me is the one you pointed out in the post about a lack of organizing.
Agreed. And Stein does not appear to have ever won an election campaign for herself or someone else, or served in public office, even in her local Boston area.(Please correct me if I'm mistaken.) Or to have grown the Green Party in lower offices -- the Working People's Party, Democratic Socialists, and the Progressive Party in Vermont have done so in different ways. That's why I think she is perhaps sincere in her views, but unserious as a candidate.
What decided my vote for Harris was that if America is going to make any meaningful progress, this MAGA culture war shit needs to die. And that will only be done if we render it electorally unviable.
The article linked below is an interesting expansion on your first point. We've seen how the Dems respond to losses, and I don't know how anyone has convinced themselves that if the Democrats lose to Trump again, that they will have some come to Jesus moment about moving left. It's more likely the Dems move left if the GOP keeps losing elections because they recognize that MAGA is a spent political force and they have no options other than to moderate (Reince Priebus knew this as RNC chair after 2012, but Trump blew up that strategy). The Dems are free to move right because the GOP keeps moving right and they can sucker blue voters by promising they're not as bad as Trump. What happens if the GOP is forced to push left after repeated electoral defeats?
Spot on. I think the only proven way we can move the party left is through street-level mobilization and contested primaries. As you said, the GOP is so horrible the Dems don't have to move left. They can get the Sanders-Cheney coalition only because they're united in the horribleness of Donald Trump.
From the title to this essay I expected to be annoyed by its contents, but your argument was well crafted. I am not wholly convinced, but I do see where you're coming from. As I see it, Palestine is not only a mirror reflecting the shambles that our society has become, it's also the beginning of the end of the US empire. Neither the left nor the right in this country grasp the interplay between geopolitics & economics
You're spot on about Palestine. One reason I'm skeptical of 3rd parties at this time is, as you said, it's only one consequence of our Empire. There will be another genocide, conquest, etc. four years from now. We need concrete answers as to how we respond to that.
Really great article, I'm in agreement with pretty much all your points. A few thoughts.
A lot of the online discussion about this in leftist spaces is dominated by.. well... the very Online. These are spaces where you can gain clout by appearing more uncompromising or extreme or principled than the next person. I don't think this comes from people's beliefs being disingenuous, or that they're *purely* chasing clout, but rather that it's just a social dynamic which veterans of online spaces will start to recognize as a pattern. People egg eachother on and the goal becomes who can own the libs the hardest, or define their less extreme opponent as the lib. Don't get me wrong, the libs often deserve to get Owned, but it's not really praxis.
In general there seems to be a lack of concern with what the likely effects are of a Trump appointed federal government and judiciary. In a lot of cases it appears to be total ignorance, where they aren't even aware of what the NLRB has been like for the last few years, who Lina Khan is, or what the FTC does, etc. There's a lack of understanding regarding the nitty gritty of what it means to have run-of-the-mill psychos and thugs in charge of the Federal police and judiciary vs. what it means to have feverish MAGA psychos and thugs in charge of the Federal police and judiciary. One of those is going to be materially worse for us. And that's not even getting into the possibility of deportations.
And overall, there's a general over-estimation about how much their vote matters, and how it reflects on themselves. It just seems like an anti-materialist, almost religious understanding of what voting means. That it reflects personally on them. That their vote means they endorse every action and consequence of what they vote for. Like a willful refusal to understand any strategic action or compromise (which is, of course, the basic characteristic of ultra-leftism). It sometimes gets hysterical. I consider voting in a bourgeois presidential election to be more like taking a shit or any other necessary activity that I don't need to personally identify with and endorse the results of.
There are few discussions more worthless than the ones I've seen online between people arguing over whether they should vote for Green, PSL, or West for president. It's really emblematic of how impotent the electoral left is at this juncture.
Well said! The online aspect is very interesting, because we know social media companies encourage arguments and promote hot takes to drive engagement. When you factor in the other differing view points, it will lead to a spiral.
I agree about the vote. I'm actually unsure why so many people think it's a moral "credit" to vote for someone. That's not how I've understood voting at all, and I don't know where that thought comes from.
As I have been saying for literally decades (two of them, specifically), If the Greens actually cared about improving the state of the country they’d have disbanded in shame after 2000.
It depends on what we mean by "worked"? Lesser evilism helped codify women's suffrage and labor battles in America, and it also was the Bolshevik's tactics during the 1905 - 1918 revolutionary period.
The Democrats have refused to codify Roe v. Wade even when they were able to do it.
Democrats haven't been supporters of labor in decades. They abandoned labor during Clinton and Biden broke the rail strike while giving federal contracts to union busters.
Maybe back in 60s and 70s when there was at least a semi-clearer distinction between the parties lesser evilism made sense, but now? Nope.
Republicans and Democrats are both against these things and us on the Left (and so much else). The difference is that Republicans come right out and say it while Democrats pretend to be our allies and co-opt our positions.
…you do realize that if Gore had been elected 9/11 (and therefore PATRIOT and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) wouldn’t have happened, right? Bush getting elected had massive, specific, and concrete negative consequences for the entire fucking world.
First, Gore not getting elected was largely the fault of the Electoral College and the Supreme Court.
Second, while 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act probably wouldn't have happened, I find the idea that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars wouldn't have happened a bit silly (though they wouldn't have happened the same way). Also, the Democrats supported all these things and Democratic president Barack Obama expanded Bush's policies, so...
There were multiple factors that contributed to Gore losing the election.
Gore lost his homestate of Tennessee and lost Arkansas because he didn't let Clinton campaign for him due to what happened with Monica Lewinsky. If he had won one or both states, he'd have won the election.
There was also Bush and the Republicans cheating Gore in Florida and the Supreme Court stopping a recount. If that hadn't happened, Gore would've won.
Gore also got more than half a million more votes than Bush, but the Electoral College came into play. If that wasn't a thing, Gore would've won.
But the biggest problem is that you're assuming that everyone who voted for Nader would've voted for Gore if Nader wasn't running, but there's no evidence that's the case. In fact, most Nader voters would've just not voted.
Bruh, 0.6% (that’s 537–the number of votes that Gore lost Florida by—divided by 97,421—the number of votes Nader got in Florida) is *such* a small fraction that it’s completely delusional to imagine that Gore wouldn’t have won Florida—and therefore the presidency if Nader hadn’t run. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it. Otherwise, common sense prevails, especially in light of the undeniable fact that a nontrivial part of Nader’s campaign message was that Gore wasn’t a real environmentalist (a message obviously intended to draw voters from Gore to Nader).
As to all your other statements, they’re all correct! All four of these statements are true:
1. If Gore had won Tennessee or Arkansas, he would have won.
2. If the Bush v Gore case hadn’t happened, Gore would have won.
3. If presidential elections in America worked in a non-stupid way, Gore would have won.
4. If Nader hadn’t won in Florida, Gore would have won.
And the truth of those statements is *independent* of each other, so it’s perfectly correct to say one of them without saying the others!
I trust that your skills with both logic and the English language are sufficient to understand how “Nader cost Gore the election” is a reasonable permutation of statement #4, especially considering that “… cost Al Gore the 2000 election” is a linguistic construct that *you* brought into this conversation.
The Green Party should understand that POTUS is not an entry level government job. They need to build up from the local and state levels; win some seats in Congress, maybe a couple governors or Senators. Then you can think about being a player at the national level. Running a laughably unqualified vanity candidate every four years isn't helping anyone.
I understand their desire, but I share your concerns. One thing that really alarms me is that they went from 1.1% in 2016 to .3% in 2020. That shows they really didn't build the base they needed to get anything done.
I was thinking about this earlier, and I'd love to interview them/Stein post-election to hear their thoughts on if their strategy works.
Friggin’ eh! Voting Kamala, and both impatient for and dreading the presumed shit show of the coming weeks. You said it best: organizing from “prisons, camps and graves” is the last thing we need.
This is the first time I have seen my view of national politics articulated. Not sure if that's because I read too little or because our view is rare, but I'm grateful to read your writing. I'm less alone and also better equipped to explain my perspective.
Well then, I'm glad you found it! Personally, I think nuance is hard to communicate in today's short-term attention span, so I think its rare from a content perspective.
While I understand the hurt that many many folks feel in regards to Palestine- I feel it too - and understand why they do not want to enable the Democrats by voting for them. It feels hypocrital. Honestly though, I feel like we're sliding into fascism no matter what party wins. I much rather have 4 more years of a tiny bit of breathing room rather than the head first descent a Trump/Vance administration will bring us. Our choices are AWFUL - maybe they always have been and we're finally understanding that. My vote doesn't matter really - I'm in CA - so I've researched my local candidates and the props, and that's where my focus is when I talk to folks.
I don't think people need to feel hypocritical just because I don't think there's any moral component of votes in an immoral system. It's like calling a prisoner hypocritical because they claim they're innocent, but they follow the prison rules. That's the really awful situation we're in.
You missed my point - they simply do feel hypocritical. They think voting is a moral issue, and many vote out of emotion. That's what they're working with. No need to invalidate them (me) and their point of view by telling them how they should/shouldn't feel. It's not persuasive, nor kind. I was simply empathizing with them, AND saying that there's not good choices, but that there is a teeny tiny bit more freedom under a Democratic presidency and I guess I'll take it.
Your response to me is argumentative for no reason.
I'm sorry if that came across as argumentative. That was not my intent. Rather, I was trying to say that while I understand why people feel horrible for having vote for a lesser evil, I would encourage them not to beleaguer themselves. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Sorry, but that's somewhat of a denial of facts, which means you either don't know how that election went or you're just being dishonest. There was ranked-choice voting in that election for the first time in NYC. The two leftist candidates split the progressive vote (although each had a significant percentage of votes in the first round, higher than anyone else except Adams) and so a lot of people's first choices were thrown out in favor of lower-ranked choices. It took 8 rounds of vote counts for Adams to even reach 50%.
I too am unconvinced. If Trump was a dove, I could understand it, but he’s even more hawkish than Biden-Harris. I’m deathly afraid of what a second Trump administration means for me and many of my loved ones as a trans woman. Between those two things, I am fine with having voted for Harris.
That's the thing. Trump is NOT a dove. In fact, he helped Israel's colonization through the annexation of Golan Heights and moving the embassy to occupied Jerusalem. He's very much an anti-Palestine hawk, which I think people have forgotten.
I voted for Jill Stein in 2016, a protest vote because I lived in a state that is one of the reddist of red states and not remotely in play. I regret that vote. I voted for Kamala this time. I've been underwhelmed by her politics but I think Trump is one of the biggest threats to our country imaginable so it is a no brainer to me. People have a short memory and don't seem to remember the utter chaos with how badly he mismanaged covid.
I don't really have a problem with protest votes in states where it makes no difference at all (like mine) but in swing states, it makes absolutely no sense. There's no strategy to it and it makes us all even worse off.
Thank you for this, I've been thinking about this issue a great deal as many friends are sitting out or voting third party, even in a swing state. I share your concerns about a 2nd Trump administration, and the decades of repair and rebuilding that would be required if his party ever relinquished power again in our lifetimes.
A question, eventually. I think that the electoral reform movements, Ranked Choice Voting and the National Popular Vote, if achieved, would make our voting system able to accommodate and integrate multiple parties and their voters, (and prevent "spoilers" and pariah status of 3rd party candidates). RCV, from a structural point of view, would help make progressive and left wing candidates electable -- the first step of government representation, which you acknowledge is a goal. It is a long game, and everything seems a long game right now.
What are your thoughts on these voting reforms, which are adjuncts to all the other movement building and strategy you have discussed?
I love them! Too often, we think, "Democracy = Voting." It's not. Democracy is when the will of the majority is enacted. Voting can be a procedural way to do that, but it itself does not constitute democracy. I think both of those moves get us closer to democracy, so I'm for them!
I am dismayed that Harris has curried favor with the Cheneys and the natsec establishment, and moreover, leaned on an administratively complex, tax break-first social welfare strategy rather than pushing for a generational effort to un-submerge the state, with universal benefits such as more public housing and child cash allowances.
However, I’ve made the calculation that millions (perhaps billions) more people worldwide would suffer and die from climate change and the harmful policies that worsen it, under a Trump administration than a Harris administration. Even though the IRA and executive action are weak first steps, they are meaningful ones that turbocharge the transition to a just, net-zero economy, and help America avoid millions of tonnes of GHG emissions. Likewise, there’s a good chance that even without an excellent anti-price gouging statute, a Harris administration would try grasping the problems Lina Khan, Jon Kanter, Jen Abruzzo and co. are tackling, whether or not they’re gone. And I can at least get behind some of the pro-YIMBY housing proposals like a $40 billion supply research fund. While I’m reluctant to reduce a lot of decisions down to cold equations, the leeway of leftists to protest and do civil disobedience would be lesser under Trump. So I voted for Kamala.
It does feel like she's spitting in the face of every leftist and decent person by campaigning with the Cheneys. Also a horrible political decision, in my opinion. He's very unpopular.
Or: sometimes campaigning is campaigning? She's neither offered nor requested anything from the Cheneys other than their endorsement, they have nowhere left to go and no strings they can attach to anything or favor left to give; just like the other "rinos" sticking their necks out, they are pretty worried about the promised retribution by Trump.
It feels frankly kind of bizarre the that idea they could be a prop to try to attract a specific demographic of people to vote and nothing more seems inconceivable on the left.
For all of their nearly infinite failings, Republicans have managed to continue to cause extensive damage by realizing they need to do what it takes to win and sometimes a person they loathe on stage is just a tool to that end (they'll actually celebrate that fact), not rejecting incrementalism, continuing to get more seats at the table within their own party's coalition, and so on and so on.
Then again, being able to do that assumes a lot in the face of the ~30 year trend to reject the electoral system (which feels like the "real" op against the left more than anything) but that's an entirely new topic.
Anyway thank you for the article, interesting perspective and I agree with your top line arguments.
I’m not withholding my vote from either Harris or Trump. I voted for Jill Stein because she embodies a politics of urgency that I share. Neither Harris nor Trump earned, or sought, my vote.
Voting is but one way to participate in our democracy*. We can volunteer, caucus, join, serve as a surrogate, contribute our perspectives to the public domain, protest, donate, raise money, or run for elective office. I’ve done them all in my almost 50 years of adulthood. I’ve also spent time in behind bars for my activism. None of the principal advances that I’ve seen or benefitted from came about because of how I voted. They came about because of people pushing back hard against the political class, swimming against the tide as opposed to lining up like sheep.
I vote for what I want, not for what I think I can get. Voting is easy- it requires nothing but a certain age and minimal amount of effort. The hard work begins after the votes are counted.
I don't doubt Stein's (or any 3rd party) sincerity, but how is their strategy urgent? As I wrote, they've gained +2% of the vote over two decades. If they plan to get to 5% (which is a long shot), how many more elections until Americans feel the material benefits of voting Green? I think they should give us that answer.
I personally have some doubts about Stein's sincerity given her investment choices and connections with Flynn and Putin. Whether she's serious or not, though, the bigger problem for me is the one you pointed out in the post about a lack of organizing.
Agreed. And Stein does not appear to have ever won an election campaign for herself or someone else, or served in public office, even in her local Boston area.(Please correct me if I'm mistaken.) Or to have grown the Green Party in lower offices -- the Working People's Party, Democratic Socialists, and the Progressive Party in Vermont have done so in different ways. That's why I think she is perhaps sincere in her views, but unserious as a candidate.
You're correct about her. I was in Mass when she ran for Governor. I believe she got 8% of the vote.
What decided my vote for Harris was that if America is going to make any meaningful progress, this MAGA culture war shit needs to die. And that will only be done if we render it electorally unviable.
The article linked below is an interesting expansion on your first point. We've seen how the Dems respond to losses, and I don't know how anyone has convinced themselves that if the Democrats lose to Trump again, that they will have some come to Jesus moment about moving left. It's more likely the Dems move left if the GOP keeps losing elections because they recognize that MAGA is a spent political force and they have no options other than to moderate (Reince Priebus knew this as RNC chair after 2012, but Trump blew up that strategy). The Dems are free to move right because the GOP keeps moving right and they can sucker blue voters by promising they're not as bad as Trump. What happens if the GOP is forced to push left after repeated electoral defeats?
https://www.vox.com/politics/378977/kamala-harris-loses-trump-2024-election-democratic-party
Spot on. I think the only proven way we can move the party left is through street-level mobilization and contested primaries. As you said, the GOP is so horrible the Dems don't have to move left. They can get the Sanders-Cheney coalition only because they're united in the horribleness of Donald Trump.
From the title to this essay I expected to be annoyed by its contents, but your argument was well crafted. I am not wholly convinced, but I do see where you're coming from. As I see it, Palestine is not only a mirror reflecting the shambles that our society has become, it's also the beginning of the end of the US empire. Neither the left nor the right in this country grasp the interplay between geopolitics & economics
You're spot on about Palestine. One reason I'm skeptical of 3rd parties at this time is, as you said, it's only one consequence of our Empire. There will be another genocide, conquest, etc. four years from now. We need concrete answers as to how we respond to that.
Really great article, I'm in agreement with pretty much all your points. A few thoughts.
A lot of the online discussion about this in leftist spaces is dominated by.. well... the very Online. These are spaces where you can gain clout by appearing more uncompromising or extreme or principled than the next person. I don't think this comes from people's beliefs being disingenuous, or that they're *purely* chasing clout, but rather that it's just a social dynamic which veterans of online spaces will start to recognize as a pattern. People egg eachother on and the goal becomes who can own the libs the hardest, or define their less extreme opponent as the lib. Don't get me wrong, the libs often deserve to get Owned, but it's not really praxis.
In general there seems to be a lack of concern with what the likely effects are of a Trump appointed federal government and judiciary. In a lot of cases it appears to be total ignorance, where they aren't even aware of what the NLRB has been like for the last few years, who Lina Khan is, or what the FTC does, etc. There's a lack of understanding regarding the nitty gritty of what it means to have run-of-the-mill psychos and thugs in charge of the Federal police and judiciary vs. what it means to have feverish MAGA psychos and thugs in charge of the Federal police and judiciary. One of those is going to be materially worse for us. And that's not even getting into the possibility of deportations.
And overall, there's a general over-estimation about how much their vote matters, and how it reflects on themselves. It just seems like an anti-materialist, almost religious understanding of what voting means. That it reflects personally on them. That their vote means they endorse every action and consequence of what they vote for. Like a willful refusal to understand any strategic action or compromise (which is, of course, the basic characteristic of ultra-leftism). It sometimes gets hysterical. I consider voting in a bourgeois presidential election to be more like taking a shit or any other necessary activity that I don't need to personally identify with and endorse the results of.
There are few discussions more worthless than the ones I've seen online between people arguing over whether they should vote for Green, PSL, or West for president. It's really emblematic of how impotent the electoral left is at this juncture.
Well said! The online aspect is very interesting, because we know social media companies encourage arguments and promote hot takes to drive engagement. When you factor in the other differing view points, it will lead to a spiral.
I agree about the vote. I'm actually unsure why so many people think it's a moral "credit" to vote for someone. That's not how I've understood voting at all, and I don't know where that thought comes from.
As I have been saying for literally decades (two of them, specifically), If the Greens actually cared about improving the state of the country they’d have disbanded in shame after 2000.
I don't mean to knock or insult them, but their strategy has not worked. They haven't won, anything.
Voting for the Democrats as a lesser evil or as "harm reduction" also hasn't worked.
It depends on what we mean by "worked"? Lesser evilism helped codify women's suffrage and labor battles in America, and it also was the Bolshevik's tactics during the 1905 - 1918 revolutionary period.
The Democrats have refused to codify Roe v. Wade even when they were able to do it.
Democrats haven't been supporters of labor in decades. They abandoned labor during Clinton and Biden broke the rail strike while giving federal contracts to union busters.
Maybe back in 60s and 70s when there was at least a semi-clearer distinction between the parties lesser evilism made sense, but now? Nope.
Republicans and Democrats are both against these things and us on the Left (and so much else). The difference is that Republicans come right out and say it while Democrats pretend to be our allies and co-opt our positions.
…you do realize that if Gore had been elected 9/11 (and therefore PATRIOT and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) wouldn’t have happened, right? Bush getting elected had massive, specific, and concrete negative consequences for the entire fucking world.
First, Gore not getting elected was largely the fault of the Electoral College and the Supreme Court.
Second, while 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act probably wouldn't have happened, I find the idea that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars wouldn't have happened a bit silly (though they wouldn't have happened the same way). Also, the Democrats supported all these things and Democratic president Barack Obama expanded Bush's policies, so...
Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the 2000 election. Stop repeating this ridiculous lie.
Are you seriously claiming that less than 0.6% of the Floridians who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn’t ran?
Because that’s what you need to prove in order to demonstrate that Nader didn’t cost Gore the election.
There were multiple factors that contributed to Gore losing the election.
Gore lost his homestate of Tennessee and lost Arkansas because he didn't let Clinton campaign for him due to what happened with Monica Lewinsky. If he had won one or both states, he'd have won the election.
There was also Bush and the Republicans cheating Gore in Florida and the Supreme Court stopping a recount. If that hadn't happened, Gore would've won.
Gore also got more than half a million more votes than Bush, but the Electoral College came into play. If that wasn't a thing, Gore would've won.
But the biggest problem is that you're assuming that everyone who voted for Nader would've voted for Gore if Nader wasn't running, but there's no evidence that's the case. In fact, most Nader voters would've just not voted.
So...you've got nothing but a smear.
I assume *0.6%* of Nader voters would have voted for Gore. Please actually read my post before responding to it.
NOTHING you said changes the fact that But For Nader, Gore would have won in 2000.
"I assume *0.6%* of Nader voters would have voted for Gore. Please actually read my post before responding to it."
First, how. Second, what you said doesn't rebut anything I said.
"NOTHING you said changes the fact that But For Nader, Gore would have won in 2000."
In other words, you ignored literally everything I said and went back to repeating your lie. Got it.
Bruh, 0.6% (that’s 537–the number of votes that Gore lost Florida by—divided by 97,421—the number of votes Nader got in Florida) is *such* a small fraction that it’s completely delusional to imagine that Gore wouldn’t have won Florida—and therefore the presidency if Nader hadn’t run. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it. Otherwise, common sense prevails, especially in light of the undeniable fact that a nontrivial part of Nader’s campaign message was that Gore wasn’t a real environmentalist (a message obviously intended to draw voters from Gore to Nader).
As to all your other statements, they’re all correct! All four of these statements are true:
1. If Gore had won Tennessee or Arkansas, he would have won.
2. If the Bush v Gore case hadn’t happened, Gore would have won.
3. If presidential elections in America worked in a non-stupid way, Gore would have won.
4. If Nader hadn’t won in Florida, Gore would have won.
And the truth of those statements is *independent* of each other, so it’s perfectly correct to say one of them without saying the others!
I trust that your skills with both logic and the English language are sufficient to understand how “Nader cost Gore the election” is a reasonable permutation of statement #4, especially considering that “… cost Al Gore the 2000 election” is a linguistic construct that *you* brought into this conversation.
I
The Green Party should understand that POTUS is not an entry level government job. They need to build up from the local and state levels; win some seats in Congress, maybe a couple governors or Senators. Then you can think about being a player at the national level. Running a laughably unqualified vanity candidate every four years isn't helping anyone.
I understand their desire, but I share your concerns. One thing that really alarms me is that they went from 1.1% in 2016 to .3% in 2020. That shows they really didn't build the base they needed to get anything done.
I was thinking about this earlier, and I'd love to interview them/Stein post-election to hear their thoughts on if their strategy works.
Yea. For the folks in Normie-Demville who mostly regard Stein as a grifter, those kind of results are exhibit A.
Friggin’ eh! Voting Kamala, and both impatient for and dreading the presumed shit show of the coming weeks. You said it best: organizing from “prisons, camps and graves” is the last thing we need.
I cannot wait for this election to be behind us.
This is the first time I have seen my view of national politics articulated. Not sure if that's because I read too little or because our view is rare, but I'm grateful to read your writing. I'm less alone and also better equipped to explain my perspective.
Well then, I'm glad you found it! Personally, I think nuance is hard to communicate in today's short-term attention span, so I think its rare from a content perspective.
I voted PSL today.
First, I live in New Mexico, so it's not like this vote will impact the election.
Second, both candidates are pro-genocide. If you're pro-genocide, I'm not going to vote for you.
Third, both of the main parties are right-wing Capitalist Imperialist parties. Voting for either of them only enables the system.
While I understand the hurt that many many folks feel in regards to Palestine- I feel it too - and understand why they do not want to enable the Democrats by voting for them. It feels hypocrital. Honestly though, I feel like we're sliding into fascism no matter what party wins. I much rather have 4 more years of a tiny bit of breathing room rather than the head first descent a Trump/Vance administration will bring us. Our choices are AWFUL - maybe they always have been and we're finally understanding that. My vote doesn't matter really - I'm in CA - so I've researched my local candidates and the props, and that's where my focus is when I talk to folks.
I don't think people need to feel hypocritical just because I don't think there's any moral component of votes in an immoral system. It's like calling a prisoner hypocritical because they claim they're innocent, but they follow the prison rules. That's the really awful situation we're in.
You missed my point - they simply do feel hypocritical. They think voting is a moral issue, and many vote out of emotion. That's what they're working with. No need to invalidate them (me) and their point of view by telling them how they should/shouldn't feel. It's not persuasive, nor kind. I was simply empathizing with them, AND saying that there's not good choices, but that there is a teeny tiny bit more freedom under a Democratic presidency and I guess I'll take it.
Your response to me is argumentative for no reason.
I'm sorry if that came across as argumentative. That was not my intent. Rather, I was trying to say that while I understand why people feel horrible for having vote for a lesser evil, I would encourage them not to beleaguer themselves. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
Yup, just all of this.
I will note that multiple progressive candidates on the ballot in NYC is how we ended up with Eric Adams.
We ended up with Eric Adams because people voted for him.
Sorry, but that's somewhat of a denial of facts, which means you either don't know how that election went or you're just being dishonest. There was ranked-choice voting in that election for the first time in NYC. The two leftist candidates split the progressive vote (although each had a significant percentage of votes in the first round, higher than anyone else except Adams) and so a lot of people's first choices were thrown out in favor of lower-ranked choices. It took 8 rounds of vote counts for Adams to even reach 50%.
Kamala: accept genocide, get affordable groceries
I too am unconvinced. If Trump was a dove, I could understand it, but he’s even more hawkish than Biden-Harris. I’m deathly afraid of what a second Trump administration means for me and many of my loved ones as a trans woman. Between those two things, I am fine with having voted for Harris.
That's the thing. Trump is NOT a dove. In fact, he helped Israel's colonization through the annexation of Golan Heights and moving the embassy to occupied Jerusalem. He's very much an anti-Palestine hawk, which I think people have forgotten.
I voted for Jill Stein in 2016, a protest vote because I lived in a state that is one of the reddist of red states and not remotely in play. I regret that vote. I voted for Kamala this time. I've been underwhelmed by her politics but I think Trump is one of the biggest threats to our country imaginable so it is a no brainer to me. People have a short memory and don't seem to remember the utter chaos with how badly he mismanaged covid.
I don't really have a problem with protest votes in states where it makes no difference at all (like mine) but in swing states, it makes absolutely no sense. There's no strategy to it and it makes us all even worse off.
Thank you for this, I've been thinking about this issue a great deal as many friends are sitting out or voting third party, even in a swing state. I share your concerns about a 2nd Trump administration, and the decades of repair and rebuilding that would be required if his party ever relinquished power again in our lifetimes.
A question, eventually. I think that the electoral reform movements, Ranked Choice Voting and the National Popular Vote, if achieved, would make our voting system able to accommodate and integrate multiple parties and their voters, (and prevent "spoilers" and pariah status of 3rd party candidates). RCV, from a structural point of view, would help make progressive and left wing candidates electable -- the first step of government representation, which you acknowledge is a goal. It is a long game, and everything seems a long game right now.
What are your thoughts on these voting reforms, which are adjuncts to all the other movement building and strategy you have discussed?
I love them! Too often, we think, "Democracy = Voting." It's not. Democracy is when the will of the majority is enacted. Voting can be a procedural way to do that, but it itself does not constitute democracy. I think both of those moves get us closer to democracy, so I'm for them!