• Darorad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      No, you should vote for a different lesser evil that they prefer even though it will be even less effective

        • hobovision@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          21 hours ago

          No you do both. Voting is the hedge if the “tear down the system” plan doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked here for 250+ years and a civil war, but it is because of voting and labor action and protests we have made any progress.

        • Darorad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          That is something you do outside of electoral politics. You will not achieve that by not voting for the lesser evil.

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Voting for the lesser evil can enable this strategy to be more effective. Is it easier to organize against the system in the streets today or in a future where the military enforces the president’s whims via emergency powers? I think the answer is fairly obvious.

            Lesser evil voting is a rational response to a broken system, but it also isn’t mutually exclusive with fighting against that system in other ways. And I believe it’s even synergistic in many cases.

      • Tinidril@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Fuck no. You don’t get to pull out “less effective” within a day of Pelosi shuffling a 74 year old cancer patient into the most critical committee position for fighting Trump. That’s exactly the effectiveness you get with Democratic establishment habitual losers.

        • Darorad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The Democrats having practically negative effectiveness is still infinitely more effective.

          Obviously voting for dems isn’t going to produce the fundamental changes we need, neither is voting third party or not voting.

          Dems will at best slightly slow our descent into fascism. That gives us slightly more time to build dual power and engage in direct action.

          We’re far behind, and need every second of time we can squeeze in.

          • Tinidril@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            22 hours ago

            The Democratic establishment has absolutely dominated Democratic policy and messaging for at at least 50 years now. The Republicans have a super majority in the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, the Presidency, the majority of state governors, and an astounding majority of state legislators.

            Establishment Democrats couldn’t possibly be bigger losers. You don’t think that maybe it’s time to review Democratic strategy and leadership?

            The establishment loves to scapegoat progressives but, Kamala ran and lost on the most centrist strategy arguably possible. The only thing remotely progressive about her was her race and gender. That’s the neoliberal way, to run a token candidate that doesn’t even have the support of her own demographics.

            The biggest delusion in Democratic politics is the idea that voters all sit on a left to right spectrum with victory going to whichever side captures the middle. It was a poor model in the 90s, and it’s disastrously wrong today.

          • Tinidril@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Who voted Trump in? You got the centrist campaign of your dreams in Harris and Trump won the popular vote after gaining in every key demographic. The American people voted Trump in because the Democratic party is completely out of touch.

            The left isn’t telling Democrats how to get our votes. Progressives are the most reliable voters in the country. We’re telling the Democrats how to reach the vast majority of apolitical Americans who pay attention for a month or two every four years. That’s exactly the group that voted Trump in.

      • limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        When people have limited choices to vote on, voting for a or b does not make them like a or b.

        It just means it’s a “boiling the frog situation” when gradually changing the goalposts makes people not notice the real issues.

        The average American really has not changed that much from the past generations, but the candidates that are allowed to run in either party have drifted rightward.

        If I want to vote for green, and I can choose only on a greyscale, my interpretation of which shade of gray might be closest to green might be a personal choice, highly disputed.

        • Darorad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yes, what shade of grey is closest to green is unclear, but there are only two shades of grey that can win. I’d be ecstatic about dumping my shade of grey if anybody could explain how it would bring us closer to green.