view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
I suspect that's not true as there do exist folks who may prefer Harris to any of the third parties. Never-trump Republicans, for example.
This differs from the usual argument about voting third party since the additional aspect of voting for a non-viable candidate is not present here - Harris has a real shot at winning.
A couple of points in response:
There are multiple ways to push the conversation forward. For example, one can fully back Harris but still push for different policies (such as more support for Gaza, backing single payer healthcare, free college for all, or even a universal basic income).
Pushing the conversation forward is good and all, but it seems like a non-sequitur in terms of avoiding a win by the GOP candidate.
Finally, currently there do not exist any viable alternatives outside the two-party system for the president. (In downstream elections like Senators and House reps and such, we do see independents.) The closest is Socialist and independent Bernie Sanders - he's not a member of the Democratic party but he caucuses with the Dems and he ran as a primary candidate for the Democratic nomination for President.
This acknowledges the reality that an independent president would have to govern with the cooperation of a coalition of Senators and Reps.
In practical terms I suspect if there ever was an independent president, that person would have to "caucus" with either the Dems or the GOP of Congress.
I'd give credit to this. For example, some voters who identify as Muslim in some battleground states are preferring to vote for Stein over Harris and giving the reason of policy differences over Gaza and Palestine. If we sideline voices, this is how we lose votes.
By instead listening, we have a better chance to win them over, and thus turn the tide.