5
Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib declines to endorse Kamala Harris
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
5 points (51.9% liked)
politics
19249 readers
1750 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Just because someone presents something as if there are a limited number of possibilities or outcomes, its important to keep in mind, this is often just a result of their framing. Its often more reflective of their incomplete thinking on a situation than it is reality, and cynically, its a kind of rhetorical slight of hand often used to keep a narrative structured in such a way that only certain outcomes are possible.
Democrats, and more importantly, their voters, have proven to be cowards in the face of doing the right thing. Demanding little and less from a party as weak as the Democrats has left a lane wide open. I think we'll see that lane taken over the next couple of years.
Nobody is saying that another outcome isn't possible, but no other outcome than Trump or Harris in this election is remotely plausible.
So my good faith question to you is, what do you think should be done in this election that plausibly leads to a better outcome than a Harris vote? Open-ended question, no barriers.
I mean, the person i'm responding to is. And we're not talking about this election cycle.
But since you asked in good faith, I'll at least respond to how I think things might shape up going forwards. Its going to take a minute so I put up a quick response and will @ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com here so you get it when I'm finished.
So in 2016 Bernie Sanders broke through a barrier as an independent who suddenly, a crotchety old white guy from a very white state, almost single handedly swooped in to scoop up the Democratic nod from, perhaps the most insider of party insiders, Hillary Clinton. He did so with a rag tag coalition of black, brown, lgbtq+, anti-war, and primarily progressive voters. Bernie Sanders showed that there was a viable path, where by focusing on groups not serviced by mainstream parties, you could build a coalition of voters and represent a very material electoral threat to a party structure that up until that time had proven to be unassailable. Bernie Sanders did this with an almost laser guided focus on polices which addressed the criticisms of the post-2008 era, who felt jaded and misabused by the faux economic populist/ actually corporatism politics of Obama.
At the same time, we saw a similar story play out on the Republican side of the coin. However, unlike Democrats, Republicans were not so competent in their ability to "manage" their party process internally (read: in-spite of all efforts, they couldn't steal it from Trump the way D's stole it from Bernie). The result was that the nationalist populist won the nomination, and would go on to win the election.
Between here and there, we had covid. So that was a bit of a zinger. Threw quite the unpredictable wrench in things. 2020 election cycle rolled in and we had basically a similar match up as we did in 2016. And again it looked like Bernard was going to be the nominee; until super Tuesday (the weekend before which 3 nominees all simultaneously 'dropped' out to endorse Biden). Stolen again. But this time would be different. While Biden got the nod, Bernie got the platform. Instead of burning the bridges like Hillary before him, Biden built a bridge to the now-self-evident progressive populist wing of the party. And he basically gave them control of the platform, which ended up being one of the most progressive platforms in the history of American electoral politics. And it worked! The coalition defeated Trump, even if it performed worse than perhaps polling indicated.
So now we're in 2024. Harris makes her first move to the left with a couple announcements and the Waltz pickup. Her polling is like, mooning. Her early august number seriously looked like she could get into the 55's by election day. During the convention, she makes a rightward pivot, and continues that through the convention and then, in-spite of declining poll numbers, keeps leaning to the right. We'll see Tuesday how all that turns out, but with these things in mind we can make a couple of conclusions.
First, the American people are desperate for a change, an basically have been needing to scream with no mouth to do so since 2008. Trump in 2016 was a brick through the window of a two party system which simply isn't interested in the opinions of its voters. Its clear to many voter that since almost 2008 (next Presidential election will represent 20 years), the voters of the Democratic party have either had their will suppressed or have been outright ignored.
This election cycle, had Biden not stepped down, and if West and Stein had been able to resolve their issues, I think we could have seen the greens making a legitimate stab at taking the presidency. That being said, I don't think the greens are a particularity good party, but I do understand for strategic reasons why you just shoot for an office like the presidency when you have limited resources. The key here is that the American electorate is still looking for that better option and have been since the year 2008 when so many people in the US saw their lives turned upside down, to have never really recovered since. This is what opens up that lane. Its the grievance politics of the left, and one dismisses it at their peril. I think Talib and Omar, and maybe Porter; any Democrats that have been ratfucked by the party: becoming Independents may represent the most viable path forwards.
So this got a bit shaggy and rambly, and I haven't really slept in days. But long and short of it, the Democrats leave a lane open because there are legitimate grievances left unaddressed by the existing party structure. I would put very, very good money that this lane gets taken (if we still have elections) in 2026/ 2028.
I agree with pretty much all of the substance of what you said. I agree, the democratic party, when feeling pressure in a presidential election, always move right instead of left. And that ends up often being the wrong choice. I think I'm just not sure we are reaching the same conclusions - if your post means you feel a non-Harris vote is rational, which maybe I am misunderstanding.
There are two issues if so.
First - and again, I don't even know if we disagree on this - is that voting for third party candidates and hoping to shoot the moon with democratic support flipping to, e.g., green (which I feel is a joke/spoiler party in this country, not even legitimate, but just for example) just does not work in a FPTP election. Maybe you can infiltrate the Democratic party, and by force or subterfuge wear its skin over your effectively-new-party candidate - which is exactly what Trump did with the GOP. But a separate left party is at such a disadvantage mathematically that it almost assures victory for the competing right-wing party for one more more elections (which is not an option right now). And then, if by some chance it succeeds, the same people who were "democrats" will fill into the new party, immediately diluting whatever novel left-wing power it had.
Second, is that even if it's illegitimately birthed, the right-wing propaganda alternate-reality pipeline is a hard anchor that makes left candidates legitimately fear that their blue-collar-friendly policies will be twisted by a Fox News into "communism" or never reach their blue-collar audience, leading to those voters to vote irrationally. For example, I have a different take on Biden, which is that Biden won precisely because he was able to backdoor in messaging about left policies while also appealing to the "moderate" right by being an old white guy who "reached across the aisle." He certainly never had the image of Bernie, a left populist. And the low-info "vibe" voters that likely made a difference wouldn't dig into policies to see if he was "left" enough anyway.
My take is it's the wrong target to look at left policy as an "open lane," or even the "long term" vision of losing a few elections to establish a third party (even without Trump, who changes the election to a referendum on democracy rather than policy). Looking at it that way is just arguing why it's valuable enough to bet it all at the roulette table. But the house always has an advantage - the game itself needs changing to an actual functional multi-party democracy.
We get there by pressuring and choosing primary candidates not on left policies, but singularly, laser-focused on ranked choice voting, elimination of the electoral college, and on creating a truth-in-news law that will leash right-wing propaganda. Pretty much no candidates are even talking about those items regularly, much less campaigning on it, which means we are choosing the wrong candidates to change anything.
Theres like, way to much to un-pack under all of this, so I'm just gonna hit the highs.
Yeah I don't think we agree on that. The whole spoiler mythology has been thoroughly debunked. Also, there is a strong strategic reason why the green party focuses on only the presidential race. Its a test of your knowledge of the American political process if you know what that is. Blaming 3rd parties for the political failings of a major parity is so utterly naive, it needs far more time/ space than we have here to address. Hillary's failures in 2016 were her own, just like Gores failure to go through the appropriate hurdles and demand a proper recount in Florida. Democrats failures are squarely to blame for two of the worst election outcomes we've ever had in this country. Blaming third parties when only 60% of the population votes is such a ridiculous notion, we can just write it off.
Ok, you need to separate out the concept of Left from Democrat. Conservative Democrats behave the way you just describe and struggle because they are chasing the same lanes as their republican opponents. But most of the successes on the Democratic side in the previous 20 years arent' in that lane. They are on the other side of the party in the actually left side of the left, that caucuses with the Democrats, but really didn't find their way into the party till 2016. The fact is that centrism/ moderate appeal is a demonstrated-to-fail strategy over the previous 6 election cycles. And frankley, the same is true for Republican. Neither party does well running to the center because there are no voters in the center. The electorate is, by and large, bimodal at this point. And the important point is that when you at least run, and signal and put on the fan fair thats required to drive out your base, you win (See Obama 08,12, Bernie 16, Biden 20 for examples of running to the left and winning, and see Kerry 04, Hillary 16 for counter examples).
Thats fine, but I dont really agree with the points you've made. And I'm also not even talking about necessarily forming a party. I'm not sure a third party is where the power is or is worth investing in. For example, I think Bernie had his greatest strength as an Independent. Its going to depend on how well the green's do this time around (again for that secret reason that I know that 99% of lemmings don't know about, because as much as they like to come down and spin their wheels, most lemmings really don't know fuck about shit about politics). I gave you some hints where to look for that reason.
I guess I'm confused by this response. So you do think that one should vote for a third-party candidate in this election? Or not?
Sure just let me know what you need explained.
Yeah I didn't advocate for a position. Third parties have historically been pretty insignificant and the idea that they are spoilers isn't borne out by reality. The identification of, for example, the greens' in 2016 as spoilers, is so patently absurd, the person making that argument or any argument that follows from probably isn't worth addressing, because whoever is making it doesn't know up from down, or even have the basic ability to count. I dont advocate for any particular voting policy or strategy, but rather try an stay focused on the effectiveness of campaigns in terms of what works or doesn't work. Both major parties are leaving more votes in their respective couch cushions than any modern 3rd party candidate has ever received.
I think the miscommunication is that you're looking for a game-theory explanation for the best way to vote given a desired outcome, and TDD (forgive the shorthand) is doing a higher-level analysis on large-scale electoral trends and demographics that explain a shortcoming in the democratic campaign strategy. Even working within the 2-party electoral system, democrats have been leaving a lot of voters on the table, and the only outreach they've been doing for those voters (who are getting more and more frustrated) has been to scare them/shame them into falling in line and swallowing their scruples.
The reason why it's dumb to paint Greens or other third-parties as 'spoilers' is because of this implicit assumption that those votes will trickle-down into one of the two major parties if they weren't there. TDD is pointing out that Greens (and RFK before he stepped out, and PSL, ect) are filling political voids that the democrats and republicans have left open by not addressing the concerns of those voters. Assuming those voters would simply make a different choice ignores the fact that there was something about whatever third-party candidate that was motivating them that isn't present in the 2-party candidate. That voter is about as likely to decide not to vote at all as they are to decide to give up their scruples and vote for the party that they were actively avoiding in the first place, especially when that candidate has refused to give those voters/those interests representation.
All of this analysis is on top of a foundational understanding/materialist lens that suggests that the US is heading toward economic/capitalistic collapse independent of whatever electoral showmanship is happening every 4 years. This game-theory bullshit is completely indifferent to the environment that is actively pushing voters away from the center and into more and more extreme populism.
This is a very insightful comment and helps me understand why TDD seems to be responding with intensity while not hitting the points I (at least think I) am making.
And there is an important proviso: I don't consider the "game theory explanation for the best way to vote given a desired outcome" to be "the point" so-to-speak of my comment, but just a premise. I do consider that "game theory" voting (a) results in a definite single rational course of action for this election for anyone who favors democracy or left-leaning policies. But I also, it (b) is not be the endgame and just a mitigation until we prioritize ranked choice voting and other structural reform.
This is fine if there was any indication that the underlying problem of fascism in the US is going to be addressed by the incoming administration, or if you believe it is addressed by voting against it. The problem is that many of us don't believe either to be the case, especially when the current campaign strategy has been to grant concessions to those nationalist solutions while turning away from socialist ones.
When neither of the most likely outcomes address the continued growth of fascism inside the US, the 'game theory' of electoral politics suddenly seems like a naieve indulgence more than any kind of solution, even a temporary one.
So as someone who admittedly knows nothing about politics, are you gonna tell us that reason or not?
It's in the response. I left a hyperlink on the period at the end of that sentence.
Yup. This is what frustrates me here and especially the last year: everyone pretends as if Trump is the singular threat that - once defeated- we may move on to other more important things.
But Trump is a manifestation of a national disillusionment with electoral politics and a broader economic failure. We keep dismissing the progressive populism of the left, while the fascistic populism on the right grows to a fever pitch.
If tonight trump keels over from a stress induced aneurism, by tomorrow lunch an opportunistic upstart will take his place because conservatives are frothing at the mouth for retribution. If Republicans return to classical wasp conservatism now, they'll lose the next decade of elections because half their voting base simply isn't interested in stale fiscal policy anymore.
The longer democrats ignore the conditions creating that current of populism beyond the orbit of Big Orange, the shorter lived any victories they might squeeze out now will be. We'll see what happens Tuesday, but i think the odds are leaning away for Harris. We might have to confront that failure sooner than we think.
Let me frame it this way then... in my lifetime, more electoral college votes have been awarded ACCIDENTALLY than have been won by a third party. That's an absolute fact:
https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/12/enduring-mystery-america-s-last-faithless-elector/
The best shot a 3rd party had was with Ross Perot in 1992, how did that work out?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
Clinton - 44,909,889 - 43.0% - 370 EC
Bush - 39,104,550 - 37.4% - 168
Perot - 19,743,821 - 18.9% - 0
No other 3rd party run has even been close.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_presidential_election
Clinton - 47,401,185 - 49.2% - 379
Dole - 39,197,469 - 40.7% - 159
Perot - 8,085,294 - 8.4% - 0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_presidential_election
Reagan - 43,903,230 - 50.7% - 489
Carter - 35,481,115 - 41.0% - 49
Anderson - 5,719,850 - 6.6% - 0
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election
Bush - 50,456,002 - 47.9% - 271*
Gore - 50,999,897 - 48.4% - 266*
Nader - 2,882,955 - 2.74% - 0
* It was found, after Bush's inauguration, that any correct re-counting of Florida would have awarded it to Gore.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa
Perot in 1992 is what really drives home the point. He got nearly 20% of the popular vote but ZERO electoral college votes. Voting 3rd party simply isn't reasonable given our current system.
Voting is like public transportation, get on the train going the direction that you want. In the off years work to make changes and organize, most people ignore the second part.
I like the bus analogy. You aren't getting door to door service. You take the bus that gets you closest to your destination and put in the work to walk the rest of the way.
The Democratic bus gets you within a mile.
The Republican bus travels through the Twilight Zone and strands you in a post apocalyptic wasteland.
And for some strange reason, some of the regular commenters here actively oppose this part in favor of telling us the solution is to let the GOP gain power and "send a message to the Democrats".
I hate this. It presupposes that the two trains are heading in different directions. They're both headed to the same destination. One is an express train.
Plus it's glib.
I think we're living in two different realities. If you can't tell the difference I'm not sure how you even wrote this post.
Oh, which one is taking us further away from fascism? Because I'm not seeing one that is. I see one that's hurtling headlong toward fascism and another that is coasting towards it.
I get that you want to pretend that the Democratic Party is making strides away from fascism, but they're just fucking not.
What actions by Dems do you see as "coasting towards" fascism?
They could have protected Roe. They had opportunity to do so. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.
They could have passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and curtailed some of Republicans' attempts at election fuckery. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.
Coulda codified Obergefell, nope. Coasted. Coulda raised the minimum wage. Coasted.
Not to mention actually accelerating under power toward the same destination with Gaza and the border.
They had a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency for like 70 days. Why wouldn't SCOTUS have overturned their law when they struck Roe? Matters of health and wellness tend to be the purview of the states. Where does Congress get the power? Interstate Commerce Clause?
And SCOTUS wouldn't gut it just like they already gutted the voting rights act already? They didn't have 60 votes in the Senate, so how were they getting it through the Senate...you know, where it failed?
No they couldn't. None of these things would get through a Republican controlled house, nor would they have 60 votes for cloture in the Senate.
This is what bothers me constantly. The Dems try to do things, Republicans block them, and then idiots say the Dems don't do anything. Republicans currently control the house and the Dems don't have 60 votes in the Senate. They only have a majority due to Independents caucusing with them. There are not the votes to remove the filibuster.
Congress only has the powers expressly given to them, all others are the purview of the states. It is ludicrous to think SCOTUS doesn't overturn these laws that could have been passed in Congress.
During which time the sun was in their eyes and the dog ate their homework. They could have killed the filibuster forever with only 50 votes. If they had wanted to protect Roe.
If they don't have the power, they shouldn't have run on it. They shouldn't have lied and said they did. Or they weren't lying and you're just making excuses.
The rest of your comment is just your devotion to this one "they don't have 60" excuse. If the Jim Crow Filibuster is more important to Democrats than all the shit they won't do for their voters, then the only reason we give them majorities is to slow the slide into fascism. Not to reverse it. That would, as you are delighted to point out, require 60 votes. And when they have the opportunity to slow the train, well shucky dern, that lil' ol' filibuster is there to save them from having to do jack shit.
We gave them the seats needed to do this. If you don't demand lockstep from those we elect, don't you dare demand it from voters.
You vehemently refuse to understand how Congress works, yet you steadfastly blame the party not responsible. There is literally no point in talking to you.
50 is enough to end the filibuster forever. You don't want it to happen.
Since 2012, the Democrats haven't held more than 48 seats in the Senate. Again, you're uninformed. In fact, so much so that you're a Dunning Kruger wet dream.
When you take into account those that caucus with Democrats and vote with them more reliably than actual registered party members, there are 50 seats. Your excuses are shit, and you know it.
So it's the Democrats fault that people who aren't Democrats don't support eliminating the filibuster? And you think my comments are shit? Look inward, you're ignorant of the facts yet absolutely certain you're right. That's pathetic.
I mean they've been ignoring their constituents and instead pandering to Republicans while supporting their pet country's genocide even as it leads the Middle East closer to another large scale war. There's only one answer at the end of the democrats' right wing shift and that's fascism.
Dems haven't shifted right. They advocate and vote for rights for LGBTQ, worker's rights, and a myriad of other causes. The Democrats attempt to pass favorable laws, they are blocked procedurally by the Republicans, and then idiots say that the Democrats don't do anything. It's a tired refrain.
I would love to see Democrats take a harder line against Israel, but if they had how would this election season be going?? How much money has AIPAC spent? Does it make sense to take a hard line against Israel, and then lose the presidential election, lose the house, and lose the Senate? What do you think happens in Israel and Palestine with a republican supermajority and control of the White House?
Take time to understand situations before commenting on them. The Democrats largely haven't had the ability to pass laws through the house and the Senate without the Republicans obstructing it. Only for about 70 days in the last few decades.
I admittedly don't keep up with the nitty gritty of American politics, but Harris is campaigning on fracking and Republican-style border control. If this doesn't sound like a rightward shift I don't know what is.
No, you don't understand! It hasn't become politically expedient to throw trans people under the bus yet like Democrats did with the undocumented! As long as there is at least one vulnerable population they haven't yet chucked under the wheels for the sheer joy of hearing the thumping sounds, they're the good party!
Genocide.
Do you have a point you think you are making in regurgitating this? If so spit it out. Something I've seen repeatedly on lemmy is people for whom some answer, some framing is acceptable, being completely incapable of understanding that there are people for whom that framing isn't acceptable. Also, to be clear, we're talking about a congress-critter, not the big house in this article. Since thats the topic of the article, it would be appropriate to keep the discussion focused. The reality is that it doesn't matter how small world your view of this matter is: there are other people in the world who think differently than you, and if you want to actually convince them, these tired tropes wont work.
My argument, is that Democrats have left a lane wide open, and from a purely strategic/ cynical view of things, it would be stupid for some-one/ anyone to not just hop in and take that lane. I think we see Talib, Omar, maybe Porter, any other progressives who've been ratfucked by the DNC/ DCCC take that lane as independents. Its a blue ocean/ wide open opportunity that rarely shows itself in politics.
The point is, the winner of our elections will be either the Democrat or the Republican. There is no viable 3rd choice.
So, you hold your nose and vote for whoever is closest to your view who will actually get elected to prevent the person farthest from your view from taking office.
And don't give me that bullshit about "well, neither one is close to my view" because if Gore won in 2000 we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11 and burned trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if Clinton had won in 2016, we wouldn't have a packed right wing Supreme Court and lost Roe.
Both sides are NOT the same, one is CLEARLY better than the other for you and everyone else.
Its like you are allergic to the plain understanding that how you present this case, is just fucking wrong. No matter how much you wish it was that there were only two choices in this race, thats just not true. You drank the kool-aid. We get it. You see no other options. Other people do. Other people in the world see things differently than you, and clearly, Rashida Tlaib is one of them.
Voters don't have to vote. You can vote green, or blue, or red or purple. Or you can write in some other name. You can't force your opinion on the world when your opinion doesn't match objective reality.
This fantastic world you've locked yourself in, its not the real world. Its an opinion that you have (which is fine), but which is not the same as the objective reality, because people actually can (and should, my opinion) vote however they please.
I don't disagree, but you @jordanlund@lemmy.world , are going to have to take responsibility for the fact that this rhetorical approach you are using has done more damage to Harris' chances than it has convinced anyone that they need to vote Democrat. Its a view point that has been cultivated, selected for across lemmy which is toxic, not based in reality, and counter productive to the actual goals you suppose to have. Everyone that thinks the way you do has been convinced. Now what are you going to do about the people who don't think the way you do? How are you going to get the voters for whom a genocide is unacceptable? Its too late at this point, but what I'm showing you is how this this toxic culture divided the party and its ability
Blue MAGA/ Blue no matter who; they were always going to vote Democrat. You don't need to work on them. They're just followers and setting your rhetoric up to convince them is a waste of time, because you've already got their votes. Its the people for whom certain issues are a bridge too far that need to be convinced. And when you offer an argument that "they have no choice but to do what you want them to", do you think that is going to convince them. When you abuse them and gaslight them, how convincing do you think they'll find that?
I'm of the opinion that you can't ask a Palestinian or Muslim voter to vote Democrat this year, since Democrats don't even see them as people. They wouldn't even allow a Muslim 3 minutes on stage to make the case to other Muslims why they should vote for Harris. What Tlaib is doing here is probably the right move politically if she wants to hold her seat. Her job is to represent her constituents, not the party, and if she thinks this is the right thing to do, I support her in that.
If the Democrats are going to keep heading to the right like Harris has, I expect more progressive Independents to start appearing, striking back to the approach that Bernie Sanders used to great effect in the senate over his tenure.
There are only two choices WHO CAN WIN.
Stein can't win, the Greens don't have the power and have NEVER had the power. Their best shot was Nader with name recognition and he couldn't crack 3%.
Without Nader the very best they have done was 1.07% in 2016. Other than that? Sub 1% over, and over.
The Libertarian candidate could have pulled it out if disaffected Republicans had become Libertarians instead of Independents. Pro-Tip - they have not.
Kennedy's out.
The idiot socialist isn't even on the ballot in enough states to win.
West is on the ballot in fewer states than that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election
I agree, I'd love for our system to have multiple VIABLE parties, but we don't. Your choice is the Democratic or Republican candidate, full stop.
If you want to change that, you aren't going to do it by voting for fringe candidates who will get 1% of the vote or less.
The correct way to change it is to pass ranked choice balloting. If you have a chance to support that (we did, on our ballot!) then go for it!
It's clear from this sentence alone that you are completely ignoring the comment to which you are responding.
The comment I'm responding to is attempting to change the subject.
The winner of the Presidential race will be either Harris or Trump. There is no other viable choice.
Do you think they don't understand that? Everyone understands that. You seem unwilling to move beyond that and confront a broader perspective than the vote of one person.
They keep arguing for an alternate choice where there is none, so, yeah, I'm pretty sure they aren't getting it.
No, they aren't. That literally is nowhere in their post.
You either didn't read it all, or you're lying, or you have poor reading comprehension skills.
I doubt it's the latter for a mod on a text based platform.
P.S. I'm an admin on a fairly large platform for a fairly large group. When the group took off, I started interacting on it a LOT less because my moderation responsibilities (which also increased with the groups growth, why are so many people just blatant assholes or trolls?) required that people view me as impartial and unbiased.
Choosing to engage frequently in controversial topics and using straw man arguments against posts that literally don't say anything related to what you say they say is certainly... a choice... for a mod to make.
Don't get me wrong, I miss my ability to interact with the group I admin like a normal person, but my duties to the group take precedence. I understand the desire, but there are other options.
You have no idea how relatable this is. This community has gone feral these past two weeks.
I'd bet money you voted against measure 117.
You'd be wrong, but I did vote against 118.
I haven't voted on 118 yet. It's the only bit unfilled. Not sure which way I'll go. Probably no, and then walk the ballot to a Dropbox in my neighborhoods library.
My beef with it is that it's just a Robin Hood law. They want to replicate Alaska's oil dividend, but we don't have a natural resource like that so the plan is to just soak the largest companies in the state instead.
I'm all for fairly taxing the wealthiest companies, but the money should be used to reduce our tax burden, not just kick it back to everyone else. Phil Knight doesn't need $1,600 back.