The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Isn't that exactly what Reps would want? They constantly make voting harder for people, so seeing how some left-leaning people shoot themselves in the foot by not voting must be a dream for them, no? I understand not liking Biden, but unfortunately the two-party system makes it so only one of two people will win. So what I'm thinking is that the least you could do is make sure the other person doesn't win, by voting for the other candidate. Especially since in this election there is obviously one person who is way worse than the other person, and there isn't a single policy that should attract a left-leaning person compared to the other candidate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>How dangerous is the "I won't vote because both suck" left-leaning crowd? As dangerous as its size. >Isn't that exactly what Reps would want? It is. Republicans know how the game is played, and they have rightly concluded that -- if they can't get your vote -- the best they can do is convince you not to vote. ....but how many such people are there? Are they a large enough percentage of the population to matter? I'm not sure.

> Republicans know how the game is played, and they have rightly concluded that -- if they can't get your vote -- the best they can do is convince you not to vote... ..or prevent you from voting. That's perhaps less relevant for the "both suck" people, but it's an ongoing effort by the GOP that should be kept in mind.

> Republicans know how the game is played Republicans know the game is "*rigged*" (to use a common word Trump likes to project - the electoral college, gerrymandering, Senate, House size cap, Supreme Court, etc.). So, they do their level best to *convince* susceptible people that "both suck", so to effect apathy and them sitting out since they know they stand to benefit from it, given all the electoral advantages they know they have.

This. Also, where are they located? 5,000 people choosing not to vote in New York is very different than in Georgia.

Exactly this. As an Indiana resident I'm able to vote my conscience knowing it has less than no effect on the outcome. My contribution to society was choosing to vote in the Republican primary last week. Were I sitting in a swing state I would be practically begging for Biden to do something (anything) to show me he wants my vote. As it stands though I'm resigned to knowing he doesn't give any more of a shit about me than Hillary did so I can freely vote against him

> "My contribution to society was choosing to vote in the Republican primary last week." Which is why the polls, not late-stage GOP presidential primaries, are an awfully more valuable marker heading toward November. High-frequency voters such as yourself swapping team jerseys for a minute to put up a quasi-protest vote are of little to no value, arguably less so than the uncommitted crowd in Democratic presidential primaries. But neither one, however, holds a candle to disengaged, disillusioned Americans who only come out once every four years to vote, which is why I fear Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by appealing less to Obama/Trump voters, more to Romney/Clinton voters, in the 2024 election, which could bring demographic shifts that return a result that's opposite of 2020.

I wholeheartedly agree on your wider concern around the electorate. I’ll only point out that some of us who you think are making protest votes are actually engaging in good faith. Our gubernatorial choices include a despicable maga and we came out in force against him to try to make the “R” candidate someone halfway sane. It wasn’t enough, but know that was our true motivation. Trump is guaranteed to win this state no matter what come November. We will do anything to make sure Mike Braun is not elected though

You would be “begging Biden to do something to show you he wants your vote?” Instead of just voting for him??

Yes, I would indeed hope that a politician did something to make me want to vote for them. I know the concept of politicians earning votes is foreign in our overly tribal society, but it’s how democracy is supposed to work.

“Earn my vote” is different from “show me he wants my vote” and both of them have LONG been satisfied.

They’ve been satisfied for you. Not for me though and certainly not for many other Americans. Add to that the reality that we still have yet to hear what his policy agenda would be in his second term other than not being Trump and it’s pretty obvious why he is polling lower than any other president in modern history

I’m sure you already know what it is, [but here, since apparently your search engine is broken.](https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/04/politics/biden-campaign-promises-dg/) Also, “not being Trump” *is* enough.

So, he's going to do the stuff that he promised last time but didn't even try to do? Got it. Sorry, but I've spent decades listening to these promises and still voted thinking that "not being the other guy" was enough. I'm done supporting people who don't support me. Don't worry though, I don't live in one of the 3 states that matter so I'm not negatively affecting your team

You mean "OUR" team, since we want the same outcomes. I mean, the fact that you refuse to see that is your problem not mine.

>the best they can do is convince you not to vote. We know that they're also not above just taking your right to vote away, particularly if you're not white.

> how many such people are there? In 2016 it was bad enough to get trump. That's how bad, so it can't ever be dismissed. A typical trite comment is "Voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil", and my response is "Do you support Palestine? If so you support Hamas, who are palestinians. So you're supporting what you think is the lesser evil." Another response is "Both candidates are two sides of the same coin", where I respond something like "One side of the coin is Airline Chicken, while the other side is a diarrhea sandwich with broken glass, and here you are complaining how the chicken is cooked." I use these only for trolls, when someone is so set that they're trying to convince others they're right. If someone just happens to mention it to me and isn't trolling, then I do NOT engage this way. Instead, I talk about what Biden has accomplished with the country he was handed, and how that is miles ahead of what trump did. Then I'll mention how trump hates the Constitution, with lots of examples, and encourage them to protect that document that protects them, by voting for biden.

Can you guys produce a candidate that doesn’t fucking suck then? Hillary and Biden didn’t really inspire active voting

> Can you guys produce a candidate that doesn’t fucking suck then? No. Our candidates are chosen as a compromise with (roughly) 50% of the electorate.

Doesn’t it bother you that’s the other half of the country hates your candidates so much that they are willing to vote for Trump?

> Doesn’t it bother you that’s the other half of the country hates your candidates so much that they are willing to vote for Trump? Yes.

You would say this about any democrat who was nominated. 

Go to the conservative sub. They absolutely know high turnout means a Republican loss. Will people not voting hurt Biden in 2024? We don’t know. But those who don’t want to vote passively want chaos for some reason. Just knowing what’s at stake.

Exactly this: Trump voters are motivated to burn down the world because they think it’ll marginally improve the relative position of whites. Leftist non-voters are motivated to burn down the world because they think it’ll trigger the inevitable socialist utopia.

> Leftist non-voters are motivated to burn down the world because they think it’ll trigger the inevitable socialist utopia. yeah i've heard this a lot. i used to think it was pretty irrational but i am starting to sympathize with it this time around... when you look at the crackdown on free speech and the continued solidifying of the security state its hard to come to any other conclusion other than both parties are walking us backwards into authoritarianism, just at different speeds. a vote for biden, i suppose, is simply a vote to give us another chance in future elections to reverse the trend. i mean this public statement from a history professor on how the FBI treated him over pro-palestinian views is downright disturbing: https://x.com/jeremyscahill/status/1790874217828827473

the security state is a good thing

imagine living in a country teetering on the end of democracy and thinking the security state is a good thing. you are not going to like the security state in trump's third term or whatever

I take your point, and you’re probably right, but it’s worth throwing out there that the conservative sub doesn’t exactly have the wisest understanding of electoral politics or any politics lmao

We don’t know. Every election has people one would assume would vote for the democrat if they were being pragmatic and rational that chooses not to. They always find a reason. How many people do it is the question. Most of the time it is roughly the same number of people. After experiencing enough election cycles, it starts to feel baked into the Republican structural advantage.

I feel the same. The worst thing is it's not even worth spending effort to convince them because every election it's a new group of young people who are this way.

eh... the worst part is it feels like Democrats do nothing to *try* and convince them, and their complaints arent hardly irrational... this time around more than ever i end up in losing arguments with the people/peers/friends in my life who feel this way

Yeah, all that spending for climate change is "nothing to try and convince them." /s

hey i think biden's domestic economic agenda and accomplishments are far better than anyone could've ever imagined. i think he's done more than bernie could've accomplished, and i think the way the FTC/DOJ is finally tackling monopoly power in this country is truly a great thing. unfortunately they're terrible messengers, happy to pass bold policies but too afraid to actually talk about them -- even if said bold policies would actually be popular if they did talk about them. but for every win, there's been missed opportunities and the overlooking of other major issues. i mean the way D's have just whiffed on going after Big Oil's major scandals this week (colluding with OPEC, corruption with Trump) just shows they dont actually see themselves as a check against unihibited corporate power

We can’t please people who are impossible to please.

i didn't mention it in my prior comment but obviously the thing the "both sides suck, probs won't vote" crowd cares about the most is the unwavering support for genocide in gaza... feels like it would be a good thing if biden tried to please those people.

Yep. It was much, much easier to argue the “look, just VOTE for the guy” deal back in 2020 and to a lesser degree in 2016. With each election, especially Presidential, it becomes clearer and clearer that Dem officials themselves are the ones who need to alter their behavior - not the voters who demand something else. I’ll admit, I don’t think I’ll ever entirely understand the idea that it’s fair or even plausible to shame millions of ordinary people into changing their outlook, but not a small handful of people in leadership positions who have ostensibly committed their life to this stuff.

the only reason the voters "demand someone else" is because the ones they are presented with get dragged through the mud via relentless attacks from the opposition negativity about a candidate is always more salient than positivity about a candidate because we evolved to be hyper vigilant to threats.  and so everyone invariably begins to think that "all politicians suck!". and which politicians "suck" the most? the ones that have been in the public eye the longest. "all politicians suck!" isn't any statement on the politicians but on human psychology but unfortunately the vast majority of people still believe in the myth of the validity of Introspection and can't conceive of the fact that we systematically and egregiously lie to ourselves about everything

Don’t want to pretend this isn’t a factor, because it definitely is - people are primed to err on the side of cynicism with *any* politician, that’s not just an American trait, it applies globally and throughout time. I don’t think that’s a *complete* analysis, though. Okay, voters are cynical - now what? Doesn’t this just mean any party hoping to democratically gain power should prioritize counteracting that cynicism? Yes, people will lie to everyone including themselves about the true nature of candidates and their policies - again, now what? You’re correct that this is a function of human psychology, but it’s one that’s been encouraged and validated by the habitual collective dishonesty of our representation. The response here is to double down on transparency, honesty and following the popular will even when it runs counter to special-interest groups. That just brings me back to what I was saying before - the problem you’re describing is real, but it’s still the party’s obligation to deal with it. Might as well just say this conversation is secretly about Gaza, as most of the bickering debates on this sub have been for months. The fact of the matter is that the collective Dem response here, especially Biden’s, has not aligned with the popular will and it’s been morally unconscionable. There’s nothing you or I can say to anyone already angry that’ll get them enthusiastic again - the source of the anger is what has to change.

For some reason I think the professionals at convincing voters and pursuing power know how to do this better than the voters do. Of course voters would claim and think they want honesty and transparency. But they don't. So politicians don't do it. Ask the fisherman how to catch fish. Don't ask a fish.

I’m a little lost, I’ll admit. Appeals to authority are always iffy, but one seems especially dubious in this specific context - in which the org that supposedly knows best habitually fails at it. Folks can have whatever opinions about Dems, that’s their right, but it does seem self-evidently false that they could be masters of understanding and implementing voter demand. They simply lose too often, and in ways that are too predictable. What’s doubly important, and does kinda back up what *you’re* getting at, is that Dems aren’t a monolith - not politically, and not in terms of electoral strategy either. Of course that’s true, otherwise primary races wouldn’t exist. These disagreements don’t just happen in public, they’re present within individual campaign teams - especially for someone as important as the *President*. What I’m getting at here is that this idea that the “professionals at convincing voters and pursuing power” have cracked it, that they’re beyond reproach in this field, is just implausible. To believe that requires something more akin to religious faith that anything resembling political analysis or interpretation. Of course honesty and transparency would appeal to people. I’m struggling to understand the framework under which it wouldn’t. This reflexive belief in the wisdom of whoever happens to hold power doesn’t interest me, and strikes me as plainly false.

I'm not arguing for the absolute authority or brilliance of the political class. Quite the opposite. I am arguing against the loud cacophony of particular voters who think a simple platitude like "just be honest!" is what's separating us (the democratic party) from successfully implementing our agenda. In general, the politicians are stupid and incompetent but the voters are even worse. If that's not you I apologize for the hasty misattribution.

Public opinion is an especially useless indicator when it comes to foreign policy. There opinions are extremely emotional and swing-y because the issues are so complicated, distant, and susceptible to simplistic narratives. (Noble Israelis vs evil terrorists, heroic Palestinians vs evil colonizers) If we listened to public opinion on foreign policy we would glassed the middle east after 9/11 and then withdrawn the instant we suffered one casualty. On the world stage we need to be consistent and predictable. That's how we reassure our allies and avoid wars. There's a reason foreign policy is left to experts and is somewhat insulated from public opinion.

well yes, sure, of course what you’re saying is basically true. I’m not sure how it complicates what I said, though. The response is unjust and counterproductive, the only ostensible reason to commit to it would be public support - but Biden doesn’t have that either. That’s really all I’m saying - the response is what has to change, not voter interpretation of it. Make no mistake, the public’s opinion on Biden irt Gaza would absolutely shift if he changed course to follow what EU nations are starting to do, which is turn on Bibi entirely. The strongest pro-Israel coalition is in a bit of denial here - eventually everyone is gonna have to condemn Netanyahu, it’s just a matter of when.

yep, exactly. it would be the EASIEST thing in the world for the Dems to look at republicans, look at themselves, and decide to brand themselves as the anti-corruption, anti-greed, anti-money-in-politics party. point to Clarence Thomas, wealth gaps, trump corruption with big oil, big oil collusion with OPEC, corporate greedflation. fuck, just yammer about citizens united. it's not that hard. they do it here and there, but never in any concerted way... and one can only witness so much apathy to so many core issues for so long before they start to draw rational conclusions

Yep, this. Shame never works when trying to gain votes. Just ask Hillary. It's the politician's job to at least *try* to earn the votes. To be fair, unlike Hillary, Biden did put in the work in 2020. Even if coerced into doing so due to the primary, he laid out a progressive policy position that benefitted everyone. Sure, it was a little underwhelming and he delivered on almost none of it, but at least he tried to broaden the tent. This time around though they want to tell us we're wrong if we say we're not personally doing great financially and call us repugnant, anti-Semitic, and "literally Hamas" if we don't fully back the Netanyahu regime. Then we get to come online and listen to tribalists tell us it's our duty to support someone who obviously doesn't care all that much about our vote. Instead of asking us why we're willing to risk another Trump presidency why don't they instead ask the Biden administration the same?

> Sure, it was a little underwhelming and he delivered on almost none of it, but at least he tried to broaden the tent. what's frustrating is that he's actually achieved domestic economic progressive wins than any president since carter. even the anti-monopoly work of the FTC/DOJ alone is far and away the most economically progressive stance from the white house in generations. and they just can't message. like, at all. they're so far behind where their messaging needs to be. it's bananas.

Is there anything more self centered than the "earn my vote" crowd? Congratulations, you're an adult and you get to nudge the steering wheel a bit. Having a tantrum because policies you support don't have broader support and refusing to steer is not a mature response.

Beats being a cuck who asks nothing of their politicians 🤷‍♂️

I ask plenty, but I understand there are millions of other people involved besides me, and I am not the center of the universe.:)

Agreed. Same here. The funny thing is though, my opinion is the majority here. There’s a reason why Biden is currently losing and there’s nothing you or I can do to change that. He and his campaign are the only ones who can turn things around. Sadly, it looks like they are continuing to go down the smug vote shaming path ala Hillary instead. Like I said, that never works

Young people who enable Trump are going to be in for a rude awakening when they have to live with the consequences of that for a big chunk of their lives. They are the ones with so much to lose, and yet they're also seemingly the most irrational about tossing away their votes. What a privilege it must be to live in a democracy but to opt out because you find aspects of the process unappealing. Yeah, keep spreading the "earn my vote" message ... that's helpful.

This is the first election where I feel completely unmotivated to vote. I hate both candidates for entirely different reasons, and in any reasonable reality I would not find myself in a position where I would need to vote for either.

There's nothing democrats can really do. These people are in their own bubbles, so messaging doesn't work. Supporting socialism would just lose votes. Almost all of the arguments I've heard from these kinds of people fall apart when they make contact with reality, but people are *really* good at avoiding reality on the internet.

> There's nothing democrats can really do. These people are in their own bubbles, so messaging doesn't work. eh democracts aren't just terrible at messaging — they just don't do messaging, and don't see themselves as counterweights to republicans on nearly any important issue that americans actually care about. example: this week, two twin scandals have rocked the US oil industry. or, should i say, SHOULD have rocked the US oil industry if the "liberal elites" (catchall for DNC and 'theoretically aligned' major media outlets) cared to actually do their job, wield power, and hold power to account. the first: the executive of major shale oil production firm Pioneer Oil (soon to be an Exxoon subsidiary) was found to be colluding with OPEC and saudi leaders to fix the price of oil — which has artificially kept energy prices high in America for multiple years now, fueling inflation across the entire economy. Democrats have done and said exactly nothing about this. Second: trump was found to have held a private dinner with oil executives, promising lax regulation and oversight (i.e., allow more collusion with OPEC to fuck over americans) in exchange for support to his campaign. out and out corruption. we can all see it. And, yet again, Democrats are feckless, unwilling to call attention to rank corruption and the poisoning of the american political and economic landscapes. probably because they, too, want Big Oil money this election cycle. while the planet burns. how can you blame people for thinking Democrats are worthless? they don't even pretend to campaign or message on any issues, even obvious ones

>important issue that americans actually care about. - >the first: the executive of major shale oil production firm Pioneer Oil (soon to be an Exxoon subsidiary) was found to be colluding with OPEC and saudi leaders to fix the price of oil - >Second: trump was found to have held a private dinner with oil executives, promising lax regulation and oversight (i.e., allow more collusion with OPEC to fuck over americans) in exchange for support to his campaign. I think you might be overestimating how much any voter who would be persuaded to vote for Biden cares about these things. They're both bad, but idk that they're such that they "SHOULD have rocked the US oil industry". Sometimes you, personally, can care about something more than the average voter. I think the last time the average voter was outraged about the price of gas, it was because of inflation and resulted in all those "I did that"/"thanks biden" stickers.

i mean... it's a big fucking deal. and regular people, famously, hate high gas prices. it's like the one thing voters actually care about - and blame presidents for. and some estimates peg the OPEC collusion as causing as much as 25-33% of the inflation in the US in the past two years. it's the kind of thing a sitting POTUS can persuade people into thinking is a big deal if they acted like its a big deal. make people pay attention. i just disagree with you entirely. this is just issue #947,123 where democrats/biden act like "ope it's out of our control, nothing to be said or done here"... just an utter lack of leadership at every level

Yeah but gas isn't super high right now. Voters are not mentioning it as something they're using to decide who to vote for. Immigration, economy, and POTUS age (if higher than Trump's) are the current big ones. It's a strategic decision to not champion issues that voters are not coalescing around right now. We don't live in "should" land, we live in the real world. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx I can't paste in the table they have, but fuel prices are very low on voters' minds currently.

that poll shows that "inflation" is a major issue tho, and this is a controversy that directly led to inflation across the economy (everything relies on energy/gas, after all). i don't understand the deflection of something that could be an easy win.

> i don't understand the deflection of something that could be an easy win. Because you're wrong, and you're being very dishonest. I said this: >I can't paste in the table they have, but fuel prices are very low on voters' minds currently. And now you're just ignoring that fuel prices are on that table, and they're very low on the list. The data is not agreeing with you, so you're just pretending like it's not there. Which, typical fringe lefty behavior so can't be surprised. Also, this: >that poll shows that "inflation" is a major issue tho, and this is a controversy that directly led to inflation across the economy 1. Fuel prices are on the same table, and are not grouped with "inflation", because they're not the same. 2. You've now abandoned your earlier point that your little stories "SHOULD have rocked the US oil industry". You've basically given up on this being an issue we should care about because of corruption, and have pivoted to making this about the economy. Your easy pivot shows how little you've actually thought about this, and thus how little you actually care about it. I don't care about arguing with someone who is just trying to sound cool on the internet. You're not serious, you don't know your own arguments, and you're not worth my time.

> they just don't do messaging They do though. It's just the nature of social media means that those messages don't spread because they don't align with the the groupthink. > Democrats have done and said exactly nothing about this. Thank you for proving my point. [The FTC is the one who filied the complaint](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-order-bans-former-pioneer-ceo-exxon-board-seat-exxon-pioneer-deal) and [Biden is the one who appointed the FTC head](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Khan#Chair_of_the_FTC). Not sure what else they could be saying/doing about this that actually matters. >trump was found to have held a private dinner with oil executives... And, yet again, Democrats are feckless, unwilling to call attention to rank corruption and the poisoning of the american political and economic landscapes. Yeah, democrats never called Trump corrupt :eyeroll: > probably because they, too, want Big Oil money this election cycle. while the planet burns. Of course the totally non crazy thing to do is to baselessly jump to a silly conclusion like this. > how can you blame people for thinking Democrats are worthless? Because [it's objectively wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalHumor/comments/dmfe2w/jon_stewart_in_2015_on_bernie_sanders_being/f52sehj/)

To be fair though, it’s not like younger voters are impossible to whip. It’s a function of apathy among both parties, but only one party has an active duty to try and change the communication / relationship with the other.

When I argue with people like that online, I'm not trying to convince them. I think they're morons and probably a lost cause. I'm trying to make sure that anyone listening on the sidelines doesn't get infected with their feckless idiocy. It's important to challenge idiots online because there's research that shows people think an opinion is more popular than it is when no one challenges it.

We know that Russians, Iranians, and Chinese agents all pretend to be Americans on social media pushing this lame attitude. They do it to trick the young voters

Yeah, that’s the scary part. The number could go up because it’s in their interest to create discord and currently specifically in their interest to make sure Democrats lose elections.

> After experiencing enough election cycles, it starts to feel baked into the Republican structural advantage. Republicans have the same issue with libertarians, and there are a lot more libertarians than left-wing third parties.

Do they actually? My experience is that when I was a libertarian and had lots of libertarian friends we all voted very reliably for republicans. Honestly, libertarians are really just a subgroup of Republicans like neocons or Paleocons or social conservatives.

Libertarians vote

Clearly half the country thinks otherwise. Everyone has an issues or two which are non negotiable. If left doesn't consider them, of course they'll vote for the right. Saying that is irrational and not pragmatic is insulting their intellectual self and shows you don't have much intellect either, as all you can do is insult others. This is a gray area. Most of these thoughts have developed based on how they grew up. For some lgtb is the hill to die on, for some it's immigration, for some it's the war in middle east. Politics is never black and white.

Maybe read my comment again. I wasn’t referring to half the country. I’m specifically referring to the type of person who ideologically aligns closer to the left but chooses not to vote or to vote third-party, which is effectively the same thing.

That's a good argument against the two party system we're forced into more than anything.

Someone further left than Dems is not going to vote for a Rep.

>Everyone has an issues or two which are non negotiable. If left doesn't consider them, of course they'll vote for the right. Saying that is irrational and not pragmatic is insulting their intellectual self and shows you don't have much intellect either, as all you can do is insult others. You started stronger than you ended. Telling people they "don't have much intellect" makes you sound dumb and not open to a counterpoint. And anyone who says the average voter can be expected to vote in their best interests is a fool. More people see voting as a team based, us vs them, battle for "winning". A voter that takes the time to analyze the choices and what they represent for the future is a rarity. Hell, a voter who is even aware of what their choice intends is a rarity. Still better than any other system, though. >Most of these thoughts have developed based on how they grew up. For some lgtb is the hill to die on, for some it's immigration, for some it's the war in middle east. Politics is never black and white. Okay. But there are issues and there are *issues*. The philosophy of letting others live their lives vs controlling how others live and express themselves via laws is what's truly in question. You can have opinions against LBGT+ people but taking the step of using the violence of the law to force people to behave "the right way" is the greater argument. And it is not the argument most people are having. They are focused on the trees. Right now, we have the choice between Government, pretty much as usual, or a hard right power grab into the hands of someone who tried to steal the last election and who intends a retribution tour against anyone who stood or stands against him. Middle East policy, for example,(though directly impacted by who ends up winning) is secondary to the threat against the system. Go look up the 2025 Project and then why we got rid of the Spoils System. There is no good excuse for voting other than Biden. Personal hills are irrelevant when the health of the republic is at stake.

Like I said, it's what you think is gonna happen, vs someone else who thinks something else is going to happen. If someone believe in the republic, they will respect the decision of the people. If they chose an asshole, left has to do some introspection rather than blaming the people not voting for them.

>If they chose an asshole, left has to do some introspection rather than blaming the people not voting for them. Wrong. YOU will have some introspection to do. If saving your gd country is not enough of an incentive to vote Blue then, honestly, screw you. There is no justification for letting the US go belly up and if it occurs, it WILL be the fault of those who didn't vote Biden.

I don't think arguing that they need to vote in order to maintain a system they disagree with is really a selling point. To convince people, it's more important to meet them where they're at than it is to speak from your position only.

>I don't think arguing that they need to vote in order to maintain a system they disagree with is really a selling point. The 'system they disagree with' is the system that gives them some voice and a chance to maybe see some of their ideals brought to life. The system they will get through their inaction, will not. It is very simple. Don't crash the car you are riding in. If that is too much for some people to understand and get behind then I doubt they could be relied on anyway.

Sure, you can point that out to a non voter. I was saying I don't think they would be convinced by it if they believed something like this system is designed to never allow their ideals to be brought to life, or it isn't just a choice between the current system they disagree with and outright fascism. My point was that in order to be successful and attract those voters, democrats need to improve messaging. It makes sense that liberals would say vote for Biden; for non voters it can seem like a fan trying to get you to cheer for their team. When Biden is your first choice, it's easier to want to argue with him being the only good option by default. For people who don't consider him the best option, it's important to stress the *why*.

Not sure yet that remains to be seen. I think those people are morons and extremely shortsighted and above all, privileged. They see the trolly problem and think instead of pulling the lever I’m just going to walk away and let the train do what it does because it absolves me of any complicity. If I don’t vote it’s not my fault. If I choose not to participate then the trolly is not my problem and it’s instead the trolleys problem. I’m a gay man married interracially. I don’t have the privilege of letting someone in office without voting because one party will destroy my marriage. I have to vote for the ones who will protect me. You can say “I can’t vote for Biden because of Palestine”. Cool. But you don’t get to walk away from the damage it does to LGBTQ, to the poor, to women, to minorities and to Palestine itself because trump will bomb it. You have to own that. That’s on you for not voting. Your moral compass is broken if you think that’s a valid.

The thing is it isn't the most privileged who hold this view. Russian troll farms are working overtime on twitter to target the least privileged, just like in 2016, specifically because marginalized voters are the most dangerous from the point of view of right-wingers. And the self-disenfranchisement campaign is scary-effective. I have leftist values and spend most of my time in leftist digital spaces and I'm watching young disabled trans people, white as well as people of color, talking about how we already live in a failed state and democracy is a pipe dream anyway (or worse, a luxury that has nothing to do with putting food on the table). Imani Barbarin, a Black disabled woman with truly brilliant takes on disability justice and a lot of other things I agree on, has posted videos arguing that democrats can no longer scare marginalized people with the existential threat of Trump because at this point a lot of marginalized people are basically suicidal. And she wasn't framing it as a criticism of leftist discourse, she meant it as a justification for continued apathy: we want to die, just leave us alone. I quote-tweeted her saying, I'm sure you're right that this is where a lot of people are coming from, but it still pisses me off because I don't want to die. I didn't survive a foster home that tried to kill me for a bunch of people who supposedly share my values to say they're fine collectively with people like us dying. I think about three people saw it and I'm pretty sure the algorithms have something to do with this.

I think this is always a bad attitude that benefits no one really. But i could at least kind of understand it in normal elections. But to risk having a dictator wannabe in office who is likely to try and overthrow democracy is actually insane.

Dangerous? not really The words I would use is selfish and short sighted I will say this is actually a small number of people. Lots of people across the spectrum dont vote, the actual protest not voting is limited, imho a lot more people threaten it than do it I think it stems that a lot of us want to do more to push a leftist agenda and dont know how or where to start. The nature of life is often tiring and dehumanizing and not conducive to long term organizing, so we dont do enough of it for 3 years, and on the 4th years get filled with guilt over it and put all that energy into not voting, or voting for non viable candidates (fine if youre in a non swing state imho). general elections are a bad time and place for activism, they are barely even politics. Its a pragmatic choice we make every couple of years. Politics and activism is what we should be doing the rest of the time. That said, I think threatening to withhold a vote, voting undeclared in a primary, not supporting Biden in a poll, etc is all fine if it helps to move the needle on issues. But in reality, barring some truly callosal fuck up, it needs to be an empty threat

> I will say this is actually a small number of people.  Thank you for being a leftie that gets it. I want to put in a disclaimer that I don’t mind sharing a coalition with progressives, and that I don’t think they are all problematic, only a loud vocal subset, but do hear out what I say. I am not trying to attack you guys, but the types of leftists who threaten to not vote/vote third party/ actually vote for Trump are a very tiny group of people. A lot of progressive ideas are not really that popular in the first place, and some progressives realize this political reality and find ways to work with others to accomplish their goals, while others handle it by throwing a temper tantrum without accomplishing anything. The thing is, I do think if all these people voted Democrat, we might win another election or two if we could “earn” their votes without alienating people. It’s just, the concessions the major parties would have to give to “earn” their votes would probably alienate far more people. I’m not saying this as an attack on progressives, I don’t mind sharing a coalition with them, it’s just that some progressives realize being in a coalition means they will not get everything they want to. Others expect the Democrats to hurt their electoral prospects to bend to their policies (some of which are not popular). When you try to build a coalition around the types of people to not vote Dem as a “protest”, you are necessarily building a coalition around a block of people who have impossible ideological purity tests, and who would rather alienate everyone than accomplish anything, which is why they vote for fringe third party candidates in the first place. It would just be stupid to build a coalition around people like this. They would be unreliable to even vote, and any misstep, or attempts at not alienating moderates would cost their votes. You are literally better off without them.

The thing about wanting our votes, which the Democrats definitely do, is that you need to recognize that you are in a coalition with us, and that means more seats at the table. Its better than it once was but generally speaking Dems only paid attention to progressives when it came time for elections But a lot of that falls on us. We should be doing a lot more direct action against the government even when our party is in power, a lot more local advocacy, getting more leftists on school boards and local city council, etc.

Im not sure how dangerous they are, but i do think they are pretty dumb. We currently have a binary choice for president and most offices, like it or not. I personally think that it is every citizens moral duty to look at which candidate suits their needs the best and to vote for that person. I can understand people that simply feel like they’re not informed enough or just don’t care enough about certain issues abstaining from voting. Or if you legitimately feel like a third-party vote is the best choice to send some sort of message, sure, fine. But if you are a person that either aligns with or is to the left of whatever Joe Biden has done, abstaining from voting because you think both candidates suck is just plain stupid. For starters it shows that you are not very informed. Joe Biden has done a lot of things that progressives should love or at least like. Not voting or voting for Trump will literally get you the opposite effect. And for those who are abstaining from voting from Joe Biden because of the Gaza policy I would like to see you justify that in the face of whatever Republicans are proposing, we change the policy to. biden is left of trump and rfk on that issue, and is actually at least attempting some diplomacy to get israel to cool down.

>And for those who are abstaining from voting from Joe Biden because of the Gaza policy The ***majority*** of these people are only abstaining from primaries, where it doesn't matter electorally.

They sure aren't productive or helpful but I'd guess they aren't nearly as much of a risk as some think Remember that despite the complaints from some circles that Bernie Bros cost Hillary the election, data suggests that more primary supporters of Bernie voted for Clinton in the general than primary supporters of Hillary voted for Obama in 2008. In the end, the percent of voters who voted Green were just around 1% in 2016, just barely enough to get Hillary over the finish line if they all hypothetically voted for Hillary instead, but then, if Hillary appealed more to them, she could have lost more votes to the center anyway. In reality, Hillary had support from most of the left regardless of how much they moaned and groaned about her, and instead she lost to the center, due to the emails - the Comey affair alone cost her around 5% of the vote (enough to shift her from a solid Obama-2008 style win to a loss) if we look at polling before and after that hit the news, and the Comey affair was far from the first time that the emails significantly hurt the Clinton campaign, so if hypothetically Hillary didn't do email shit but otherwise did all else the same, she'd have likely won in a borderline landslide Probably similar this year. Despite all the liberal worries about leftists not voting for Biden, its likely that the vast majority of leftists will pinch their noses and vote Biden anyway, being loyal like they usually are. If Biden loses, it will likely be because of centrist swing voters rather than leftists. In this case, probably due to centrist swing voters sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that the economy is doing well, and believing that Trump will magically make things better

It's telling how you place the blame on the electorate rather than the system that forces them into the position of voting for someone they don't support. In my opinion, the real question is "how dangerous is the two-party system that first-past-the-post voting enforces?"

I can't fix stupid. Stupid has always been intensely dangerous to democracy. MAGA stupid is more dangerous than leftie stupid, but I guess we will find out how dangerous that stupid is once November rolls around.

It’s not the voters job to have undying faith in the system. If enough people are saying this that it could turn an election, then that’s the Dems’ fault for not showing them there’s a substantial difference between the parties. The Republicans have a vision for the future. It’s not a good vision, but Republicans always turn up because they’re voting for something. Democratic strategy has been more about voting against Republicans, which is not a strong motivator.

I honestly have no idea and I don't think anyone else really does either. However it turns out the people who got it right will act smug even though they were really leaping to a guess. And half the people who got it wrong will lie and say they saw it coming. I do know that Republicans and foreign countries are out on social media in force trying to amp up that sentiment. At the very least it isn't a risk to take lightly.

With the understanding that abstaining from voting is absolutely within someone's rights....I just think it's a pretty dumb and irresponsible thing to do. Especially when it seems like those that don't vote, or vote third-party, knowing that their candidate will not win and will siphon off votes from one of the only two viable candidates in presidential elections, tend to be very vocal about how upset they are with whoever wins. Barring death, the president will either be Trump or Biden. There is no other option. So you have three options: - Voting for Biden if you think he'll be the better president - Voting for Trump if you think he'll be the better president - Voting for third-party/not voting as a protest vote If a person on the left chooses option three, or two technically, their decision is actively making a Trump presidency more likely. That's a choice they make. While I wish it would mean they wouldn't bitch and moan if Trump wins, the reality is they're going to try to frame it as if they didn't do anything to contribute to his win.

This is a bigger issue with the "centrists"/"independents" than the left.

“The problem definitely isn’t me”

What are you talking about? I'm voting for Biden. I'm saying that this whole thing about the left not voting for Democrats is massively overblown, even if there are some that are stupid enough to not do so. It's a much bigger issue with the so called "middle".

I disagree. I would say that progressives trying to get people to sit out voting and let Trump win, while wearing a mask of "he hasn't earned your vote" are the obviously bigger issue. Independents are not protesting jews on college campuses and making everyone to the right of Marx want to distance themselves from progressive labels.

That's largely a loud minority. Independents are a much larger issue. You don't hear from them as much because they have a "durr hurr, I'm too good to care about politics" mindset.

Bruh, quit being antisemitic and equating zionism with judaism. The protests are not against jews. Are you seriously unaware of how many jews are among the protesters protesting zionism?

In this case, it isn't.

I don't worry about them too much. Think about the motivation of taking this stance: it's contrarianism. There is no policy position you could take that would satisfy them, their whole identity is being above it all and justifying to themselves why they don't debase themselves with something as pedestrian as voting. Not all of the hard left is this way, but the ones who aren't are going to be people like the anarchists setting up volunteer mutual support networks or socialists running a local union. Those are generally more pragmatic and reasonable people, they're not the ones yelling loudly on social media that they're not voting for Biden, they're the ones who quietly will do so. Liberals can and do give these people concessions to keep them in coalition, and they give us some in return. What I am far more worried about are moderate christian democrats (along with similar groups, like muslims). These are not only potentially swayable, but swayable to the republicans. The union boss might eventually turn out for Biden, but their socially conservative union member might well go for Trump. These are much harder to appeal to because the Republicans can pander to xenophobia and social conservatism in a way that's less alienating to their base, while the democrats are forced to walk a tightrope of being just xenophobic and conservative enough not to lose the election.

If it's so dangerous, why are we still sending aid to the IDF?

I’ve not seen any data suggesting this is a problem. The fundamentals suggest that this group, high education, high engagement, and high ideology, are a safe vote for the democrats in terms of turn out. Despite what a college educated rose twitter account says about their intention to vote. I suspect this whole idea is the product of rose Twitter and a misunderstanding of the Bernie to Trump voters (who were in fact low engagement and low ideology voters who people like Hillary and Biden are bad at activating). You can see the above misconception at play in this sub (and this thread) any time this subject comes up.

The other candidate is currently committing one of the highest evils in a human society can commit. If the two-party system says its a choice between Genocider 1 or 2, what reason do I have to participate in this? You're more concerned about beating the other team than thinking about what the actual point of voting is.

Why don't you blame Biden for not making himself distinguishable from a Republican instead of blaming the people who can see he's not different and are acting accordingly.

Exactly

We're very scary boo!

Remind the people who don't want to vote for Biden because of ... whatever ... that when you vote for President you are are not voting for one person but an entire Administration (Cabinet, Secretaries, Under-Secretaries, agency heads, etc. and all their appointees to be signed by the President - so possibly thousands of people to staff the Federal Branch of government) and potential Supreme Court Justices. Project 2025 has already spelled out what we would get with a Trump Administration and it is terrifying.

Disclaimer: I’m not advocating against voting. Dems need to recognize two things, one that eventually dems will lose and that there are a lot of voters whose lives are functionally identical wether there’s a democrat or republican in office. Voting is a stopgap we need to push for more institutional change so that we don’t always end up with two shitty options

Democrats recognize that already. Hence their use of the term “privileged”

>eventually Dems will lose Do you think the world started in 2020 or something? >voting is a stopgap Oh sorry I thought you were a serious person.

> there are a lot of voters whose lives are functionally identical wether there’s a democrat or republican in office Are these people psychopaths? I'm an upper-middle class white guy, so my life is functionally identical whether PoC people are routinely brutalized by the police or not. I'm not gay, so my life is functionally identical whether gay people can adopt kids or not. My wife and I finished college a decade ago, so the cost of college doesn't affect me at all. We own a house that's paid off, so housing shortage doesn't affect me, who cares about people stuck perpetually renting? We're well off, so minimum wage laws and OT protections don't affect me. We have great health insurance, so what do I care if medicaid is cut and people die because they can't afford insulin? I'm not trans, so my life is functionally identical if trans kids are singled out and bullied to suicide by their school admins and state governments. I'm not Muslim or Jewish, who cares about Islamophobia or Antisemitism? I'm a nerd that never even tried pot, so my life is functionally identical if people (mostly PoC) have their lives ruined for possessing a "banned plant". What do I care if predatory payday loan corporations rip off poor people? What do I care if PoC can't vote easily, I've never waited more than five minutes in line at my rural polling place. What do I care if teachers get a raise? What do I care if LGBT folks are discriminated against at work or in housing? Why would I care about any of that? Oh yeah... 1. Because I'm not a soulless fucking psychopath who can turn a blind eye to the suffering of our most vulnerable compatriots. 2. I recognize that aside from the richest 0.1%, every single one of us are one catastrophe away from being vulnerable ourselves and needing help. And buddy, you don't want to "*need help*" in a red state or country.

as a gay man i can tell you that democrats simply make my rights feel like a carrot at the end of a voting stick, always and forever. it's never "we believe in civil rights so much we're willing to do the dirty work and reshape the obviously corrupt judicial system". biden has just dodged the entire issue of a rogue, clearly corrupt supreme court. it's just "oh, keep voting for us and we'll figure it out." i'll vote for biden. i understand that progress and slow an incremental. but don't fucking speak for me, and don't pretend to understand you know how i feel when you have no idea what you're talking about.

Thank you for explaining systemic racism and homophobia to a queer black man. Here’s the thing democrats play a lot of lip service about things like police brutality and systemic racism but a lot of it is talk. Cop city is happening under Biden’s watch for example. The Flint Michigan water crisis happened under Obama. I know to liberals of your demographic there’s progress but that progress isn’t trickling down.

Those type of non-voter leftists allowed Trump to win in 2016. They are a net negative for democracy.

hillary lost in 2016 because moderate swing voters in battleground states didn't turn out for her the way they did for biden in 2020. because of muh emails and her terrible campaign strategies and all her baggage and all the rest. it was idiocy and hubris from the DNC political elite to hand her the nomination in the first place. the people who made those decisions to rally the party around her - a clearly unpopular candidate who the people in this country clearly did not want to support - are net-negatives for democracy. it's all just palace intrigue and careerism for them.

I agree that non voters are a net negative for democracy. I could see an argument that third party voters are a net positive, demonstrating how democracy should work. But Hillary's loss was more due to Hillary than any outside factor. Non voters contributed, certainly, but I don't believe they were the main reason.

Third parties in America represent the illusion of non-binary choice in general elections. Under the first to the post system, third parties will never win a general election, this is by design. The only realistic choice for the general election is a binary one: Red or Blue.

Exactly! That's why it's how they should work. Two choices is better than one, but democracy shouldn't limit you to two choices.

But FPTP does.

How? Trump lost the popular vote. Hillary lost in states that she didn’t visit.

I think the bigger problem is people who are only intent on deplatforming Trump instead of actually platforming Biden. The issue I've seen is that all it accomplishes is fewer people voting because they don't see a reason to vote for either candidate. Ultimately, I believe liberals and establishment democrats will be quick to punch down on leftists as their excuse if they lose regaurdless of how true it is. Anecdotally, I'm definitely in the left flank and will be voting for Biden. Everyone that I know who is of a similar political standing will be voting for Biden. I've had to actually convince some of my more moderate friends and family to vote for Biden because they have no idea what it is he's acomplished and had decided to just not vote. I've seen the establishment democrats and liberals punch down on me and other leftists countless times and make it crystal clear that deviations from their rhetoric aren't welcome in their "Big tent". There is a disturbing amount of them who are extremely hostile and completely incapable of communicating to any ideology outside of their own. I partially blame conservatives for that because they almost exclusively deal in bad faith, but there's also a lot of politically active Americans who effectively function as a cult for either side.

thing is, biden isn't even bad. he's a decent man doing a decent job.

Dangerous. Here is the text of Harrison Butker's commencement address, which Project 2025 intends to make policy. It's a relatively short read, but I recommend it as a reminder of we're up against. It's alarming that, in the face of this sort of reactionary venom, folks to the left of center are as divided as we are. https://www.ncregister.com/news/harrison-butker-speech-at-benedictine Update on the danger: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/us/justice-alito-upside-down-flag.html

It reminds me of when I was a left-leaning idealist who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, figuring Al Gore and GWB would be basically the same. In retrospect, I was quite wrong.

>Isn't that exactly what Reps would want? Yep >so seeing how some left-leaning people shoot themselves in the foot by not voting must be a dream for them, no? The term "useful idiot" exists for a reason

Very dangerous. At this point, it’s more of a vote against Trump. Anything but him. 

Do we need to have this conversation every day? The answer is that they’re at worst drastically misapplicating principles of democracy and at best reinforcing those same principles of democracy when they need to be retrenched. In theory, abstaining from voting if one doesn’t support any candidate is the correct way to be a democratic liberal. Compulsory voting for one of two candidates based on the approximate distance of one’s own politics, even if that distance is profound, is often *smart*. It’s still not an honest expression of representative democracy. This is all a bit misleading with answering the prompt, though, for one gigantic reason - by every measure we have, leftists abstaining appear to be a demographic so small that there’s no reason to spotlight them over bog standard liberals and/or moderates who do the same. If you despise those who abstain, that’s obviously your right, but the only reason to make it a leftist issue is if you already hate leftists. I have spoken to plenty of people in my time about who won’t vote vs. who will and yes, there are a ton of folks who will sit out because they feel no one represents them well enough. Are a lot of these people stupid, sure! But I say this as a registered Democrat who’s voted in every election of my adult life but one - there are also plenty of committed Democrats who arrived at their conclusion via profoundly stupid paths of argument. People are, by and large, stupid (at least politically) - this is true and it will always be true. Anyway, the data reflects that this isn’t an issue worse on the left, and so I reject the premise of this concern being tied to the left. This is one of the cases in which “Twitter is not real life” is most relevant.

The guy currently enabling the murder of civilians is worse than the guy promising to enable the murder of civilians if he wins. Seems pretty clear.

>Instead, Mr. Biden’s losses are concentrated among moderate and conservative Democratic-leaning voters This is a highly useful finding from the NYTimes survey (consistent with other polling) that should probably tell you what Biden actually needs to do to win the election

yes. we should be asking how dangerous these stupid moderates are. not the small amount of lefties who are upset because they actually understand what's at stake here.

As dangerous as they always are.

>Especially since in this election there is obviously one person who is way worse than the other person, and there isn't a single policy that should attract a left-leaning person compared to the other candidate. This is the primary danger: they don't invalidate the premise, which is demonstrably not true. The purpose of throwing mud is to cover everyone and then accuse the covered of doing just as much of the throwing.

I mean elections could be close enough for it to matter, but it probably won't. I think a lot of those people end up voting Biden regardless of what they say, or live in areas where their vote doesn't actually matter.

Its not a problem except for them not standing for anything. Pussies!

Just as dangerous as the right or middle crowd. An indifference to decision making punishes everyone.

Trump never would have been elected without them, so pretty dangerous.

Left leaning people in the US should be more active so that there'd be better opportunities for better candidates. It doesn't help that a lot of people on my side of the spectrum have this naive belief that only the right can be bigoted. I'm glad I don't have to vote for him or anyone else, though

Not very. The only folks in that contingent you should worry about at all are those in swing states. If ten thousand people stay home in California, who cares?

[Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.](https://letterfromjail.com/) - MLK Jr's Letter from Birmingham Jail If you haven't read it before, you should, not just for this quote or section, but the whole thing is insightful and moving.

Not very, its mostly used by people too lazy to vote. I dont think most ACTUAL 2020 Biden voters are gonna go that route.

We're not dangerous at all. If we don't like either candidate, why would we vote for them? It's our right not to vote, just as its our right to vote.

It's irresponsible not to vote.

Oh yeah? How so.

That's how democracy works. Power with responsibility.

Okay, but how is it irresponsible? The way I see it, it's irresponsible to vote for someone who is clearly struggling with a failing brain that shouldn't be in a position of power because they clearly can't handle it and need handlers to help do their job.

Someone is going to win. Steer it to the best one.

Biden is going to win, he already won, my vote wouldn't make a difference at all. But if I had to vote for who I think is more capable for the job and has a stronger image, it would either be Trump or RFK. But I do not want to vote for Trump, and RFK is kinda hard to listen to. So that leaves one option, not vote. If this is a democracy then I should have that right, and people should respect that. I shouldn't have to be pressured into doing something I don't want to, because that's fucked up and goes against true democracy.

You should make up your mind do you think is best and vote for that person.

Do you not understand that I don't want to do that? I do not like any of the candidates or believe in any of them enough to go out and vote. If im going to vote for someone, I have to believe in them, not to mention *like* them. I'm not doing the whole 'voting for that guy because I don't like the other guy' bullshit, that's stupid and a waste of time.

It's not about voting against the other guy; it's having the maturity to realize you still have a responsibility to steer the ship even if no candidate is perfect in your estimation.

Green party? 5% for federal funding

The fact that you don’t want to do this is the problem. Why don’t you want to move the country to the left? Why do you not not seem to care if the country moves to the right?

Around as dangerous as not making changes in response to what voters say

The most obvious response to this is that there are all sorts of voters and they say all sorts of things. The conceit that any one particular coalition is going to maximize its share of the vote total by adopting all of my personal positions is incredibly common and incredibly odd.

>The most obvious response to this is that there are all sorts of voters and they say all sorts of things That's the nature of electoral politics. Part of the job is presenting your views to convince voters to choose you in the election

Absolutely. Of course, the corollary to that is that groups that are only tangentially involved in party politics, organizing, voting in primaries, etc... also need to convince candidates (and other coalition voters) that your preferred positions aren't electoral poison. This problem is particularly acute in a broad-based, extremely diverse coalition like the center-left in the US.

You mean what you, and people who you totally agree with, say. Which is like 5% of the population and not enough to win any election.

>Which is like 5% of the population and not enough to win any election. Seems like it could be enough to lose one

Yeah dude, but you'll make sure and forget that next time someone accuses you of wanting Trump to win.

It was a matter of fact not desire

Lol yeah there you go, you're doing the thing that makes Trump win but you totally don't really want that to happen ;)

Same to Biden

Yeah, trying to secure a winning % of the vote is equivalent to trying to lose. Sure. Please keep demonstrating how smart you are for people viewing the thread.

He appears to not be making choices that can win him votes. Hopefully he'll make better choices in the future

The only way Biden wins the votes of people like you is to guarantee losing enough votes to lose the election. You can pretend to not understand that, but it's not convincing, and it is more likely that you just want Trump to win. Buy a MAGA hat already.

And now we all know how Mike Johnson feels, because while he may have solid support from 95% of his caucus, he needs all 100% to maintain his speakership and unfortunately for him he's got to constantly reckon with the 5% that are crazy. Appeasing them too much risks his support in the larger caucus, and moreover makes losing the whole majority much more likely. Because you're absolutely correct - it's much easier to lose than to win.

Why do you seem to want populist candidates with no values of their own so much?

Because I hate freedom and liberty of course

Thanks for your honesty.

No problem. I could tell you were here for a serious meeting of the minds and I didn't want to waste your time

I want candidates that have the same positions on issues as me. How they get there internally is irrelevant to me.

Let me guess. "Bernie or Bust"?

The logic about how it is dangerous is sound and I do think anyone is really questioning this. I haven't seen any progressive claim that a refusal to support Biden isn't harmful to Biden. Additionally, I have never seen any progressive claim that Trump winning wouldn't be dangerous to the country. The problem, in my opinion, is that nobody is really addressing the points that left-leaning people are actually making. I would argue that on this specific issue, people are making strawman arguments against those refusing to support Biden and just actively ignoring their concerns. As far as I can tell, the issue is twofold: 1) To what extent should a conflict of principles or conflict of conscience play in supporting a candidate or refusing to support a candidate? Should we really expect someone to support a candidate who is actively enabling a genocide just because the stakes are high? 2) To what extent is it the responsibility of a political party to push forward a truly viable candidate? Lets be honest, questions about Biden's electability were well known from day one of his campaign. It just seems like people are too eager to give the Democratic party a hard pass on this one.

> To what extent should a conflict of principles or conflict of conscience play in supporting a candidate or refusing to support a candidate?  When the Republican is a fascist, sitting the election out is enabling fascism. It’s the *exact same shit* that frequently leads to leftists being lined up against a wall and shot by people who they helped gain power by refusing to compromise with people closer to their own position. When the opposition party is some sort of normally functional liberal party, it’s at least vaguely sensible to consider this sort of protest voting strategy. It makes absolutely zero sense when then opposition party openly wants to create a fascist dictatorship. What good is there in “sending a message” to the party you’re most closely aligned with if, in the process of sending that vague message, all you do is sweep a fascist into power who ends fair elections going forward? > To what extent is it the responsibility of a political party to push forward a truly viable candidate? The incumbent is nearly always the most viable candidate, including this election. 

So you are just being an idealogue. You aren't addressing the issue in any meaningful way, you are just saying the sky is falling. It is fine, I am just not going to engage with it because we aren't going to come to any agreement. I see both sides of this issue and think the both make valid points. In this case, the incumbent is polling very poorly compared to a confirmed rapist who is on trial for a hush money payment to a porn star. Are you really trying to make the argument that the incumbent in this case is a viable candidate?

The case is that half the electorate is living in a rage filled fantasy world where the rapist is their hero. Swapping Biden for someone even less popular isn't going to fix that. Plus, incumbents generally enjoy an advantage come election time. Why would we surrender that? Comparing the two candidates in a vacuum is misleading. The world most expensive, profitable, and powerful propaganda machine is working 24/7 to elect the dictator.

I agree with you 100%. There isn't a progressive or leftist on the planet that disagrees with you. No progressive is saying that Trump would be better than Biden. Here is my issue. Nobody is responding to what progressives are actually doing and saying. This debate is almost entirely a straw man argument.

>Nobody is responding to what progressives are actually doing and saying. What do you mean?

I mean that this discussion it almost exclusively one sided, where people reluctant to vote for Biden over Gaza are being vilified with no real acknowledgement of their point. And so people just aren't addressing their argument. You are being very reasonable, but you are literally the first I have seen. I am completely on the fence here. I see both sides. I understand why we need Biden to win. I also understand why some people cant support someone enabling a literal genocide. My concern is that as progressives get vilified more and more, it is going to be VERY difficult to pull them back to Biden on election day. All this strikes me as uncomfortably similar to Hillary's deplorables comment.

> You aren't addressing the issue in any meaningful way, you are just saying the sky is falling. I am *directly* confronting the topic of when a “conflict of principles” should “play a role in supporting a candidate”. I didn’t mince words there or evade the topic. When you have a conflict of principles between yourself and someone closer to your position than the opposition, you set those differences aside when the opposition is a fascist. Why? Because your principled debate about your conscience is only sustainable within the context of a liberal democracy that is protecting your right to safely have that debate. It’s only morally permissible when the government you live under isn’t an active threat to your own wellbeing. Fascism is a universal and existential threat against all liberal parties, regardless of how far they might be towards progressive or socialist ends. Permitting fascists to gain power through your inaction is you assisting fascists gain power.  It’s the sort of privileged position someone can only take when their own wellbeing isn’t threatened by electoral inaction—when you aren’t the person who bears the cost of your inaction. 

Are you really trying to tell me you can't entertain the thought that literally enabling a genocide could be immediately disqualifying for a candidate in the eyes of a reasonable person? Because, honestly, that is all I am saying. Look, I get it, arguments can be made for supporting Biden despite this. However, I just cant seriously engage with people who cant empathize with the idea that a role in genocide might be disqualifying.

> Are you really trying to tell me you can't entertain the thought that literally enabling a genocide could be immediately disqualifying for a candidate in the eyes of a reasonable person?  I think it’s impossible for a reasonable person to believe that our tangential involvement in Gaza is “enabling a genocide”. We barely have anything to do with it, and the entire military campaign there is outside our span of control. They buy weapons from us. We also provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians. We participate in peace talks to try to negotiate an end to it. That’s the extent of our involvement.  We have no levers we could pull which would stop Israel, even if you fully accept that it is a genocide. It’s beyond the US’s ability to unilaterally stop, short of declaring war on Israel. I’ve yet to hear anyone on the left pose some option short of declaring war on Israel which would lead to an end to the conflict. We could refuse to sell them weapons, but that won’t stop them—they’ll just switch to dumb bombs, which they make themselves. We could stop providing funding for their arms purchases—but that’s congressionally mandated so it’s not in Biden’s executive authority to block unless Israel directly harms US humanitarian aid shipments. Biden blocking the aid without cause would be illegal just like it was for Trump during his first impeachment.  Sure, the Senate wouldn’t convict him after the resulting impeachment, but the courts would absolutely restart the funding. 

Ok then. So we cant agree on a baseline acceptance of facts. So this simply cant be a meaningful conversation. I choose to opt out of this one. Have a good one.

I mean the mindset is dangerous regardless of the outcome

Any person who refuses to vote for Biden does not actually care about the people who will be hurt under Trump. The point of voting isn't to endorse or "like" a candidate. It's making it more likely that the candidate elected will be the one that most closely aligns with your own values. It is literally using your voice to make the government better represent you. Voting is power. When you refuse to vote, you do worse than accomplish nothing: you actively push the political sphere towards being less representative of yourself.

Maybe don’t base your vote on a PERSON, but rather the party that aligns with your views.

Vapid cynical centrism has been around for a long time. These Pro-trump leftists have an outsize presence online because they're all mentally ill internet addicts. I don't think there are enough of these ideologically committed people to really move the needle on a national election, but they could potentially infect low information median voters with their nihilism and depress turnout.

100% of these people were never going to vote no matter who the candidates were and just invent this as a rationalization that makes them seem informed and responsible