if YOu’RE Not VOtInG FoR Not MY OppoNENt TheN YOu’rE VoTIng FOr oPPonENt!!!
Ah the brilliant “technically what you’re saying isn’t literally accurate, nevermind that the point is valid” argument
Yeah, the “You’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” rhetoric has been pretty strong.
It seems both sides know that their brain-dead, geriatric candidates are pretty shit.
No matter how much you think both candidates are shit, you must be able to realize that one is far and beyond worse than the other.
Them: it’s really tiring how everyone keeps pulling that "if you’re not with us, you’re against us stuff.
You: yeah well those other guys are even worse about it
I don’t understand the irony here
Person is pointing out how annoying something is, then someone replies doing the exact same thing.
Pretty simple concept
But they’re different things
Huh
No, because that’s fucking stupid to say.
Bunch of smug dipshits in this thread
No you’re supposed to be easy to make fun of so we can feel good about ourselves
Except that doesn’t seem to bear out in the polling numbers or past elections. For some reason, party leaders only seem to want to back candidates that completely struggle against a guy who’s been known as a conman and the butt of jokes since the 1980s.
If you chose to eat shit now, you’ll keep on getting served only shit.
This vote is not just a vote on the next president, it’s also a vote for what kind of candidate the DNC will chose for future Presidential Elections.
This is very much a scenario from Game Theory were there are two sides, one side which decides how to approportion something between both (in this case, the DNC choses how much the Democrat candidate represents lefties) whilst the other side can only “accept” or “reject” (i.e. lefties voting of not for a Democrat candidate, leading to a Democrat victory or defeat) and if the second side rejects nobody gets anything (i.e. a Republican President gets elected and the DNC don’t get a guy who mainly represents their interests and the lefties don’t get a guy who represents their interests a tiny bit).
What Game Theory shows us in this kind of scenario is that if it’s a multiple round scenario (in this case, each round is an election, with each time the DNC de facto chosing upfront how much the Democrat candidate represents lefties and lefties chosing to vote or not for him, which often decides the election) if the second side keeps “accepting” no matter how little they get, then the first side will never improve their proposal, and sometimes it will even be worse.
This is actually what you see happen in American politics: only when the lefties refuse to vote Democrat does the DNC, in the subsequent election, chose a slightly more leftie candidate.
The whole idea that lefties should always vote for “better a tiny bit representativeness now than none at all now” and completelly ignore the implications of that for future rounds is an incredibly short-sighted (or maybe self-serving, depending on the real interest of those pushing that idea) ultra-simplification.
Note that this doesn’t mean lefties must “reject” now, it means that they should be considering not just the current round but also subsequent rounds for their accept-vs-reject decision since a “reject” now does mean getting nothing this round (instead of a tiny tiny bit) in order to induce the other side to improve their proposals in subsequent rounds, which is a risk.
Part of the issue is the balance between the stakes of the current election vs the value of the potential change for future elections. It’s possible for someone to be willing to stay home or choose a different candidate as a protest vote during one election, and then view those same strategies as monstrously irresponsible in a different election.
And to add another layer of complexity, keep in mind that both parties are fluid and can change radically over time as factions within them rise and fall.
For example, in some alternate timeline where Clinton got the nomination in 2008, a protest vote against Clinton would have risked a McCain presidency, which would have likely been the most moderate Republican president in modern history. This would have been short term loss for Democrats but likely would have been a long term win for progressives. The Democrats would likely have shifted to the left as they sought more candidates that appeal to their base, and the Republicans would have had their more moderate wing exerting greater influence and filling their leadership positions.
The situation we have today involves very high stakes, in that Trump and pals are threatening serious damage to the basic principles of democracy and rule of law, in addition to all of their horrifying policies. And the message that the Republican party will get from the next election is especially critical. Trump won in 2016, but they performed poorly in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Their shift to the right and the purging of anyone not 100% loyal to Trump has lead to a significant brain drain and a shrinking of the party.
A Trump victory would help the worst people keep a stranglehold on the party, while another defeat would send the message that their current path is a dead end. There’s a sizable portion of the Republican party that isn’t particularly happy with the MAGA crowd, but who are willing to go along with them if it means winning, and others who are just trying to keep their heads down because dissent is punished harshly. The power struggle that would occur after another Trump loss would very likely push the party to move back towards something resembling sanity and competence.
Hell, just being rid of the 800 pound orangutan in the room would make it easier for both sides to work together on the things that shouldn’t be partisan. We didn’t have a problem getting Ukraine aid passed until Trump started exerting pressure, which only got worse when he vetoed a speaker candidate that supported Ukraine aid in favor of the current one who is more than willing to open his ass cheeks for Trump’s puppeteering hand.
Yes, that’s why it’s a hard choice rather than a simple choice: there is a significant and genuine “now might be the worst time to do this” factor at play, though if you notice there is a “might” in there because that’s still all in the realm of possibility and there are chains of consequence that might mean that the Trump-vs-Biden now will look like the “good old days” in the next election since it it’s a valid scenario that after the lefties vote for a quasi-Nazis-supporter, the next candidate pushed by the DNC will be even worse and the candidate put forward by the Republicans after a Trump defeat is a competent version of Donald Trump - a full-on highly intelligent sociopath that uses the same tools as Trump rather than an incompetent Narcissist which at times is his own worst enemy - an even worse choice than Biden-vs-Trump.
Also the frequent repetition over the years by the Democrats of that same “now is not the time” argument, almost always followed by next time being even worse, makes people suspicious of all the assumptions put forward to support that argument by thos people, and that they’re complete total bollocks just like the last 4 or 5 times those same people made that same argument.
Further, there are multiple paths to “Stop Trump” and the one where Biden shifts leftwards (especially by stopping unwavering support for quasi-Nazis mass murdering children) seems like a far simpler way to achieve that objective than expecting million of people to swallow their “though shall not kill chidren or support those who do it” principles to vote for a guy who keeps on supporting the mass murder of children.
This is not perfectly that Game Theory scenario: the approportioning of representativeness can be changed by the candidate himself after the candidate selection is done, so Fear of losing the election might be enough to achieve some leftwards shift and still guarante that both the DNC and lefties end up winners. In fact, IMHO, that would be the outcome that maximizes the upside for both as a group and possibly the idea scenario give the few real choices than can still be made: the DNC gets his man elected even if he acts a little bit more leftie and the lefties get a little bit more representation.
Everybody going “You have to vote Biden to stop Trump” is making that ideal scenario less likely because they’re decreasing Biden’s (and the DNC’s, who can pressure Biden) Fear of defeat, whilst it’s the people saying “I won’t vote Biden until he starts supporting the unnacceptable” that are making the ideal scenario more likelly.
This comment should be voted way higher
Let me restate your point to make sure I understand it, as I haven’t seen your point expressed elsewhere.
Scenario 1:
- Democratic candidate for president is Biden.
- Progressives want a more progressive candidate for the next election, so they refuse to vote for Biden.
- As a result, Trump wins the election.
- In the 2028 DNC primaries, the democratic candidate for president is more progressive than Biden was.
- Progressives vote for the dem candidate, who wins.
- The democratic party is permanently shifted leftwards.
In this scenario, having a more progressive president in 2028 (and beyond) outweighs the damage caused by a Trump presidency.
Scenario 2:
- Democratic candidate for president is Biden.
- Progressives decide to vote for Biden, despite their distaste.
- As a result, Biden wins reelection.
- In the 2028 DNC primaries, the democratic candidate for president is similar to Biden.
- The democratic party stays centrist, to the distaste of progressives.
In this scenario, avoiding a Trump presidency is worth giving up the opportunity to move the democratic party permanently more leftwards.
Do I have this right? If not, please, I’m truly curious, as I find your game theory points compelling.
Assuming I do have your position correct, I think you’re making a couple of inaccurate assumptions:
- While the DNC clearly tips the scales in favor of its preferred candidate, the DNC is not the sole decision maker. (For example, in the 2008 primaries, the voters chose Obama despite the clear preference of the DNC for Clinton.)
- A Trump presidency would be singularly bad for the nation, both in the short term (e.g., immediate repeal of executive actions on gun control, clean energy, and LGBTQ+ rights; increased support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza) and long term (e.g., more MAGA judges and justices, further emboldening the GOP to be more MAGA). It’s also possible that a Trump presidency effectively ends proper democracy in the US, meaning any potential gains of a future progressive president would be irrelevant.
I agree that the more we push the party leftward, the better for all. But I believe the time to do this is in presidential primaries, state/county/local elections, local and national organizing, and even personal outreach to individuals (admittedly, this last one is very small scale, but it’s also the only way to truly change people’s minds and positions).
Yeah those are basically the Scenarios with two big corrections in scenario #2:
- The next will probably be worse than Biden since the DNC, upon seeing that lefties will even vote for a candidate that supports a quasi-Nazi regime activelly commiting a Genocide will likely conclude that they will not rebel not matter what, so expect an even further shift to the right of the Democrat party.
- The Democratic Party is not centrist, not even close: it’s pro-Oligarchy, which is an anti-Democratic hard-right position (anti-Democratic because it places Money above The State, which is the Power that voters supposedly control hence gives primacy to Money and those who have most of it, hard-right because defending that those who have most Money get the most Power and choices is in direct opposition to Equality, even just that of Opportunities).
As for the DNC not being able to stop a left of center candidate, just look at what they did against Sanders, even before counting the super-candidates which were going to vote against him anyway and override the popular vote. The idea that Obama is in any way shape or form left of Obama is hilarious for anybody who, like me, was in Finance at the time of the 2008 Crash and had a front row seat to see how exactly Obama unconditionally saved the wealthiest people and made everybody else pay the price - just because the guy is a true political songbird who makes amazing speeches doesn’t mean “the greatest good for the greatest number” - the core principle of the Left - is even in the tinyiest of ways part of his principles. The Clinton-vs-Obama primary was a fight between two kinds of neoliberals that put in opposition two factions within the American Elites, not a fight between somebody representing the average American and somebody representing the Elites.
We don’t know really how bad a Trump presidency will be, though we know for sure just how far to the right are Biden’s principles, but yeah, you are right that a Trump presidency might (it’s all speculation until it actually happens) be incredibly destructive, which is why I pointed out in my comment (last paragraph) that it’s definitelly a risk and people should consider all things in their voting decision.
Personally I think either of them will lead to the death for good of Democracy in America, though doing it via Biden will probably mean it will happen with more steps, but that’s just my opinion based on the trend so far (and, that I expect that a guy who supports what are basically the modern Nazis whilst they mass murder civilians because of being from another etnicity is either a sociopath or an extreme racist and that means he will just as happilly fuck up the lives of Americans - though, no doubt, unlike Trump he will be telling them that’s not what he’s doing - just as as he is right now happilly helping out murdering en mass Palestinians: good people don’t knowingly help others commit mass murder).
I might be wrong on this and even if I’m not, not being American or living in America I’m way more isolated and have no real stake on that choice.
I’ll openly admit that I have the priviledge of being able to hold a Thinking Person’s highly intellectual position on this because there is very little at stake for me personally, so I can just analyse the whole situation and point out the broader implications of the voting decision for a leftie and the profound hypocrisy of the Propaganda which tries to deceive people with the idea that it’s a simple consequences free choice, with no real additional risk either way for my own future.
In what way, exactly?
If you’re a wage earner, your life is the same no matter who we elect. In 2/3 of the US it’s still legal to pay someone $7 for an hour of work, and that will barely purchase a cup of coffee. No matter where you live in the US, health care and education are cost-prohibitive, and your rent and groceries have doubled or tripled within the last few years.
The problem with this election is that yes, while Trump is a fascist, it’s not going to matter because too many are in extreme poverty while Biden’s holding the reins. It really sucks that Democratic voters didn’t have the moral conviction to vote for Williamson instead.
Worrying about normal economic issues almost seems quaint and old fashioned compared with the batshit insane crap that Trump has dragged into our political discourse.
What about if you live in Florida or Texas where bring openly transgender counts as a sex offense and sex offenders get the death penalty?
Those are actual Republican proposals with a good chance of passing.
Sure, life might be the same for you. But you’re not just voting for your president, are you?
Gotta admit, not being a convicted felon and a public sex offender is kinda tight as an election campaign
Seriously though, istg, deontologists are about to singlehandedly give Trump his victory
So to be honest the #1 reason I’m voting Biden by far is that he’s not Trump. But if you want another reason, how about that he finally stuck it to TurboTax and created a free federal tax filing system?
Now that Trump has been convicted and isn’t going to be on the ballot I can confidently not vote for Biden
Yeah, but sometimes that really is enough
Not enough for voters who are undecided about whether to vote or not.
Democrats win when turnout is high. It’s not enough to be better than the opponent, to win they must beat apathy.
Well I hope that goes the right way for you over there.
then they should be doing something to make voters want to turn out.
The only Democrat with the power to do anything at the moment is Biden, and his power is limited.
But he’s been doing a lot within that limited power.
And I genuinely don’t care whatever some asshole from hexbear with their Lemmy World alt is about to pop in here and reply with, because the fundamental issue is not Biden, it is Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress is absolutely fucked, and that is not Biden’s fault, it’s the Constitution’s fault, and the fault of Red State conservatives that have completely gerrymandered their states to hell, and the Supreme Court that did not stop them. It is not biden’s fault at the Supreme Court is now stacked with corrupt conservative justices that will strike down anything he does that they think they can make a case against.
It is very, very convenient to forget that the other two branches exist when you’re intent is to make Biden look like he hasn’t done anything or committed to his campaign promises.
i think you are subestimating the power of money here.
The two current candidates are so far apart the people who claim to be undecided are ignorant or stupid, willingly or otherwise. I’d understand riding the fence between Biden and Bernie, even if I’ve made my choice between them, but between Trump and Biden?
That’s the kind of person who is undecided if they want to drive to work or walk down the middle of i-95
I think you are perhaps uninformed about the economic state of the poor and working class. Biden hasn’t done a whole lot about people’s grocery bills doubling and tripling, or the soaring increases in rent while the housing supply has remained artificially low, but he’s made sure that blank checks for war appear out of thin air at every turn.
Can’t expect to win an election like this when people can’t afford to miss a day of work.
Yeahhhh, no.
Like the original commenter said, you are either ignorant or stupid.
Anyone who actively lived during Trump’s awful years in office has all the info we need to NOT vote for that fucking orange idiot, and instead CLAMBER to anyone with ANY semblance of sanity.
If you honestly think that Biden losing will help anyone in any way whatsoever (besides Trump and his little rich bastards who are as evil as he is), you, and anyone else who feels that way, are a lost cause.
Anyone who is eligible to vote actively lived through the trump years. And a third of those voters disagree with you. Calling them stupid is not an effective way to help them change their minds or voting decisions.
Day to day economic realities matter to the average voter.
I don’t give a flying fuck about changing anyones mind any more. If you actively lived through the awful Trump years, you don’t need your fucking mind changed. Most of those “third of voters” are a lost cause, so I do not give a fuck about trying to get them to maybe open their eyes just a little bit.
Also, yes, I’m sure the “economic realities” really matter to those voters when this is who they will allow back into office.
Like the original commenter said, you are either ignorant or stupid.
It’s okay if projecting makes you feel better.
Let’s just cut to the chase–is your argument that both sides are the same? Or that voting for Biden is just as bad as voting for Trump, or not voting? Or are you just arguing to stir things up? Trying to figure out where your willful ignorance lies.
I’m sure Trump will get right on that.
“My candidate is just as shitty as the other guy” isn’t quite the profound defense you think it is.
I think that should say “my candidate is far less shitty than the other guy” which is a different situation.
That is probably the lamest possible misinterpretation you could make, but I’m sure that’s intentional. Nobody is “both sides”-ing them but you.
Tell me what you think he could have done without Congress.
Let’s hear it.
Give me the actual steps that you believe Biden could have done but did not do.
It’s really not if you’re a wage earner in 2/3 of US states, where it’s still perfectly legal to pay you $7 an hour.
Hell, homelessness jumped 12% in 2023 alone. I’m guessing, for those people, “I’m not Trump” isn’t going to be as persuasive an argument as you might think.
It’s really hard to vote if you don’t have a home address, so those unhoused people don’t matter in our system.
It’s really hard to vote if you don’t have a home address,
And you’d think after 2016 the Democrats might have realized that they need those votes, but they’re too busy getting wealthier to care.
What about “the economy is actually doing great Jack!” ?
It blows my mind how often people try to argue that someone should be elected on the strength of the economy when said economy isn’t doing jack shit for the poor and working class.
Unfortunately I don’t think we collectively vote to help the poor and working class in the first place.
Wish we had a party who gave a shit in order to vote for this, and that it were a much bigger plank of their platform. It’s a disgrace that anyone is unhoused in the richest nation on Earth.
I can’t even begin to describe how much more I would prefer we do this, than to continue fattening the wallets of boomers who own multiple homes and only live in one of them. We literally don’t invest in building new housing in order to maintain this status quo, and it’s absurd.
What’s your position?
“Not a fascist dictator that openly wants to kill democracy.”
This. I’ve never voted for ‘not the other guy’, but I will this time. Honestly, the democrats could run Vinny the Wino and I’d vote for him over Trump.
Honestly, no. In Turkey the opposition used that strategy since 2002 and lost every single vote, except the last local elections where they finally decided to do things a little differently (+ the financial crisis). If your only selling point is “not being the other guy” then your whole election campaign is basically an advertising for the other guy.
In Canada at the federal level the Conservatives are on their way to have a majority using this exact tactic, they’re voting against anything the government tries to do (even stuff they asked for in the past) and they’re promising to make everything better once elected, no one knows how, not even them.
I think it depends on the context and the details.
If your sell is “I’m not Mitt Romney,” that is pretty weak, even if you don’t like Romney.
If your sell is “I’m not Donald Trump,” that is a much more compelling thing to consider. I mean the fucker is on trial for and got impeached for some things that are truly heinous to see from a random schmuck, never mind the freaking President of the US.
Exactly this. It just boils down to manufacturing consent for the other guy’s terrible policies, and results in hopelessness leading to voter apathy. Braindead strategy with 0 concept of leadership.
It’s a losing strategy politically because people are too fucking dumb to vote against someone holding a gun to their head unless someone else is promising them a unicorn, but as a potential voter, it’s an exceptionally good reason to get off your ass and actually vote for a candidate who can win.
If he’s the guy running against Trump and Biden, I’ll vote for him. But he better tell us what his name is.
Why can’t you tell us?
You’re saying you’ll support a fucking mysterious stranger shows how serious you are about creating a positive change.
“Vote for my genocide supporting candidate or you’re not serious about change!”
More like: “Your vote is wasted in a 2 party system where winner takes all. So if you don’t vote for genocide Joe, you help turbo genocide Donny”
There are a bunch, sadly none of them stand a chance, despite being better candidates. In the upcoming election, voting for Biden results in a better outlook in every aspect. I’ve always voted 3rd party, but I pivoted last election cycle because anything is better than Trump, and I recognize that. Once he’s out of the picture I’ll go back to third party.
Who do you like that you would say is actually better? Green party maybe?
The US Green Party is just a useful puppet for Russia. Unfortunately that’s the reality of a FPTP voting system. If people don’t like it then they can try to organize grass roots changes in order to bring about longterm systemic change. But sadly too many voters just wake up once every four years, see that there isn’t a single candidate that perfectly aligns with their world view, and then just spite vote or spite abstain.
It’s like the ultimate form of taking democracy for granted; democracy isn’t just voting in one election every four years. There’s loads of local elections, primaries, and campaigning in between that have equal or even more impact on people’s daily lives, and which influence the candidates that appear on the presidential ballot.
the green candidate speaks out against russia. they’re not a puppet.
Once Trump is out of the picture the Republicans will find another Trump.
Let them try, the moderates will not fall for it.
Like how the moderates didn’t fall for Trump?
Third party candidates stand zero chance of winning and can only serve to take a vote away from Biden, the least awful option
Well, when you make your name into a brand, then mark your followers with the same, and your brand is a plague on the world… yeah, that kinda is enough. I’d vote for an off-cut of shit-smeared shag carpet if it meant I could rest easy knowing that the next wave of vomit being spewed on Twitter wasn’t directed at some of the most vulnerable and under represented peoples on the planet. And if you are wondering if I’m purposefully being ambiguous about to whom I refer to, let me sate your curiosity and call former President Trump the cunt he is. Trump is a cunt.
In a system where all the non-winning votes are lost in a step and not counted at the end, like the USA form of weak democracy, this becomes a valid tactic.
It’s not only the presidential vote that’s like this, but ALL fucking votes. It’s astonishing how weak the US system is.
And still some see the US constitution as this pinnacle of democracy when it’s vastly outdated by now
Even the founding fathers anticipated a lot of reforms and for the whole thing to become obsolete quite soon but yet here we are with people worshipping them as this infallible being and weighting their words on a scale as if it’s impossible for them to be wrong
It’s a shame they made it so hard to modify. Both the 2/3 of both houses or 3/4 of states routes are quite unfeasable when there are only two quite polarised parties… :-/
The whole 2 parties thing isn’t even in the constitution tho, is it? I’m not American so I might not be as familiar with the details
No, parties and primaries (which are just parties borrowing election infrastructure to choose who they support) aren’t in the Constitution at all. But first past the post voting always trends towards two party systems as a stable equilibrium.
It’s not. We’ve had third parties before, and we do still occasionally have independents take seats in congress(we have 3 currently)
They’ll never be even close to majority though, and they will never take the presidency.
The voting system makes it so the system will always tend toward two parties. Parties aren’t in the constitution at all. That’s where you get occasional independent candidates
Even the founding fathers anticipated a lot of reforms and for the whole thing to become obsolete quite soon
…which is why they built a mechanism into it to make alterations. But the people upset about things like the electoral college don’t have the support necessary to use that mechanism.
The problem is that even a Constitutional Convention gives more power to land than people. If one actually happened it would probably end with amendments forbidding divorce, abortion, and interracial marriage.
The problem is that even a Constitutional Convention gives more power to land than people.
Specifically in the case of a Constitutional Convention 2/3 of states have to agree to have one and 3/4 of states have to agree to any changes.
You’d have an easier time convincing the federal government to condense a few states - we don’t really need TWO Dakotas, and Montoming seems like a good idea. Maybe also split California into a few pieces. The whole “land over people” thing is only really a problem because a couple of states blow the curve - House apportionment is done in a fashion that mathematically minimizes the average difference in people/representative between states while having a fixed number of representatives, but California blows the curve by being so utterly massive compared to any other state and there just not being enough representatives to go around. So all but a few states are pretty close in terms of people/representative, a couple are sitting at the 1 representative minimum while being tiny, and California blows the curve on the other side.
Either increase the House size, merge some of the smallest states, split California up or all of the above - and all of those can be done without passing an amendment.
Of course, then Texas will invoke the clause in the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States and split itself into five states, each of which gets its own Senators and whatever number of Representatives the math would work out to.
Eh, the founders more or less ensured that a wealthy land-owning aristocracy would be able to overrule the will of the people if need be. That’s more or less what the SCOTUS is there for, to ensure things don’t get too democratic.
The US was an early modern democracy, but has never been a particularly good one.
And this is how that fucker won.
We are seeing this in full effect from the opposition party in Canada. They don’t have a platform or anything except they aren’t Justin Trudeau. That’s all they have but it’s working as in Canada we vote out governments of power, and not into power.
The current government has been in office for 8 years now and much like Biden is at fault for so many things in the world, our guy is too. At times I lose the thread on which one is a fault though… But yes I’m assured he’s to blame for everything wrong in their lives…
Read the comic and immediately thought about Lil’ PP
It would be nice to one time not having to vote for the lesser of two evils.
It would be nice but that’s not what’s being decided in this or any other presidential election.
Careful, you’ll get called a Russian bot for posting that sort of thing.
This year, that is exactly enough for me to vote for “not his opponent.”
No you aren’t. You’re being told that this is all that’s happening, but you aren’t going to look for yourself.
lazy to find a link to the south park clip:
“Everyone, I would be a terrible president, vote for Hillary, she has experience”
~ “My opponent is a liar and cannot be trusted”
This is a joke from the Simpsons, innit?
Go ahead throwww your vote awayyy
