#elect a third party candidate? who? where? you think jill stein is going to win her 40th presidential race with the same plan of minimal

[juniestar]

How on earth is harris v trump a tight race??? How do ppl look at donald trump having SEEN the way he acted in his presidential term, seen his LENGTHY criminal record, seen the fact that NOBODY else in his party aside from some loose hanging cultists wants to associate with him, seen the way he literally incited riots after losing an election which resulted in at least seven deaths, seen his total lack of coherent policy plan, and think yeah well but Kamala is a cop. Which isn’t even fucking true

[politijohn]

Distractors when discussing Kamala’s loss

I'm frustrated by liberals and Democratic strategists blaming voters, racism, and misogyny for the election loss instead of the candidate and party. Dems will lose forever if their analysis remains this shallow. It shows they still don't understand how this game works.

Perhaps this is a hot take to some…

Kamala’s key reason for losing wasn’t because she is a woman or because she’s black or because of Jill Stein or non committed voters. These excuses are distractions to a deeper underlying issue.

Kamala lost because the Democratic Party abandoned their base, swung right, and catered to their donors rather than the American people. Look at this embarrassment:

Kamala lost because she ran on a radically pro-Israel stance despite a majority of voters disagreeing with that approach. Say goodbye to the Muslim vote (MI). Look at the staggering difference in Dearborn, MI, a significant Muslim district when you campaign for your constituents:

Kamala lost because she backtracked on fracking and the environment. A majority of Americans want to see more done on the environment and this status quo agenda was uninspiring.

Kamala did terribly with young people (who are significantly more left leaning) because they saw a mediocre centrist platform, students saw classmates tear-gassed during pro-Palestine movements on their campuses, and no real messaging that spoke to their needs.

Americans want to hear how the candidates will improve their livelihood. Trump makes a lot of empty promises. We knew that since 2015. But Kamala barely even tried. When asked how she would have governed differently than Biden the last four years, she said nothing except put a Republican in her Cabinet. Voters aren’t to blame for this pathetic response when we know Biden's popularity and the economy are incredibly bad! Differentiation, where? Solutions, who?

The good news? We can fix these things! Focusing on misogyny, racism, third-parties, etc is NOT a winning strategy - they exist and can’t be fixed in four years. I know, groundbreaking. You need to bring people in, not turn them away like the Democratic Party has for years. I mean, on a surface level did you think the condescending comments about uneducated Americans, men, non-voters, third-party voters, and Latinos was going to win them over, bring them into the fold, encourage them to vote for Kamala?

Where is the camera?

There is so much to be learned from Bernie’s stump speeches that captivate all kinds of voters.

[zanmor]

Using Your Vote Strategically

Your vote doesn’t matter (probably). Luckily you can make it do a bit more.

Your vote is one of a few hundred million game pieces. Knowing how best to use it requires you to understand your place on the game board. Let’s take a look at that board.

Current polling has the following ten states (yellow on the above map) as highly competitive in this year’s presidential election: Maine, New Jersey, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia. Realistically those first three have only gone to Democrats since at least 2000 so speculation is more focused on the last seven (and even New Hampshire has been solidly Democrat since it voted for Bush in 2000).

If you’re one of the roughly 37.5 million voters who lives in one of those states, congratulations! Your vote will actually help decide who wins the presidency in November. As such you should probably vote for one of the major parties. To the other 82% of the electorate, it’s time to think a little harder about how you’ll utilize your vote in the fall.

Meanwhile there are 35 states that solidly belong to one of the two parties and that ain’t changing. They’re blue and red on the map above.

These states have only given electoral votes to their respective party since at least 2000 and current polling (according to 270towin.com) shows that they will do that again this year, well beyond any margin of error in the polls. California for instance is currently polling heavily in favor of the Democratic candidate and has voted for a Democratic candidate since 2000. Obviously that’s not about to change. That’s the case with these other 34 states as well. Which means if there’s any way to “throw your vote away” then it’s by blindly tossing it in with the millions of others that will not impact the electoral college or party platforms in any way.

The states where your vote matters least are:

California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, Alaska, Missouri, Hawaii, Louisiana, Kansas, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Idaho, Tennessee, Utah, Arkansas, North Dakota, Wyoming, Mississippi, Alabama, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oregon, Connecticut, Vermont, Delaware, Washington DC, Rhode Island, and New Mexico.

If you live in one of these states I have no qualms about advising you to vote third party in the general election. It will not change the electoral college outcome. But it can have important benefits you wouldn’t see by simply tossing another ballot on the mountain. I’ll talk below about those benefits. First, the last part of the game board.

The following six states (green on the above map) are technically polling within the margin of error where they could potentially go either way. I personally think it’s unlikely they’ll flip but you can make your own call on that and vote accordingly. If you live in North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, or Colorado, I think you’re likely to get more use from your vote giving it to a third party candidate based on current polling.

As I said above, I don’t expect that third party voting will impact the electoral college outside of those few truly competitive states.

So what does voting third party do?

If enough people vote third party it can do two helpful things: 1. if a party’s candidate receives over 5% of the popular vote then they can get federal matching funds in the next election, helping spread messages currently relegated to the sidelines, and 2. the major parties are more likely to take note of these votes and try to adjust their platforms to grab these voters in later elections. Voting for one of the two major parties doesn’t send any sort of message. What little utility your vote has in that regard is lost.

Voting for a candidate like Jill Stein of the Green Party can accomplish both of the above goals. Her platform is incredibly progressive. Across the board it’s a lot of things that leftists have been clamoring for. It will show establishment Democrats that there is voting support for those policies.

By supporting a third party candidate (not an independent solo candidate) we could see her get 5% of the popular vote and gain federal matching funds in 2028. It’s not about if she would be a good president or if you like her personally—she is not and never will get elected. It’s about hitting that 5% and showing the establishment that if they cater to the folks who like this platform that they can win votes.

Five percent of the 2020 election would have been just under 8 million votes. Four million Californian voters could have voted Green Party and Biden still would have won the state by over a million votes. We can definitely find 4 million votes in the other 40 states that otherwise are unlikely to impact the election. And we should.

[reasonandempathy]

The weird radical/revolutionary politic larpers on this site are so allergic to political pragmatism I swear lmao. I am definitely left of the Democratic Party and I am certainly voting for Joe Biden in November. Not because I like him (I don’t). He is absolutely horrific on Gaza and that’s only the top (and priority considering there is a genocide going on there) of a list of complaints I have about him. I even voted uncommitted in my state’s presidential primary (the Pennsylvania one; I had to write it in) to protest. However, I’m still thinking pragmatically. Trump has said things that make me credibly think he will be worse on Gaza (insane that being worse on Gaza than Biden is possible but it is unfortunately), and that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Project 2025, the potential for him to appoint more deeply conservative justices, more of his aggressively screwing over poor and middle class people with his tax policies. And does anyone else remember the spike in hate crimes after the race was called for him in 2016? Before he was even inaugurated? Whether people vote or not in November we will still have to deal with one of these two men in office come January unless all of the internet ancom larpers overthrow the government by then (doubt), so I’d rather deal with the one who will be marginally less bad and who didn’t try to overthrow the government. Can’t have your revolution if nobody’s alive cause you kept pushing off politically participating because there was no perfect option. 👍

Political pragmatist anon, sorry for ranting in your askbox but I feel like I lose brain cells watching these people talk. The other day I saw someone say Biden is bad because Roe v. Wade fell under his administration… even though the reason for that was Trump appointed justices. 💀 (2/2)

Fucking insane. Sincerely.

It's a completely, flatly binary choice for anyone with a brain stem and sincerity. It's distilled into the two below images:

Where all major third party candidates are even on the ballot

How many electoral votes the largest of those (green party, a.k.a. Jill Stein) would win if they won every single state they're on the ballot for.

They are literally, legally, incapable of winning the election. They are not on enough state ballots to win and Jill Stein would need to somehow win California and Texas to even "win" all the states they're on the ballot for. Which, again, would still not be enough to win the presidency and throw it to the currently existing Republican House of Representatives. Which would put Trump in office.

It's that straightforward. That simple. That BLARINGLY obvious to literally everyone except these people.

On the one hand you have:

Significant and continuous support for Israel and it's genocide

Record levels of pardons for low-level drug offenses

the gearing up of the strongest anti-trust regime since the early 20th century

the most aggressive NLRB I've seen in my lifetime, with massive wins and institutional changes to help workers

Including getting Rail strike workers a week of sick-leave that gets paid out at the end of the year, which is better than NYC and LA sick leave laws

Millions of people (not enough) getting student debt forgiveness

Some trillion dollars (not enough)of investment in renewable resources and infrastructure

Proposed taxes on unrealized capital gains (a.k.a. how billionaires never have any money but can still buy Kentucky, Iowa, and Twitter)

Effectively an end to overdraft fees

The explicit support of leftist world leaders like Lula de Silva. Who he has explicitly worked with to expand worker rights in South America.

Has capped (some, not enough, only a tiny amount really but it's something) some drug prices, including Insulin.

Reduced disability discrimination in medical treatment

Billions in additional national pre-k funding

Ending federal use of private prisons

Pushing bills to raise Social Security tax thresholds higher to help secure the General Fund

Increasing SSI benefits

and more

vs

Said Israel should just nuke Gaza and "get it over with"

Personally takes pride in and credit for getting Roe v Wade overturned

Is arguing in court that the President should be allowed to assassinate political rivals

Muslim Ban Bullshit, insistently

Actively damages our global standing and diplomatic efforts just by getting obsessed with having a Big Button

Implemented massive tax cuts on ich people, tax hikes on middle class and poor people, and actively wants to do it again

"Only wants to be a dictator for a little bit, guys, what's the big deal"

Is loudly publicly arguing that the US shouldn't honor its military alliances after-the-fact

Tore up an effective and substantial anti-nuclear-proliferation treaty with Iran

Had a DoEd that actively just refused to process student debt forgiveness applications that have been the law of the land for decades now

Has a long record of actively curtailing and weakening the NLRB and labor movement, including allowing managers to retaliate against workers, weakened workplace accommodation requirements for disabled people, and more

Rubber stamped a number of massive mergers building larger, more powerful top companies and increasing monopolistic practices

Fucking COVID Bullshit and hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths

Openly supporting fascists and wannabe-bootlicks ("Very fine people" being only the beginning of it

It's really not fucking close.

[cazort]

I've seen a small number of people on Tumblr advocating for voting for Jill Stein, the green party candidate, and a lot of them seem to take for granted the idea that she is better than Harris. None of them really make a convincing case for her, they just seem to assume that she is, particularly on the issue of Palestine.

But here's the thing. I don't even think she's a good candidate. Like I consider her borderline unacceptable, whereas I consider Harris to be a genuinely good candidate. It's bad enough that if I were in a state like Maine or Alaska that had ranked choice, I'm not even sure I would rank Jill Stein above Kamala Harris.

Why don't I like Jill Stein?

Inexperience. She has only held one political office, the town meeting (like city council) of Lexington, MA, a city with population under 35,000. This community is an extremely affluent community that leans very far left; in 2020 nearly 81% of the community voted for Biden and under 17% for Trump. Interestingly, in this own community where she served as a local elected official, in her 2016 run she still only got 1.3% of the vote, so she isn't even popular in the one place she has the most experience. She has never held state- or national political office and she has lost every other election she has run in. Her lack of experience is related both to her ability to win (people are unlikely to vote for someone who lacks experience) and her ability to do the job if she were to win. And it's not unrealistic for independents and third-party candidates to get elected to bigger offices. There have always been a few in US congress and it would be more attainable to get into a state congress; a few green party members have done this recently: Shane Robinson served in the MD state house until 2019, Henry Bear and Ralph Chapman in Maine. One, Fred Smith, even got elected in Arkansas as a green party candidate although he later changed back to a Democrat. The point is that there are even people in her party who are more experienced.

Disregard for the consequences of her actions. She threw at least one national election, the 2016 Presidential election, for Trump, and we are still suffering the consequences. Jill Stein's actions contributed to outcomes including the loss of abortion rights, all sorts of horrible environmental consequences, all sorts of negative consequences for immigrants, and a long list of other problems. This scenario is fully preventable; it could be prevented for instance by calling on your followers to only vote for you in states with ranked choice and non-swing states, and then giving a conditional endorsement of the next-best candidate and calling on your supporters to vote for them in swing states that lack ranked choice. She could have made this call and prevented the calamity we lived through, but she didn't. This shows great irresponsibility.

Age. She is already getting very old; she is currently 74 which is only 7 years younger than Biden and 4 years younger than Trump. Age was one of my biggest objections to Biden, was a big factor in me disliking Trump, and is a major reason I think Harris is a big improvement. And Jill Stein is much closer to Trump and Biden in age than Harris. Age is a big concern for me because older people are likely to be or become out-of-touch on many issues and also may experience cognitive decline.

Platform. Jill Stein's platform is objectively worse (and weaker) than the national/global green party's platform. One of my favorite things about the green party is that they tend to take a systems approach to environmentalism, through things like carbon tax which work with the market rather than against it. In countries where the green party has a significant number of seats in the legislature, like Germany where they control 117/733 seats in the Bundestag, they often end up cooperating with pro-business parties like Libertarians and even the center-right party on some issues, and this makes them better able to achieve their goals. But Stein takes a more stereotypically liberal "tax and spend" and regulatory approach making her not much different from the mainstream of the Democratic party in this regard. I.e. she supported the "green new deal" which is supported by many Democrats and to some degree by nearly all Democrats. This approach makes it less likely she would be able to appeal to and/or cooperate with moderates and independents.

Lack of a realistic plan to win. There is a realistic path for an idealistic third-party candidate to win the presidency, and it is through getting ranked choice implemented in more states first, thus removing the spoiler effect. And it particularly through embracing TVR (total vote runoff) over IRV (Instant Runoff Voting, which Alaska and Maine use currently.) Jill Stein hasn't even mentioned TVR, and although she has voiced support for ranked choice, it is not a point that she emphasizes particularly strongly. She is not active in the Fair Vote movement which is the largest movement to implement ranked choice in most states. To me, this sends the message that she's not really in it to win, she's just here to make a statement.

She's not a serious candidate, not a good candidate, and not an acceptable candidate.

I don't say this lightly, but I think that if I wanted to, I could mount a more successful third-party campaign for the presidency than she has. I think I would be a better candidate for president than she is. And I think I could make a more realistic path towards those goals than she has.

And I don't even think I'm particularly good. I know other people who could probably even do a better job than me. This is not saying I or these other people would be good candidates. It's more saying how I just see Jill Stein as being inadequate.

And this is why I think Jill Stein is a really lousy candidate. She is not the idealistic third-party candidate to break us out of the two-party system.

And when you see this, you see that all the people pushing her as "the only good candidate" are really pushing anti-vote propaganda. They are trying to manipulate the left into throwing the election.

This election cycle we have a legitimately good candidate: Harris. She ticks all the boxes. She is younger than Biden. She is more progressive yet while being rooted in reality enough to bring in moderates. She has called for a ceasefire in Palestine, and has been critical enough that she's attracted ire and backlash from the Israeli hardliner and AIPAC-funded crowd. And her track record as Attorney General when you start scrutinize it, is surprisingly and refreshingly good. Go look it up and see for yourself.

[gallifreyriver]

Why you NEED to vote!!

This is so serious. Do not withhold your vote. It's not going to send the message you think it is.

It never will. It will not be the 'devastating blow' or 'learning lesson' to the Democratic party as a whole- they won't learn a thing by you withholding your vote. It won't help Palestine- if anything it will make you complicit in whatever further harm comes to Palestinians when your "protest" results in Trump/the Republican Party winning the election, because they've already stated that they will back Israel no matter what.

Know what sends a better message than not voting? Voting for the other candidate, or voting "Uncommitted," in the primary.

So many of you are forgetting about the Primary!!

Currently there are two other notable* Democratic candidates (Dean Phillips & Marianne Williamson) and four notable* Third Party candidates (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chase Oliver, Jill Stein, & Cornel West). People have also been writing in Claudia De La Cruz. *In this context, notable means that a candidate appears on enough ballots to stand a chance to win a majority of the Electoral College, as according to Ballotpedia.

And let me tell you, even though only a few Democratic primaries have passed as of the writing of this post, their results already seem to be having the desired effect, because Biden started pushing harder for a ceasefire right after he lost 13% of the vote in the Michigan Primary to "Uncommitted."

Of course it's not perfect, but if 13% in one state could have even that much sway, imagine what could be accomplished on Super Tuesday* if everyone went out and did the same in their states? That's what could actually stand a chance at getting the Biden administration (and rest of the Democratic party) to scramble towards doing what we want. Withholding your vote won't do shit, I'm sorry. They only notice/care where the cast votes go- not votes that are absent. And unfun fact, Trump was elected by only about 25% of eligible voters. We got Trump because so many people (43%) DIDN'T vote in 2016. This is why turnout is such a big deal- your vote absolutely does matter. *Super Tuesday [March 5th] is the day where several [15] US states hold their primary election.

Need another reason? There are 468 seats up for election. All 435 seats in the House, and 33 seats in the Senate. That is huge.

Currently Republicans hold majority in the House. This is a chance to change that- to flip seats! We have the chance to tip the scales further away from fascism instead of further toward it- But we can only do that if people get out and VOTE. Vote in the primary to choose your candidate, and then vote again in November to try and secure a blue majority and actually get shit done.

Do not withhold your vote!

Withholding your vote isn't a rebellion, it's silencing your own voice. It's complicity in whatever bad thing happens when the bad people win. It's an active sabotage of the things you supposedly want.

And to those who think "Oh who cares if things get worse for us! People in Palestine are already suffering in unimaginably worse ways!" I need you to reflect, and realize that trying to punish yourself because you feel guilty that you're not suffering with them will not help them. It's not "solidarity." It's not heroic. I'm having trouble finding the right words, but to think it comes anywhere close is a slap in the face to those actually suffering. If anything it will only make their situation even worse if Trump wins. Again, the Republican party has already stated it's intentions to back Israel no matter what.

You need to make sure that your actions aren't just you trying to assuage your own guilt because you feel bad that you can't help more. And you need to make sure that you aren't holding these guilty feelings over the actual needs of Palestinians and that you're not speaking over them in your "activism."

I'll say again, Do not withhold your vote. Do not silence your voice.

We have a chance to make this better, but we can only do it if we all do the work- and voting is the bare minimum of said work.

So make sure to get out and vote in your primary!

[anthonycrowley]

sorry i cannot believe the fucking nyt is wasting space on this

i’m not advocating for voting third party. vote how you want. if anything, i think in most cases it is useless to vote third party and doing so basically kisses your preferred candidate’s victory goodbye due to math.

however. first of all there are potentially good reasons to vote third party. i have discussed it in the past but i will elaborate. yes - if you live anywhere that’s considered even slightly a swing state it’s probably a bad idea. small margins mean that a candidate that doesn’t really have a snowball’s chance in hell could lose the candidate precious delegates and get the candidate you don’t agree with at all in. that would be bad and is what happened in 2016. that’s one thing the article and i agree with - that would be bad to repeat. but there are also many states that aren’t swing states! i live in one of them. massachusetts is one of the most solidly blue states in the country. i mean…that could change, but if it did, basically i think harris and the democratic party in general have much bigger problems with the country in general. but like, if harris won a smaller margin in this state without losing it? that could send a message. that could send a message in california where democrats also won by a wide margin for the last several elections and where harris is from. like, if you actually like her policies and stances, vote for her. but if you don’t, and you’re pretty sure she’s gonna win, it’s not inherently stupid to vote more strategically imo. i know i’m gonna be labelled as a fucking bot or something, but i really do think it’s pretty milquetoast middle of the road to say ‘i think there are places where voting third party doesn’t actually hurt the top candidate and in those places you can probably protest vote.’

and i mean second and imo more importantly i fucking hate the let’s blame jill stein/third party candidates for the fact hilary lost sentiment that still persists. yeah, the opinion is right that she lost by narrow margins in certain states that she needed to win and in most of those states, if stein’s votes went to her, she would have won. true! yes! but those were clinton’s votes to lose. no one wants to say this! they were her’s to fucking lose! i don’t know why people voted for stein over her. maybe they were sexist. maybe they didn’t like her policies. maybe they didn’t like something she said. but it’s ridiculous to say that voters would rather give their vote to someone who has no chance of winning over clinton and then blame the other candidate when she lost. i just hate the idea that oh well if the third party candidates just made way for the real candidates the real candidates would have a better chance at winning.

like i know politicians think voters are stupid but most of us do actually have a memory span longer than a baby. i’m not happy with harris’ behavior on certain things and i live in a state she will probably win so i am considering not voting for her. if stein were on the ballot, i might vote for her - not because i want her to be president, i absolutely don’t. but she, unlike harris, doesn’t actually have a chance at being president, but a margin here tells harris that left leaning people in massachusetts are not happy with her. if stein isn’t on the ballot? it’s still not automatically going to harris. it might. i might go third party. i might do write in. i might not vote.

idk. i’m just so sick of the you gotta vote how we want 🔪 or else 🔪🔪🔪 sentiment from the dems. i was over it with biden and we as a society have got to get over 2016. she lost. stop trying to lose this one too.

[boochanz]

i really don't mean to argue, but i don't agree with shaming third-party voters. i voted 3rd party bc i live in a deeply blue state and i wanted to show allegiance with the palestinian community in my state (paterson nj) that voted for stein. to shame 3rd party voters, means shaming palestinian and arab americans around the nation.

the dems sent bill clinton to michigan to justify their actions and shame arab americans. the fault is in the growing fascism in this country and the dems for not earning their vote.

harris should've never been the nominee. the dems should've had a primary. she lost the popular vote! that's insane. she underperformed in nj compared to biden in 2020. these are all faults of the dems, not 3rd party voters.

this reel by jenan matari explains my thoughts well

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DBy4E6gPiSG/?igsh=ZmVrdmpocXAxcm5z

i get where you're coming from, and i respect that this is important to you— i’m not here to argue for the sake of it either. speaking as a muslim american voter with arab roots (my father is egyptian and white), who spent some of my most formative years in that very same area… i have a lot of frustration because what’s at stake here isn’t just political differences; it’s our safety, our families’ safety, and the survival of our communities. i’ve seen 4 years under trump and i’m honestly scared to see another 4. i don't think kamala was the best choice either, believe me, and it sucked to make the decision to vote for her. but i do believe we were never going to have a better choice, not in the short term, and definitely not from a third-party candidate. the system isn't built to let them win, at least not yet.

honestly, i understand why third-party voting feels like a way to send a message. but at the end of the day, i just don’t feel a third-party vote was going to lead to the change we need. with jill stein, she built a platform by presenting herself as someone pro-palestine who would immediately fight to end the genocide, but then ultimately unmasked herself as someone who is at best, a soft zionist, betraying the people who trusted her stance. it was devastating to see, and i hate that so many were misled. voting for her felt like a powerful stand. but in the bigger picture, her campaign, like so many third-party campaigns, didn’t stand a chance of creating real change in this election.

but the reason i didn’t specifically mention her is that to me, this isn’t only about jill stein or those who voted third party. my anger is not with them. in this election, nearly 600,000 people (mostly white conservatives) voted for robert kennedy, a foolish candidate with staunch anti-vax views, who will likely be working alongside trump now that he’d won again. another 900,000 or so went to other third-party candidates. those votes didn’t go anywhere that would shift anything in our favor, and they ended up supporting a system that’s dangerously close to tipping into fascism.

it frustrates me to think we maybe possibly potentially could’ve had a slightly better shot if some of those votes had been used differently, as some polsci experts suggest could’ve been the case. i don’t mean to shame anyone, but we’re all part of this system whether we like it or not. sometimes we have to make tough choices within it to protect ourselves and each other—even if it means holding our noses and voting for someone who isn’t our ideal. i do agree that in the end, the real fault lies with this country’s growing fascism and the democrats’ failure to earn and sustain trust, especially in marginalized communities.

like i said, it’s not even about the jill stein voters or people casting votes as a stand for palestine. some people (non minorities) voted third-party simply because they didn’t want to pick a side— look at the people who went for rfk or other candidates who don’t even align with real change or have any real plan. i didn’t call out any single candidate in particular because my frustration is with the entire phenomenon of voting for a candidate who will absolutely not be elected when we’re up against so much.

i do think that the presidential candidate should work to earn their place in the white house through genuine campaigning and engaging with the issues that matter to us. but imo trump didn’t exactly do that either. he’s not winning support through any real policies or outreach; he just has a bandwagon of followers, some of whom have terrifying views. his stance on muslims, israel, and basic human rights deeply scares me. no, i don’t feel that kamala truly ‘earned’ my vote either, and i don’t think anyone’s pretending she did. but i voted for her anyway for a couple reasons — one, because a lot of palestinians asked for us to vote for her, and two, because we can’t dismantle this system in one go.

this was my first time voting, and honestly, i’m angry that it had to come down to settling in this broken two-party system. i wish we had more choices, but this election wasn’t going to be the one to give us that option. i want change just as much as you do, and i believe we’ll get there one day. but realistically, it wasn’t going to happen this election. so i made the tough choice to take the L this time, hoping it will help set us up for something better down the line. the outcome really sucks

[ileftherbackhome]

Is it okay if I plan to vote Third Party and try to convince people to vote third Party without emotionally manipulating them?

Okay, here is why it is not a good idea to vote third party DURING FEDERAL ELECTIONS only. thank you for asking this question and i will do my best to explain my thought patterns and what i hear from actual activists in my local third party rallies and meetings.

1. None of the third party candidates are on all 50 states, this means voting third party in the FEDERAL elections will not ever be feasible under the electoral college but especially in 2024.

2. Jill Stein is a russian plant. I mean this literally. She takes money from putin and other russian players only to split the democratic vote. there is a reason her "policy" is basically leftist utopia.

3. The way the third party works in the FEDERAL elections is that it works as a vote against YOUR second choice. This is why Jill Stein only shows up during FEDERAL elections with a leftist agenda. it is to make sure YOU don't vote democratic. because the way it is set up in the electoral college is that a VOTE FOR THIRD PARTY HURTS YOUR SECOND CHOICE.

4. Even if you managed to get a third party candidate into the presidency (see point 1 for why you cannot), they NEED THE FUCKING CONGRESSSSSSSSS to pass bills. this is why it is important to vote blue up and down your federal ballots because the goal is to get a president who is the executive branch (they execute the laws, they DO NOT WRITE THEM, the president is the equivalent of the monoarchy in Britain) and a congress who is the legislative branch (they write the laws) that are in agreement with one another. What is a third party candidate going to do with ZERO members in congress? nothing. the answer is nothing.

So when can you vote third party? good news, it's literally EVERY OTHER ELECTION POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ONLY AFFECTS FEDERAL ELECTIONS AND CHANGE HAPPENS LOCALLY. IT'S A BOTTOM UP SYSTEM WE HAVE NOT A TOP DOWN SYSTEM.

this is actually a good thing in theory because we have the numbers to NEVER go republican again. we have enough registered voters democrat to win EVERY SINGLE ELECTION EVER if we all voted at over 90% in our communities. MOST PEOPLE AGREE WITH US. WE ARE THE 99% AND WE HAVE THE POWER.

1. local elections!!!!!! these happen 2x a year basically maybe more where you live idk how the system is set up in every county. it is super easy to find out where your local elections are. just type in local election my county into google.

2. state elections. this is won by POPULAR VOTE!!!! but nobody votes in the state elections because of REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA during federal campaign season. YOUR VOTE MATTERS. USE IT!!!!!!!

3. We DO have third parties in government. Bernie is a socialist. AOC is too im pretty sure. There are others. But they understand that you need people on the inside of the system to do anything within the system basically. We need to vote locally and statewide every year as democrats or leftists or socialists or anachrists or whatever. this is how we get enough people who think like us to gain political power to change the system.

4. this is very important because i want you to understand "the system is corrupt" is true but it dehumanizes the humans that make up that system. there is no social system that is not made up of humans. the system we have is corrupt because we are letting corrupt individuals gain too much social power. while we have the ability to vote, we NEED to vote so that the majority can rule over the society.

Anarchy just means removal of hierarchical thinking. there is no reason why we cannot have order and respect for other human beings in anarchy, right? we respect that we are all human beings and none of us have any superiority over the other. Thus, we listen and we make decisions as a group to decide who we think will be best to do what we want as a group socially. does that make sense?

if you do not like the idea of voting, if you think you should just be able to tell people what the right thing is and they will automatically agree with you if they are "good" people, you are engaging in fascist thought patterns.

voting is good. third parties need the representation within the LEGISLATIVE branch of government in order to make and pass laws. the president is a monoarch, the power comes with parliament aka congress.

vote third party candidates in for local and state elections, not for federal elections while the electoral college still exists.

[urlocalqueer]

both biden and trump are awful but i think there needs to be an understanding that when people say there isn't another choice, they mean that realistically, there is no way in hell a third party candidate would win only a few months out of the election. third party candidates get no media coverage unless they make fun of them (see RFK). i really hate biden, i think hes a conservative who hangs abortion in front of my face like a fucking reward, i think he's a genocidal piece of shit who is so out of his mind he doesn't know where he is half the time. but. he will listen to his party. he will keep most protections for minorities in america. for disabled ppl and queers and all that. trump will get rid of any protections minorities thought we had and instead of just letting the genocide in gaza happen, he will help netanyahu dial it up to one fucking million even more than biden already has. so really what the big issue is in america is that we don't have a fucking democracy. we have a two party system that tricks people into thinking we truly only have two options, and when we do have other options (jill stein, cornel west, claudia de la cruz) major news media laughs in their fucking faces or never acknowledges their existence. and what's worse is that i fucking ahte everyone who told everyone around them to vote blue no matter who but i also understand because unless there is a massive change in the way the country works as a whole then it's true that the only choice we have is voting blue because what fucking else is there. and you know what scares me the fucking most. my family can't afford to lose disability pay. if i can't get a job there goes my college education. i already can't afford to live anywhere, food is off the charts expensive, and everything just keeps getting more and more expensive and no one is fucking listening to anyone when we the fucking people are saying we can't afford anything and the biden administration just keeps pushing how fucking incredible the economy is. my dad is making more than we ever have in our entire lives and we are still barely getting by. the future is fucking bleak guys.

anyways tld fucking r: we need to restructure the whole of society. vote in local elections. vote for senate. vote for the house. idk who to fucking vote for because the only votes that seem to count are the ones that the news talks about and the only two they talk about is the motherfucking two party system. NOT VOTING ISN'T A FUCKING POLITICAL STATEMENT. im so fucking sick of the two party system.

another tldr: i hate having no control over my life as someonewho isn't of voting age yet. im in college i work i could pay taxes i coul dlive on my own but i can't vote for fucking anything. go fuck yourself.

another tldr: everything is bleak as fuck and i don't want to live in a fascist state because shit already fucking sucks.

[reasoningdaily]

this is the link to the video

Green Party 2024 presidential candidate Cornel West responded to criticism from Democratic strategist David Axelrod that his candidacy could be a "spoiler" that helps former President Trump win during an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper.

"Brother David Axelrod looks at the world through the lens of the establishment. Well, of course, from the lens of the establishment, he is concerned about reproducing the establishment," West said.

Cooper suggested: "David Axelrod, he seems more interested in preventing former President Trump from getting re-elected more than I'd say recreating the establishment."

"No, I'm talking about the Democratic Party establishment though, brother. Axelrod, you see what I mean? You would agree. You're very much part of the Democratic Party establishment," West said.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: I want to ask you, Senator Manchin, up in New Hampshire tonight, he seems to be testing the waters there. He says the parties are too far to the left, and to the right. What do you think of his politics?

CORNEL WEST: Well, you know, I just read the pamphlet "Common Sense." And my God, they had the audacity to rename that after the great Thomas Payne's revolutionary pamphlet of January 10, 1976, that was critical of all forms of hierarchy in the name of the dignity of those last, don't call everyday people.

I don't think that the No Labels party with their hundred million dollars flowing already, fundamental focus on what I'm concerned about, which is the plight of poor and working people trying to come to terms with the cop cities. Why do the critiques of the cop cities trying to come to terms with striking workers, be there in Hollywood, be there on Amazon, be there at UPS, coming to terms with the eco side, with the fossil fuel companies, steel, corporate greed running out-of-control.

You know, we're at a moment now, my brother, where if we don't come to terms with this massive callousness and indifference to the plight of poor and working people, we're going to lose everything -- the planet, democracy, our qualitative relations with each other. That's how life and death like our situation is, my brother, very much so.

COOPER: You know, the concern, certainly. I mean, you've been asked this question a million times from a lot of Democrats and Republicans against Trump that a third party candidate like yourself could siphon votes away from President Biden. David Axelrod, recently tweeted, saying: "In 2016, the Green Party played an outsized role in the tipping of the election to Donald Trump. Now with Cornel West as their likely nominee, they could easily do it again. Risky Business."

Now, I know you've said you don't believe Jill Stein made that big a difference in the vote count in 2016. In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, her votes did exceed Trump's margin over Clinton. So how do you answer that critique that you will be siphoning votes away and potentially leading to a Trump victory?

WEST: Well, a part of it is, it is that nearly 40 percent of our precious citizens every two and four years decide not to vote at all, and we know that the so-called spoilers, which is a category you can imagine, I don't accept at all, it was two-thirds of those who voted, it could be a Gary Johnson, assistant Jill Stein, brother Ralph Nader, whoever -- people say they would never vote for the two parties.

And I can understand those two parties become too corrupt. Their politicians are too conformist, too many of the policies themselves are just cowardly, will just say anything. What about truth? What about justice?

Truth and justice is bigger than all of us, bigger than every party, every race, every person. If you're concerned about truth and justice, then you can't be cowardly, complacent or conformist.

And especially if you're looking at the world through the lens of those who are incarcerated, those who are in ghettos and hoods and barrios.

Brother David Axelrod, he looks at the world through the lens of the establishment. Well, of course, from the lens of the establishment, he is concerned about reproducing the establishment. My God. My God. There is no doubt about that.

In the 1850s, both parties supported slavery, like he does with the Labor Department.

COOPER: But I think he is probably -- I think he seems more though -- I mean, you know, David Axelrod, he seems more interested in preventing former President Trump from getting re-elected more than I'd say recreating the establishment.

WEST: No, I'm talking about the Democratic Party establishment though, brother. Axelrod, you see what I mean? You would agree. You're very much part of the Democratic Party establishment.

COOPER: I mean, his interest -- and I don't want to speak for him, but you criticize the president.

WEST: Absolutely.

COOPER: You criticize President Biden saying recently that he contributed, in your words, I'm quoting, "contributed to a crime against humanity when he became the architect of the mass incarceration regime in the 1990s." You're referring to the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that then Senator Biden sponsored.

You also said it is: "... very clear that his cognitive powers are in decline." You have had a remarkable career. You've championed those whose voices have been silenced all your life, we've had you on the program a ton of times talking about that.

You've never run a large bureaucracy or had any major governmental leadership role. Isn't that important to actually governing as president?

WEST: Oh, absolutely. I'd have to bring in people who are experienced, but the important thing is your vision and the lens through which you view the world. Policy is something that can be worked out in light of vision. If your vision is one of militarism abroad, then you're going to be preoccupied with wars and militaristic adventures. We've known Biden has got a long history, I don't think he has actually seen a war that he hadn't supported.

I think the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a crime against humanity. How many precious hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed based on a lie? Well, Biden was running interference in that regard.

I think mass incarceration in the United States in the last 40 years is a crime against humanity. I've taught in prison for 41 years. I've stayed in contact with the rich humanity of my brothers and sisters who have been incarcerated and many have done things they didn't and shouldn't have done. Many are there because they're innocent.

But the important thing is, it is sites -- they are sites of barbarity. We ought to be ashamed to live in a country when you look at the conditions of our brothers and sisters who are incarcerated.

It is not just the 1994 crime bill. You can go back to the Biden-[Strom Thurmond] bills of '84 and 86, and '91, and then '94. You see what I mean? So it's just a matter of trying to be truthful.

I'm not trying to trash brother Biden, I am really not. I'm trying to make him accountable for his actions in light of how the wretched of the earth are treated in this nation and around the world. And that's true for any politician, be it Obama, Biden, Clinton, Bush, Trump -- all of them have to be measured by the same standard of truth and justice.

[xxdrowninglessonsxx]

I agree that people should be voting, at least for statistics.

But when is the election where we’re allowed to vote third party? Every election cycle it’s the same bullshit, pitting one evil against a so-called lesser evil while democrats spout the same “vote blue no matter who” bullshit. A vote for third party is not a vote for Trump, and you seem to be completely forgetting that the electoral college frequently chooses whoever they deem fit. Your vote doesn’t fucking matter in the grand scheme of things because if you haven’t noticed, we live in an oligarchy, not a true democracy. The only time it would probably count is if you’re a swing state.

Maybe if we stopped giving into the status-quo that is the two-party system, we would actually get some damn work done. Voting third party doesn’t make you an idiot and neither does condemning liberals for literally giving into the fascist capitalist system. Malcom X said not to trust the white liberal and their party. I will not be giving into the party that is just one side of the same coin. It’s not a lesser evil. Evil is evil, and Kamala Harris is complicit in genocide.

If you think the system can be fixed by voting blue, you’re fucking ignorant. We voted for Biden because of that talking point, and look where that got us. Many people voted for Obama because of that talking point, and what do we receive? War mongers in office. It’s time to take matters into our own hands. If you haven’t noticed, don’t you think it’s a little strange that no 3rd party has won the presidential election since the 1800s? I wonder why. They financially benefit from the system that we currently have.

The reason Biden dropped out of the race was most likely because it was going to be a very big turn out for 3rd party voting. Nobody likes that. Republicans and democrats hate it. I personally will be voting for Jill Stein because she’s the only pro-Palestine candidate running, and I believe genocide trumps every other talking point. We’re not free until EVERYONE is free. Period.

You’re not a “better leftist” for voting blue. You’re complicit, and it’s sick that we’ve seen what the Democratic Party has done by refusing to condemn the violence in Gaza, yet liberals continue to spout the stereotypical, “Vote blue no matter who.” You speak of conservative propaganda as if Democratic propaganda doesn’t exist. Just say you’re a damn liberal and be done. You’re no communist or anarchist. You’re not anti-fascist if you choose to condemn a literal genocide by voting for someone complicit in it.

The fact of the matter is this. Kamala isn’t going to win. Trump will win. That doesn’t mean I like Trump. Even if Kamala does miraculously win after joining the race only a few months before the actual election, what’s stopping Trump from running again in 2028? What’s stopping someone worse from running? And I guarantee you guys will spew the same bullshit again like, “This isn’t the election to vote 3rd party.” So I ask again. When is that election? Democrats haven’t protected Roe V. Wade like promised. They haven’t protected any minorities’ rights. Why should we continue to vote for them when they don’t do what they promise to do? The people are angry and rightfully so. If you’re not for revolution and not dedicated to helping grassroots organizations like The Mountain Party of West Virginia for example, then shut up. The real work is done on the ground.

The only thing that will get us anywhere is demanding our rights. “If something is yours by right, fight for it or shut up.” Laying down and giving into the system is not fighting. It’s cowardly because you’re too afraid to get your hands dirty for something you supposedly believe in.

I also guarantee that most of y’all agreeing with this person didn’t even vote in the primaries.

Not voting for Kamala or Trump is a perfect choice for people who refuse to be complicit in genocide, and it’s not fair for you to shame them. It’s actually very wrong because the government DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. Politicians from the two-party system DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. Our own government would do to us exactly what they do to Palestinians if they had to. It’s time to rise up and organize, and if you’re not doing that, you’re just another person spewing their ignorant political take on the internet for likes. That is true performative activism.

Real activism is choosing a stance and sticking to it. It’s standing up for what you believe in no matter the cost. That’s why leftists hate liberals; liberals don’t stick to their guns, not because leftists are Conservatives in disguise.

The two-party system exists to divide, and if you don’t see that, you’re really dumb. In truth we’re all on the same team against the one percent: the billionaire class. Yes that means old white men, and that means trans people. It’s means poor uneducated people in Appalachia and black and brown people from the city. It’s everyone. It’s rigged against us all, a wall to keep us from growing.

You speak of a mythical revolution. It would happen if you weren’t so cozy and complacent by television. A revolution would happen if he turned off our screens and looked at the world around us. All empires fall. Revolution is real, and it’s people like you that prevent it from happening.

if you would rather elect a fascist than a liberal you're not a leftist you're just edgy

[jessicalangeslefttit]

trump voters voted for trump

In the United States of America, the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College means that there are going to be two viable candidates. In virtually every instance where there have been more than two candidates who actually stand a chance, the third (and possibly fourth and fifth) candidate has served to damage the chances of one of the other two.

Such notable instances include 1992, where Ross Perot, a wealthy independent candidate, ran on a platform of populism and economic conservatism, peeling off huge numbers of voters from the incumbent Republican President George HW Bush, ultimately finishing with 18% of the national popular vote. Despite this, he did not win a single electoral vote. All he did was destroy George HW Bush’s chance.

Likewise, in 2000, the Green Party nominee Ralph Nader ran against both Al Gore and George Bush. Bush would, after a long fight, be awarded Florida’s twenty-five electoral votes, and the Presidency, by order of the Supreme Court by a total of 537 votes, while Ralph Nader received 97,488 votes in the state, meaning that had less than a thousand Nader votes swallowed their pride and voted for Al Gore, he would have won Florida, and the Presidency, therefore likely preventing 9/11, the War on Terror, the 2008 financial crisis, and, by extension, the circumstances leading to the election of Donald Trump.

Speaking of the election of Donald Trump, Jill Stein, who is a known associate of Vladimir Putin’s, was the Green Party nominee in 2012 and 2016. Let’s look at the total votes received by Miss Stein in three states in 2016– Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. 

In Wisconsin, Stein received 31,072 votes. Donald Trump carried the state by 22,748 votes. In Michigan, Stein received 51,463 votes. Donald Trump carried the state by 10,695 votes. In Pennsylvania, Stein received 49,941 votes. Donald Trump carried the state by 44,292 votes. The three states together add up to forty-six electoral votes, which when added to the 232 electoral votes carried by Hillary Clinton, creates a total of 278 electoral votes, eight more than is needed to win the Presidency, meaning that had Jill Stein voters in these three states voted for Hillary Clinton, she would President of the United States today.

The numbers do not lie. So-called “progressives” who valued their precious moral stand more than human lives did sufficient damage to Hillary Clinton that Donald Trump became President. This directly led to the deaths of potentially as many as 300,000 Americans, the stringent and spanning violation of human rights of immigrants and asylum seekers, the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Accords, the appointment of an accused rapist to the United States Supreme Court, and countless other atrocities by Donald Trump. 

The rule of law and the strength of American democracy have been pushed to their breaking point by Donald Trump, it was “progressives” who got us here. It is people who knew that they would be safe if Donald Trump won who voted for Jill Stein and enabled this Presidency. It was third-party voters who gave Trump the edge in Florida and Arizona as well. 

Fuck third parties, and fuck you if you think it’s acceptable to vote for them. If you voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, you voted for Trump. It’s that fucking simple. Now sit in your guilt and choke on it.

[foreverlogical]

Hillary Clinton said that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party spoiler candidate in 2020 to help President Trump win reelection.

The former secretary of state pushed the theory on Campaign HQ podcast hosted by David Plouffe, President Barack Obama’s campaign manager in 2008.

Plouffe and Clinton discussed hurdles the Democratic nominee would face and compared the 2020 race to Clinton’s loss to Trump in 2016. Plouffe asked Clinton about the part third-party candidates, such as Jill Stein of the Green Party, played in 2016, allowing Trump to secure key states.

"They are also going to do third party again," Clinton, 71, said. "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said, referring to Gabbard, without mentioning the Hawaii representative by name.

"She is a favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she is also a Russian asset.

Gabbard, 38, has represented Hawaii in the House of Representatives since 2013. A major in the Hawaii Army National Guard, she served in a field medical unit in Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and was deployed to Kuwait from 2008 to 2009. This summer, she spent two weeks in Indonesia on a military training exercise.

In Tuesday's Democratic debate, Gabbard accused the New York Times of calling her a "Russian asset."

The newspaper published an Oct. 12 news article about Gabbard stating, "She is injecting a bit of chaos into her own party’s primary race, threatening to boycott that debate to protest what she sees as a 'rigging' of the 2020 election. That’s left some Democrats wondering what, exactly, she is up to in the race, while others worry about supportive signs from online bot activity and the Russian news media."

Gabbard said on the debate stage, "The New York Times and CNN have also smeared veterans like myself for calling for an end to this regime change war [in Syria]. Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I’m a Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears."

In 2016, Gabbard supported Bernie Sanders over Clinton. But she congratulated Clinton on becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, saying, "She becomes the first woman to lead a major political party into the general election. Say what you will about her, let's give credit where it due. This is one tough, smart woman. Most might wilt under the fire and criticism she's endured."

Gabbard faces a 2020 primary challenge for her House seat from Democratic state Sen. Kai Kahele.

[New: 'If the nesting doll fits': Clinton aide defiant on Tulsi Gabbard 'Russian asset' claim]

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

The 2020 presidential election just got its first notable third-party challenger. Last Tuesday, Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, who left the Republican Party nine months ago and became an independent, announced he would run for president as a Libertarian. And while we won’t know whether Amash wins his new party’s nomination until later this month, here’s what we do know about third-party candidacies more broadly and what that could mean for President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden in the general election.

First, it’s unlikely Amash wins much of the vote in November. Take what happened in 2016. Third-party candidates won 6 percent of the vote, which was the largest share of the vote since Ross Perot ran for a second time in 1996, but it was still just 6 percent. As you can see in the chart below, third-party candidates don’t tend to win that much support. Our system just isn’t set up for successful third-party presidential bids.

However, that doesn’t mean Amash (or other third-party contenders) won’t matter in November. In this era of close elections, small shifts in the margins can matter a great deal to the final result, and third-party contenders can play a part in that. Amash’s candidacy, in particular, could affect the margins in some key battleground states, including his home state of Michigan, which was pivotal to Trump’s victory four years ago. Consider what happened in 2016: In 11 states, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson’s raw vote total exceeded the vote margin separating Trump and Hillary Clinton. Now, that doesn’t mean Johnson necessarily changed who won in each of those states, but he and other third-party contenders (like Jill Stein of the Green Party) may have helped shape the outcome, especially in the three states that proved decisive in the Electoral College: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

So who might Amash’s candidacy hurt more in 2020 — Biden or Trump? This is a hard question to answer, but there are some reasons as to why an Amash bid might hurt Trump more than Biden. Estimates vary for how many Americans are “libertarian” — perhaps anywhere from 4 percent to 22 percent of the public — though most voters back one of the two major parties, so we’re not talking about a huge portion of the electorate. That said, there is evidence that more libertarian-minded voters are more likely to vote Republican than Democratic, which could cost Trump at the ballot box.

What’s more, a relatively high-profile Libertarian nominee like Amash could be more successful in attracting some GOP-leaning voters away from Trump. This group might include the small slice of conservative and/or Republican voters — including some “Never Trumpers” — who may be uncomfortable with Trump or even dislike the president. These voters in particular might like Amash because of his conservative record, support for limited government and long-standing opposition to Trump — for instance, he was the only non-Democrat to vote for Trump’s impeachment in the House.

Still, an Amash bid could still present problems for Biden, too. If 2020 is a referendum election on Trump’s presidency, Biden may not want another well-known candidate in the race to give potential anti-Trump voters a different choice. Polls have long shown that a majority of voters prefer an alternative candidate to Trump, but that doesn’t mean that alternative has to be Biden. So it’s possible that Amash could win over some of these voters, lowering Biden’s ceiling and narrowing the race between the major-party nominees. Trump seems to have adopted this view, responding to Amash’s announcement by egging on the congressman and comparing him to Stein, who some on the left think spoiled the election for Clinton in 2016.

And looking at the Electoral College, Amash’s impact could be most deeply felt in Michigan, where he could actually win enough votes to influence the outcome. We would expect Amash to win a larger share of the vote in his home state, considering Johnson did his best in 2016 in New Mexico, where he’d been a two-term GOP governor, winning 9 percent of the vote. Amash, unlike Johnson, hasn’t held a statewide office, but he probably would still have an advantage in the western part of Michigan, which he’s represented in the House for nearly 10 years. That could get in the way of Democrats’ hopes of making gains in traditionally Republican Kent County — Amash’s base and home to Grand Rapids — because of its sizable share of college-educated voters. While Biden has led most early Michigan polls, Amash could complicate the race there.

But it’s also possible that 2020 might just not be that good of an environment for third-party candidates. One reason for this comes down to a familiar feature of American politics: partisan polarization. Take 2016. On the one hand, it probably should have been a better year for third-party candidates, as political science research shows that third-party support is often strongest when partisans dislike their parties’ nominees but don’t want to cross over and vote for the other major party. But as we saw in 2016, two historically unpopular nominees weren’t enough to dampen support among partisan voters and create a meaningful movement around an alternative. And some of this may be due to negative partisanship — or voters staying fully loyal to their party rather than casting a protest vote because they loathe the idea of the other party winning more.

It’s also possible that there just isn’t enough overlap between the two parties in 2020. The parties are ideologically distinct and very attuned to their activists on cultural and social issues as well as economic ones, meaning there is less opportunity for a third-party candidate to make a dent in the electorate. For instance, one reason Perot emerged in the 1990s as such a strong alternative is both Republicans and Democrats were still struggling over the role economic and identity issues would play in their respective parties, with Republicans split between traditional (George H.W. Bush) and culturally conservative (Pat Buchanan) camps. Democrats were also split, searching for their ideological identity after 12 years out of the White House, ultimately turning to the center with the nomination of Bill Clinton. These are the kinds of conditions that often make a third-party bid successful, but they also require some fluidity in the party system that might not be there today.

Ultimately, the evidence is mixed about whether an Amash run on the Libertarian ticket would make much of an impact on the general election outcome. And it remains to be seen whether Amash has the potential to become the next Perot, or whether his candidacy will look more like that of Johnson or Ralph Nader. One thing shared across many of these third-party bids is this, though: They didn’t go well for the incumbent party in the White House.

[fafefae]

here's a reminder for you about the two candidates running for president who are going to be the ones in office whether you like it or not:

and here's what my post is saying, about how right now, 3rd party candidates do not have even a shred of a chance at winning the presidency until we can overhaul the voting system in our country:

"As history demonstrates, casting a vote for a third-party candidate may, at best, result in a wasted vote, and, at worst, prevent the most popular candidate from winning. This “disruptor” effect stems from third-party candidates garnering a fraction of the vote that would otherwise go to major-party candidates. The Electoral College system is vulnerable to the third-party disruptor effect because every state—except for Maine and Nebraska—allocates their electoral votes to the candidate who wins a plurality of the statewide vote. Consequently, in states where the margins between candidates are close, relatively few votes for a third-party candidate might change the winner."

we cannot focus on calling for a ceasefire, ending the occupation, and freeing palestine if we as americans are not free ourselves. (see: trump's project 2025, trump's agenda 47).

voting 3rd party and expecting an independent candidate to win is NOT FEASIBLE under the current system we have and use. all it does is divide the left and the further left. and guess what?

encouraging people to vote 3rd party, and voting 3rd party yourself, is what allowed trump to obtain office in 2016. republicans know that. russia knows that. (you know, russia, the one currently bombing ukraine and killing ukrainians?). its not even a secret that russia sponsors jill stein, who only ever shows up in media to run as a 3rd party candidate every time there's a presidential election. she is a republican posing as someone progressive who has been bought by the government to fill a niche and keep the left from being able to unite. she is a shiny distraction, as is every 3rd party candidate, so you can feel morally good about voting for someone perfectly in line with your beliefs without thinking of how this country's voting system actually works. the right is counting on you to vote 3rd party to make sure trump wins.

the electoral college does not work in a way that allows 3rd party candidates to even come CLOSE to having a chance at winning. all it ends up doing is making swing states flip red instead of blue, which makes those electoral college state votes go towards the republican candidate and ends up nullifying every single blue vote in those states.

you want to free palestine, free ukraine, free congo, liberate every single country under attack right now? we cannot do that with a fascist in power. we cannot do that with trump in power. if we can't even unite enough to save ourselves from project 2025 and agenda 47 by voting for the candidate who has the best chance at winning against trump, what makes you think we'll be able to help anyone else in the world who needs help?

by all means, condemn terrorism, free palestine, end the israeli occupation. abolish the electoral college. implement ranked choice voting in this country so we can have a 3rd party candidate. but we can't do that right now, because its fucking election season. and right now is NOT THE TIME to be splitting the blue vote.

suck it up, educate yourselves, and vote accordingly to ensure that we continue to be free so we can help palestine can be free, instead of expecting a toddler to run a marathon for you (voting for a 3rd party candidate) and then not understanding why you didn't win the fucking marathon (in fact, you helped put the one who actively wants all palestinians dead in power instead of the one who does not actively want all palestinians dead. good job.)

"i aint reading all that" congratulations. the republicans are counting on you wanting to be morally superior and/or being too lazy for you to educate yourself and suck it up. voting 3rd party doesn't work right now in the United States of fucking America - all it does is disrupt the vote in favor of the right. im not even a fucking democrat. im an anarchist. vote blue because the one who will take office if you don't is trump, and republicans are counting on you to do this for them.

do. not. split. the. fucking. vote.

and don't forget your daily click.

the american voting system is NOT EQUIPPED to support a 3rd party without ranked choice voting. and until we get RCV, it's one or the other. and it WILL be one or the other.

a lot of 3rd party candidates sound great, but they do not have a realistic chance at winning. be realistic. you know who does have a chance at winning? the household names, trump or harris.

splitting the vote by going 3rd party is what made trump happen in 2016, it was hillary clinton's downfall. it was USED by state sponsored internet trolls to spread propaganda, destabilize and divide the left. it was endorsed by trump himself, he tried it in 2020 too, and he's doing it again now because he knows it might be the only chance he has at winning.

be VERY wary of anyone telling you vote 3rd party. it's trump or harris. it won't be stein, de la cruz, or sherman, or fucking anybody else ive never heard of, because nobody is talking about independent candidates, and EVERYONE is talking about trump and harris.

it will be trump or harris for president, and it will be trump if you vote 3rd party. and ill tell you as an anarchist, i would rather have kamala harris and all her flaws in office over the fascist donald trump who would see me and my queer siblings and my friends and family of color dead.

do not split the fucking vote.