#third party candidates basically never win the presidency

[queenwendy]

Ffs if I see one more post from fellow leftists talking about how they refuse to vote for Harris because of how much she sucks (and she does) I am gonna lose it. If you want a socialist movement in this fucking country do grassroots organizing, join local organizations, attend protests, set up protests, unionize your workplace, etc. etc. don’t fucking hand the election over to motherfucking Trump because you wanna vote third party for president. I bet Claudia would be an amazing president, and I want third party candidates in all kinds of offices, so run fucking non presidential candidates so we can fix this god forsaken FPTF electoral college system that way we can get an actual leftist president without risking the motherfucking fascist winning! And before you call me a democrat shill, I fucking hate the democratic party but dear god they are moderately better than the republicans. I’ll take more neoliberal hell over a fascist hell any damn day; at least I’m fucking alive.

[redbuddi]

why is it that everyone assumes the options are kamala, trump, or not voting? i understand the odds of getting a third party in office are basically null, but everyone seems to assume that bc I'm not voting for kamala that means I'm not voting?? I do not want either party in charge bc both dems and reps chose nominees who want more genocide. I do not think dems deserve my vote "just" because they are not donald trump. if trump wins bc of third party votes then maybe dems will be forced to think for 5 seconds about why so many people didnt want to vote for them, and vice versa if kamala wins. Of course trump is worse than kamala. Of course kamala still supports genocide. That's not a reason to Not vote, but it IS a reason to look outside the douchebag and piece of shit we're being forced to consider?

you said it yourself, "the odds of getting a third party in office are basically null." voting third party just means shaving away the votes that compete against the republican party, its what they want you to do because it's how they'll win. I don't want either party in charge either but they are not the same. Dems can be pressured and persuaded. Conservatives, especially trump, have done and will continue to just do whatever the hell they want regardless of what people say.

Also I wouldn't call this election a Douche vs. a Turd Sandwich as much as I'd call it a Douche Vs. A Nazi, considering all the nazis in Trump's party and all the nazis he hangs out with and the fact that he himself is probably a nazi. Which, y'know. Makes the choice kinda easy.

On top of that, even on the slim chance that the third party candidate wins the electoral college, that doesn't actually mean that they're president. Any third party candidates need to then be voted on by the senate. A senate that is entirely made up of dems and republicans. So, yeah. There's a reason it's never happened, it's set up so that it's basically impossible. This is, obviously, very bad and needs to change, but it's not something that'll be changed through our currently existing system of government. It's something that we need to fight from the ground floor to change, which will be easier to do if we aren't being put in jail for being gay.

And, ngl anon, it's a little suspect you don't even have a third party candidate you're backing here. You have enough conviction to vote third party but not to actually have a third party candidate you're backing? Is there one you know that would actually do the things you want? If so why not name them to garner some support? People will only be even more divided if we just do whichever third party candidate vibes. Either you're a bad actor, or more likely, you're someone who is very understandably frustrated with the current system and wishes things worked differently. But it doesn't, at least for now, and being uninformed about how these things work is only going to make change that much harder.

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

Hey, fun fact, did you know that the ENTIRE amount of third party votes counted so far is only 1.3% of the entire population of people who voted? Do you know how many percentage points Harris lost by? 3.4

Personally, I feel like if they don't even make up half of the gap when including the libertarians and constitution party fuck heads who were never going to vote Dem, third party voters literally cannot be responsible for Harris' loss. It seems as though, despite the work to pressure Harris during campaigning (you know. Like you're fucking supposed to), basically no one risked placijg their vote anywhere else but with her.

And she still lost by distreasingly large margins.

I am going to be plastering these numbers on any and every post I see blaming third party voters for this outcome.

And if you want to know WHY people voted the way they did, check out AP's VoteCast reporting for tidbits like this

It's always been about white supremacy my guys.

Hmmm, I wonder why Trump supporters would want to threaten the Ukranian and Palestinian genocide resistance movements while claiming to be isolationist in political stance......

Surprising as always that trying to out racist the white supremacists while positing yourself as a progressive party wasn't a winning strategy for the Dems.

[deadpresidents]

another question about 2004: if kerry wasn't your first or second or third choice, who was if you don't mind sharing?

As the 2004 campaign cycle was starting to get moving (in 2003), I was actually hoping for a Biden candidacy. I was always a Joe Biden fan and thought that the timing was finally right for him in 2004, but he didn't even dip his toes into that race. I also held out some hope that Bill Bradley would jump in the 2004 race. I supported Bradley -- a former U.S. Senator from New Jersey (and Hall of Fame basketball player in the NBA and college) -- early on in the 2000 Democratic primaries before Gore ran away with things, and he was our version of a maverick progressive in 1999.

Once it became clear that Biden and Bradley weren't running and Gore showed no interest in once again running for an office that he had won four years earlier only to have it taken away by a party-line vote of the Supreme Court, I quickly shifted my support over to Howard Dean. Those of you who weren't old enough back then will think this is crazy, but for a few weeks in late-2003/early-2004, Howard Dean was a rock star and looked like not only a sure bet for the Democratic nomination, but for the White House. Al Gore actually endorsed Dean in December 2003 before the first primaries and caucuses, and that was a HUGE deal at the time. The Bush campaign did NOT want to run against Howard Dean, and 20 years later, I still think he would have beaten Bush.

After the scream that basically ended Dean's campaign, Dean clearly started to lose momentum and when he didn't win the New Hampshire primary (a state that seemingly favored a candidate like him, particularly since he was from neighboring Vermont), I jumped off the bandwagon and started supporting General Wesley Clark. I still think General Clark was a pretty good candidate, too, but he never gained much traction, either. He was at a bit of a disadvantage because people didn't know him very well as a political figure and it wasn't even clear what party he belonged to before announcing his run for President. If he had a bit more name recognition and had some more time to be known as a political candidate rather than a soldier, General Clark would have been a tough opponent for President Bush, too. But I think Clark eventually ended up dropping out before Dean did and neither of them won any major primaries.

All along, John Kerry was quietly winning nearly every primary. John Edwards won the primaries in his home turf of the Carolinas, Dean won his home state of Vermont where he had won five terms as Governor, and General Clark won the Oklahoma primary, but Kerry swept the rest of the field and just became unstoppable because he kept capturing delegates. I guess Kerry ended up being my third choice (after Dean and Clark), but it was basically by default. He was well on his way to the nomination by Super Tuesday and there was no way I was going to support Husband-of-the-Century John Edwards, who remained in the race later than most of the Democratic candidates. I did consider Dennis Kucinich at one point -- Kucinich was 2004's version of Bernie Sanders -- but I didn't have any hope that he could give President Bush any sort of challenge in a general election. I also didn't want to take Kucinich away from his important work making cookies with the rest of the Keebler elves.

[babybabymerrychristmas]

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.

[thereallifecath]

I doubt I can reason with you, but truly, we are voting for an administration we can protest. An administration we can criticize. One that may actually change if pressured enough. You said yourself you don’t know how the ballot works. Here’s how it works: there’s two candidates that could possibly win. That’s it. Harris, or Trump. Third party is statistically impossible. This isn’t how it should be, but it is. A lot of vulnerable people (see: those listed in your pinned post) would be devastated under a second Trump admin. With Harris, we have a fighting chance at maintaining or improving our rights, and can continue to fight for Palestine without unfathomable repercussions. This would be all but impossible under Trump. Please don’t weigh in on USAmerican elections online when you admittedly don’t understand them. Thank you for listening, and understand I mean no disrespect by any of this, just hope I can give some insight on the unfortunate reality of our choice. Not voting for Harris is a vote from Trump and essentially my own death warrant as a marginalized USAmerican.

Starting any response off with ‘I doubt I can reason with you’, is immediately disrespectful and a cop out. You don’t know me, we’ve, as far as I’m aware, never conversed before and so I am confused as to why you feel ready to make that assumption - that I’m an unreasonable person.

I am Australian, so I am aware of how frustrating it is to be constantly told to vote for the lesser of two evils because statistically the other parties won’t win… but I also understand that that statement is very much a ploy to keep us voting for the same two parties. Here in Aus, there is a ranking system on the ballot, so you can vote for your first choice, second, third, etc. So that is very different, to my understanding of how the US American’s ballot works. You claim that I admitted to not understanding how American elections work, when I didn’t - I stated that I don’t know how specifically the ballot works - as in what it looks like. I was having a hard time getting a straight answer on whether there is other parties on the ballot other than Republican and Democratic, and I understand now that there is but like here, it’s unlikely that anyone else will win. It is of course, easier for me to say that I would vote someone else, as again here it’s different but I also don’t know how real change is supposed to happen if we (globally) just shrug our shoulders and accept the system instead of fighting it or trying to change it. How is anyone other party ever going to have a chance if everyone collectively just agrees to that shitty vote for the lesser of two evils bullshit. I’m not telling you - and I didn’t once say that I hate Americans for voting for Kamala, I was mainly criticising celebrities and people in power for supporting this rhetoric instead of trying to invoke real change.

You say a lot of vulnerable people would be devastated under Trump rule as if no one is being devastated now. I am very much aware of the struggles the American people face, as the Australian government/parliament follows and kisses USA’s ass more often than not. What happens in America doesn’t just happen in America, it’s a ripple effect that affects life and laws here too. The police here take inspiration from the USA’s police, and Prime Ministers always buddy up to the Presidents. In saying that it’s not as overtly bad here as it is in America, but USA news is constantly broadcasted here. There is of course one candidate that is worse than the other, and in no way am I saying that you shouldn’t vote or that voting for Trump would end up better than Kamala, but talking about it like Kamala is going to be better than him, feels wrong. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are basically the same at this point, they both want the same things, except one is just a lot more open and honest about it than the other. Kamala first and foremost will always be a cop, and she is not going to go easy on protesters and that’s evident in the last four years - hell - the last eleven months with Palestine Protests and police’s abhorrent behaviour towards students and other protestors. She may not have been President, but she was Vice, and I wonder how much in the past two years has been Biden, and how much has fallen to her because of his age and physical state at the time. By vulnerable people, I wonder if Muslim, Palestinian, and Middle Eastern citizens of the US as a whole, are considered under your definition, because if you ask them their lives don’t get better with either option. Same goes for the black community, it’s been horrible for decades, Kamala isn’t going to actively make it any better. And considering a high portion of violence against African Americans and people of colour is done by the police, why do you think Kamala is going to listen? I don’t want anyone to die or get hurt, and I understand that under Trump more people will be in danger, but Palestinians don’t have a threat of danger - they’re past that - the danger is a constant, almost a certainty that they will die sooner or later… if no one stops it now. I’m not telling you that whole stupid thing of ‘you can’t complain cause it’s worse in x’ I’m saying that I don’t see how just voting for the lesser of two evils is going to help anything, when you could band together and vote for a third party instead. Statistically it may be impossible but physically it’s not? You could invoke real change.

And the ‘you’ part isn’t even the main issue I had. I am more than allowed to criticise celebs for their engagement in an active genocide and how their behaviour and influence affects real issues. I have lost all hope in celebrities this past year and to see two celebs I loved, especially Misha Collins, endorse a woman who supports the genocide is disheartening for sure, and considering the fucking emotional wreck you naturally become when you see burnt body parts of kids on the fucking daily, yeah I’m gonna be angry, and yeah I’m gonna be angry at the people who are putting their hand in to help the wrong side. Both Trump and Kamala want Israel to succeed, and I don’t see how standing on the side of either can be seen as the right choice. I don’t want Trump to win, but shit has been fucked under the Biden/Harris administration and I of course get angry when I see people praising her. And really, a whole GEEKS FOR HARRIS/WALZ event when you have not done a single fundraiser for Palestine? Fuck that, that’s just openly being ignorant of the people suffering because of Israel yes, but also because of the USA’s involvement as well as Canada’s, Australia’s and Britain’s too. The western imperialist countries have done NOTHING to help Palestine, instead we have disgusting officials encouraging the killing of babies - celebrating it even, and we just have to sit back and stay partial to the bullshit. I’m tired of the system and you should be too, be radical, try to change the system because it’s not working for anyone and Kamala isn’t going to change that. The least we can do is demand that Kamala understand that the president should serve the people, and that to get the people’s vote she must divest from and sanction Israel.

And look I’m not going to fault you for voting for her, in complete honesty, I get it, it’s a fucking difficult situation. But I am going to fault everyone involved in creating this stupid event, because they could’ve put on a fundraiser or sanction Israel event sometime in the past eleven months, but they didn’t and they still could’ve put on an event to convince the people that they do have a choice and they can actually change things by voting third party. Yeah people aren’t going to vote third party if they are told they can’t or their vote doesn’t matter if they do. And I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings in any way, I genuinely am, but I am fucking tired of seeing people in so much pain and not being able to do much about it. The least these celebs can do is openly campaign against Israhell but they don’t, and I’m more than entitled to tell them to fuck off when instead they support Kamala Harris.

The protests for Palestine have been going on for 75 years, there is very little tiny chance that Kamala is going to somehow listen to protestors when she’s elected and change things. We have to change things, the people, and I get it, you can’t change things is you’ve got a dictator preventing you from doing so, but talking about Kamala like she is going to help… isn’t it.

[bozonik]

absolutely ludicrous to suggest “the “don't vote/vote third party” crowd is basically never asked to justify their choice.” it’s practically the only thing democrats care to ask third party voters, any answer to which is summarily ignored in favor of thought terminating cliches like “a vote for a third party is a vote for the bad guy.”

the logic behind voting for a third party that isn’t going to win is simple: if one side wants my vote, appeal to me. if they fail to, i will vote for a third party to make the direction of the appeal clear. the democrats loosing to green spoilers is different from loosing to libertarian spoilers. it’s a fucking poll in the most literal sense.

it’s not impossible to hold the thoughts “i do not want to vote for the candidate that has refused to change their position on an ongoing and US funded genocide” and “i also hope that candidate wins over the other guy.”

the only real caveat to this logic is that if you live in a swing state, best practice is (almost) universally to vote blue for the presidency. But as a radical in a guaranteed blue state, my vote would do nothing but signify my willingness to stand behind the candidate, which is something I’m not willing to do if they don’t condemn the genocide being perpetrated by, and i cannot emphasize this enough, a bloodthirsty maniac who does not want Kamala to win and will actively work against that outcome.

i’m not making your popular vote margin (which doesn’t determine who wins) any wider if i don’t agree with your stances. if the democrats want me to vote for them in a state they’ve already locked down, then fucking appeal to me.

The discussions around whether or not to vote for Kamala keep being dominated by very loud voices shouting that anyone who advocates for her “just doesn't care about Palestine!” and “is willing to overlook genocide!” and “has no moral backbone at all!” And while some of these voices will be bots, trolls, psyops - we know that this happens; we know that trying to persuade progressives to split the vote or not vote at all is a strategy employed by hostile actors - of course many of them won't be. But what this rhetoric does is continually force the “you should vote for her” crowd onto the back foot of having to go to great lengths writing entire essays justifying their choice, while the “don't vote/vote third party” crowd is basically never asked to justify their choice. It frames voting for Kamala as a deeply morally compromised position that requires extensive justification while framing not voting or voting third party as the neutral and morally clean stance.

So here's another way of looking at it. How much are you willing to accept in order to feel like you're not compromising your morals on one issue?

Are you willing to accept the 24% rise in maternal deaths - and 39% increase for Black women - that is expected under a federal abortion ban, according to the Centre for American Progress? Those percentages represent real people who are alive now who would die if the folks behind Project 2025 get their way with reproductive healthcare.

Are you willing to accept the massive acceleration of climate change that would result from the scrapping of all climate legislation? We don't have time to fuck around with the environment. A gutting of climate policy and a prioritisation of fossil fuel profits, which is explicitly promised by Trump, would set the entire world back years - years that we don't have.

Are you willing to accept the classification of transgender visibility as inherently “pornographic” and thus the removal of trans people from public life? Are you willing to accept the total elimination of legal routes for gender-affirming care? The people behind the Trump campaign want to drive queer and trans people back underground, back into the closet, back into “criminality”. This will kill people. And it's maddening that caring about this gets called “prioritising white gays over brown people abroad” as if it's not BIPOC queer and trans Americans who will suffer the most from legislative queer- and transphobia, as they always do.

Are you willing to accept the domestic deployment of the military to crack down on protests and enforce racist immigration policy? I'm sure it's going to be very easy to convince huge numbers of normal people to turn up to protests and get involved in political organising when doing so may well involve facing down an army deployed by a hardcore authoritarian operating under the precedent that nothing he does as president can ever be illegal.

Are you willing to accept a president who openly talks about wanting to be a dictator, plans on massively expanding presidential powers, dehumanises his political enemies and wants the DOJ to “go after them”, and assures his supporters they won't have to vote again? If you can't see the danger of this staring you right in the face, I don't know what to tell you. Allowing a wannabe dictator to take control of the most powerful country on earth would be absolutely disastrous for the entire world.

Are you willing to accept an enormous uptick in fascism and far-right authoritarianism worldwide? The far right in America has huge influence over an entire international network of “anti-globalists”, hardcore anti-immigrant xenophobes, transphobic extremists, and straight-up fascists. Success in America aids and emboldens these people everywhere.

Are you willing to accept an enormous number of preventable deaths if America faces a crisis in the next four years: a public health emergency, a natural disaster, an ecological catastrophe? We all saw how Trump handled Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. We all saw how Trump handled Covid-19. He fanned the flames of disaster with a constant flow of medical misinformation and an unspeakably dangerous undermining of public health experts. It's estimated that 40% of US pandemic deaths could have been avoided if the death rates had corresponded to those in other high-income countries. That amounts to nearly half a million people. One study from January 2021 estimated between around 4,200 and 12,200 preventable deaths attributable purely to Trump's statements about masks. We're highly unlikely to face another global pandemic in the next few years but who knows what crises are coming down the pipeline?

Are you willing to accept the attempted deportation of millions - millions - of undocumented people? This is “rounding people up and throwing them into camps where no one ever hears from them again” territory. That's a blueprint for genocide right there and it's a core tenet of both Trump's personal policy and Project 2025. And of course they wouldn't be going after white people. They most likely wouldn't even restrict their tyranny to people who are actually undocumented. Anyone racially othered as an “immigrant” would be at risk from this.

Are you willing to accept not just the continuation of the current situation in Palestine, but the absolute annihilation of Gaza and the obliteration of any hope for imminent peace? There is no way that Trump and the people behind him would not be catastrophically worse for Gaza than Kamala or even Biden. Only recently he was telling donors behind closed doors that he wanted to “set the [Palestinian] movement back 25 or 30 years” and that “any student that protests, I throw them out of the country”. This is not a man who can be pushed in a direction more conducive to peace and justice. This is a man who listens to his wealthy donors, his Christian nationalist Republican allies, and himself.

Are you willing to accept a much heightened risk of nuclear war? Obviously this is hardly a Trump policy promise. But I can't think of a single president since the Cold War who is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons, given how casually he talks about wanting to use them and how erratic and unstable he can be in his dealings with foreign leaders. To quote Foreign Policy only this year, “Trump told a crowd in January that one of the reasons he needed immunity was so that he couldn’t be indicted for using nuclear weapons on a city.” That's reassuring. I'm not even in the US and I remember four years of constant background low-level terror that Trump would take offence at something some foreign leader said or think that he needs to personally intervene in some military situation to “sort it out” and decide to launch the entire world into nuclear war. No one sane on earth wants the most powerful person on the planet to be as trigger-happy and careless with human life as he is, especially if he's running the White House like a dictator with no one ever telling him no. But depending on what Americans do in November, he may well be inflicted again on all of us, and I guess we'll all just have to hope that he doesn't do the worst thing imaginable.

“But I don't want those things! Stop accusing me of supporting things I don't support!” Yes, of course you don't want those things. None of us does. No one's saying that you actively support them. No one's accusing you of wanting Black women to die from ectopic pregnancies or of wanting to throw Hispanic people in immigrant detention centres or of wanting trans people to be outlawed (unlike, I must point out, the extremely emotive and personal accusations that get thrown around about “wanting Palestinian children to die” if you encourage people to vote for Kamala).

But if you're advocating against voting for Kamala, you are clearly willing to accept them as possible consequences of your actions. That is the deal you're making. If a terrible thing happening is the clear and easily foreseeable outcome of your action (or in the case of not voting, inaction), in a way that could have been prevented by taking a different and just as easy action, you are partly responsible for that consequence. (And no, it's not “a fear campaign” to warn people about things he's said, things he wants to do, and plans drawn up by his close allies. This is not “oooh the Democrats are trying to bully you into voting for them by making him out to be really bad so you'll feel scared and vote for Kamala!” He is really bad, in obvious and documented and irrefutable ways.)

And if you believe that “both parties are the same on Gaza” (which, you know, they really aren't, but let's just pretend that they are) then presumably you accept that the horrors being committed there will continue, in the immediate term anyway, regardless of who wins the presidency. Because there really isn't some third option that will appear and do everything we want. It's going to be one of those two. And we can talk all day about wanting a better system or how unfair it is that every presidential election only ever has two viable candidates and how small the Overton window is and all that but hell, we are less than eighty days out from the election; none of that is going to get fixed between now and November. Electoral reform is a long-term (but important!) goal, not something that can be effected in the span of a couple of months by telling people online to vote third party. There is no “instant ceasefire and peace negotiation” button that we're callously overlooking by encouraging people to vote for Kamala. (My god, if there was, we would all be pressing it.)

If we're suggesting people vote for her, it's not that we “are willing to overlook genocide” or “don't care about sacrificing brown people abroad” or whatever. Nothing is being “overlooked” here. It's that we're simply not willing to accept everything else in this post and more on top of continued atrocities in Gaza. We're not willing to take Trump and his godawful far-right authoritarian agenda as an acceptable consequence of feeling like we have the moral high ground on Palestine. I cannot stress enough that if Kamala doesn't win, we - we all, in the whole world - get Trump. Are you willing to accept that?

And one more point to address: I've seen too many people act frighteningly flippant and naïve about terrible things Trump or his campaign want to do, with the idea that people will simply be able to prevent all these bad things by “organising” and “protesting” and “collective action”. “I'm not willing to accept these things; that's why I'll fight them tooth and nail every day of their administration” - OK but if you're not even willing to cast a vote then I have doubts about your ability to form “the Resistance”, which by the way would have to involve cooperation with people of lots of progressive political stripes in order to have the manpower to be effective, and if you're so committed to political purity that you view temporarily lending your support to Kamala at the ballot box as an untenable betrayal of everything you stand for then forgive me for also doubting your ability to productively cooperate with allies on the ground with whom you don't 100% agree. Plus, if the Trump campaign gets its way, American progressives would be kept so busy trying to put out about twenty different fires at once that you'd be able to accomplish very little. Maybe you get them to soften their stance on trans healthcare but oh shit, the climate policies are still in place. But more importantly, how many people do you think will protest for abortion rights if doing so means staring down a gun? Or organise to protect their neighbours from deportation if doing so means being thrown in prison yourself? And OK, maybe you're sure that you will, but history has shown us time and time again that most people won't. Most people aren't willing to face that kind of personal risk. And a tiny number of lefties willing to risk incarceration or death to protect undocumented people or trans people or whatever other groups are targeted is sadly not enough to prevent the horrors from happening. That is small fry compared to the full might of a determined state. Of course if the worst happens and Trump wins then you should do what you can to mitigate the harm; I'm not saying you shouldn't. But really the time to act is now. You have an opportunity right here to mitigate the harm and it's called “not letting him get elected”. Act now to prevent that kind of horrific authoritarian situation from developing in the first place; don't sit this one out under the naïve belief that “we'll be able to stop it if it happens”. You won't.

[xtruss]

Political Prostitute Nikki Haley's 2024 Bid: Could 'Mike Pompeo in a Skirt' Win Hearts and Minds of GOP Voters?

© AP Photo/Seth Wenig

Former South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley announced her 2024 presidential bid on February 14. She is seen as a major competitor to challenge former President Donald Trump for the GOP nomination.

"I think [Nikki Haley has] got a shot," Dan Eberhart, a major GOP donor and CEO of Canary, one of the largest privately-owned oilfield services companies in the United States, told Sputnik. "She's a credible person and she's accomplished a lot. Haley's never lost a race. I think merging being UN ambassador and being governor of a Southern state, while being a female and an Indian-American is a very poignant resume. She's certainly a credible entrant into the race, but in terms of who's ultimately victorious, I doubt that her star has the proper mass to get her there."

On Tuesday, Haley released a video in which she announced her decision to toss her hat into the ring in 2024.

“The Washington establishment has failed us over and over and over again. It’s time for a new generation of leadership to rediscover fiscal responsibility, secure our border and strengthen our country, our pride and our purpose,” Haley said in the video.

Notably, back in 2021, Haley made it clear to the US mainstream press that she would not run if Donald Trump opted to seek another term in the White House. Still, American reporters noted that the former president, who announced his bid in 2022, appears to have given her his blessing. Trump said that Haley had informed him about her decision to launch a campaign and he had responded: "You should do it."

"I think she's an opportunist," Eberhart suggested. "And I think we will see that clip a couple of hundred times between now and her getting out of the race. Trump has been president before, so if he loses in the primary, it's a big loss that will finish him. Whereas I think Haley can come in third and potentially be vice president, a Cabinet position, or be well positioned to run for statewide office in South Carolina in the future. For Trump I just think the bar is higher."

Ex-South Carolina Governor, Former Trump Toady, Neocon Darling: 2024 Candidate Political Prostitute Nikki Haley

Neoconservative Stance

So, which wing of the Republican Party precisely does Nikki Haley belong to? Sputnik's interlocutors believe that her political standing could be described as "neoconservative."

"My friend and client, Roger Stone, has an interesting way of putting it. He says that basically Nikki Haley is Mike Pompeo or John Bolton in a skirt," Tyler Nixon, political analyst and attorney for Donald Trump’s former campaign advisor Roger Stone, told Sputnik. "She is aligned with them very much in terms of her natural political allegiances. She does represent the old guard because she comes out of a state in which she was promoted through the ranks, she has adopted, she has not certainly been a firebrand in any way to distinguish herself, as many emerging leaders in the party have."

Nixon went on to suggest that Haley is "very close to Lindsey Graham, who is an extremely hawkish and an aggressive neoconservative." He specified, however, that he would say that neoconservatives are neither "neo" nor "conservative."

"That's just a term that was applied to them. They are essentially internationalists, globalists. They are interventionists and they believe in militarism or military interventionism," the attorney clarified.

When it comes to foreign policy, Haley is "extremely pro-Israel," and, thus, anti-Iran, according to Nixon. She also belongs to the Republican wing that promotes a very muscular foreign policy in the Middle East and wants Syrian President Bashar al-Assad out. Their bellicose stance is not surprising, given that a lot of hawkish Republicans have stakes in the defense industry, according to the political analyst.

"[Haley is] very supportive of Ukraine and using Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia, which obviously is a very neoconservative oriented policy," Nixon continued. "Her criticism of Trump a few t times, even while she was in the UN [was] for not being muscular enough or not being aggressive enough towards upsetting Russia."

Interestingly, despite holding diplomatic positions, Haley cannot be called very diplomatic, according to the attorney. On the contrary, she preferred lecturing and making demands. She had no scruples about calling out countries "that failed to endorse the US." However, he does not think that it will affect how Haley is perceived domestically in the run for president.

Haley: 'Non-Abrasive Fighter'

In the eyes of Republican voters, Haley and Trump agree on most domestic policy terms, according to Sputnik's interlocutors. Haley even subjected the US establishment to criticism in her Tuesday announcement akin to the former president.

"The first difference with Trump, as will be true for most Republican candidates, is her style," Timothy Hagle, a political science professor at the University of Iowa, told Sputnik. "Trump's style was blunt and aggressive. That appealed to a lot of voters who were tired of political double talk. This was especially true of many Republicans who were tired of candidates who did not seem willing to take the fight to Democrats (e.g., [Bob] Dole, [John] McCain, [Mitt] Romney). That his style was sometimes too abrasive was overlooked by many at the time. Now, however, voters may be looking for someone who is still a fighter, but without being abrasive about it. Haley would fit that difference."

Hagle has also drawn attention to the fact that Haley raised the issue of "a generational change" in her video. According to him, that was a polite way of saying that some candidates, meaning Trump and US President Joe Biden, are too old at this point.

"Trump is certainly very vigorous, but styles, preferences, and approaches change and what worked before may not work again," the political scientist remarked. "If Haley can make that point without angering Trump supporters she might make some headway."

At the same time, Hagle believes that Haley's presidential ambition is a longshot, given that many Republicans still support Trump or consider Florida Governor Ron DeSantis a better alternative.

"It's still possible that if Trump isn't able to generate the same enthusiasm for his candidacy and if DeSantis isn't able to extend his appeal nationally, then others, including Haley, might have a shot," the political scientist assumed.

However, it is far more likely that if Haley raises her national profile, she might be someone to consider as a vice presidential candidate or member of the Cabinet, should a Republican win in 2024, he underscored. When it comes to GOP donors, they could truly hail her, given that she is not as aggressive and "abrasive" as Donald Trump, according to Hagle.

Nonetheless, Haley still needs "to articulate her specific views (as opposed to those of Trump given that she was part of his administration)." And if she is inclined to pursue an interventionist agenda, she needs to explain to US voters "why that's important and why it won't necessarily lead to another extended war," the political scientist remarked.

"She will still need to show that she's a fighter if she plans to convince a lot of Republicans to support her. Now that Republicans have experienced someone who fights they won't want to go back to the likes of Dole, Romney, and McCain," Hagle concluded.

— Ekaterina Blinova | Sputnik International | February 15, 2023

[captainjonnitkessler]

"well actually both parties are exactly the same" That's not really a leftist position. It's obvious they aren't the same. But when is the proper time to stop tactical voting? If the answer is 'never', you aren't getting anywhere. We can't just keep voting for the lesser of two evils. That will be a fucking nightmare for marginalized people. It already is. We are already in a position we can't recover from. How should we get out? Voting D in a blind panic, FOREVER, is not the answer.

I agree that it's not a leftist position, but it's something I hear a LOT of online leftists say. Actual leftist activists I've met irl do not tend to hold this idea - they tend to understand that ALL voting is tactical to some degree, because you are never going to have a candidate that agrees with you on every single issue.

A lot of the "don't bother voting" crowd say we're already in the worst possible timeline, that our political system is already too broken to fix, that the odds are already too stacked against us and basically that everything is already so bad what's the point of even trying?

To these people I say: Many Republicans currently in office are actively, openly white supremacist fascists, and they're only getting bolder. If you think things cannot get worse, you are not paying attention. We can stop voting "blue no matter who" when the Republicans stop running open fascists for office to thunderous applause.

As for voting in general: leftists are not a majority. We will never, ever win in a two-party system. But the answer isn't "just stop voting" or "vote third party every four years and wait for something to change". If you want to get out of a two-party system, or if you want more leftist candidates from the Democrat party, you need to actively involve yourself in politics and agitate for change. Get involved in local and state politics - they're often more important than the presidency. Vote in every single primary. Go to your representative's public appearances and harass them. Go to your town halls, to your children's school board meetings, to your union meetings, and get involved. Push back against your conservative coworkers and family when it's safe to do so. TALK to people.

I mean, I really wish I had a magic answer I could give you, but the answer is just a LOT of hard work over a long period of time. There's no revolution, there's no charismatic leftist candidate who's going to win over the country, there's no magic button that's just gonna fix everything. But just voting third party without putting in any of the actual effort to make that a viable option is never going to work.

[somethingusefulfromflorida]

1960: John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson vs Richard Nixon/Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.

1964: Lyndon B. Johnson/Hubert Humphrey vs Barry Goldwater/William E. Miller

1968: Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew vs Hubert Humphrey/Edmund Muskie vs George Wallace/Curtis Lemay

1972: Richard Nixon/Spiro Agnew vs George McGovern/Sargent Shriver

1976: Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale vs Gerald Ford/Bob Dole

1980: Ronald Reagan/George H.W. Bush vs Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale

1984: Ronald Reagan/George H.W. Bush vs Walter Mondale/Geraldine Ferraro

1988: George H.W. Bush/Dan Quayle vs Michael Dukakis/Lloyd Bentsen

1992: Bill Clinton/Al Gore vs George H.W. Bush/Dan Quayle vs Ross Perot/James Stockdale

1996: Bill Clinton/Al Gore vs Bob Dole/Jack Kemp vs Ross Perot/Pat Choate

2000: George W. Bush/Dick Cheney vs Al Gore/Joe Lieberman

2004: George W. Bush/Dick Cheney vs John Kerry/John Edwards

2008: Barack Obama/Joe Biden vs John McCain/Sarah Palin

2012: Barack Obama/Joe Biden vs Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan

2016: Donald Trump/Mike Pence vs Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine

2020: Joe Biden/Kamala Harris vs Donald Trump/Mike Pence

The same candidates tend to show up year after year. Not just President running for re-election, but Vice Presidents running for the top slot themselves, incumbents or candidates, successful or not; Richard Nixon (1952, 1956, 1960, 1968), Hubert Humphrey (1964, 1968), Walter Mondale (1976, 1980), Bob Dole (1976, 1996), Al Gore (1992, 1996, 2000)

I would expect John Edwards (D-2004) to try and make a comeback, though he was only a one term senator from North Carolina, so that’s looking increasingly unlikely. The state swung for Obama in 2008, but hasn’t voted blue since (except for governor, but he has no power because the Republicans control the state legislature)

Paul Ryan (R-2012) will be back for sure; he retired from the House in part over of disagreements with Trump, but one doesn’t just give up being Speaker and slink away into obscurity (just look at Newt Gingrich, he refuses to shut up or die), so I think Ryan is just biding his time and hoping the whole Trump thing blows over in the next decade. If the party shifts away from Trump, he might offer himself as a slightly more moderate (“moderate*”) alternative.

Or maybe Sarah Palin (R-2008) will try and reclaim the presidency for herself; she’s a hardcore right wing nutjob, she was a Bush supporter AND a Trump supporter, and she’s still relatively young, so I could see her stepping back into the spotlight to try and “being the country back” to the traditionalism of the early 2000s. Nostalgia is cyclical, so I figure around 2028 or 2032 people will start looking back fondly on the Clinton and Bush years (Clinton more so than Bush, what with 9/11 and the wars and such)

Tim Kaine isn’t even one of the famous senators; there are some senators that everybody knows, even if they’re not from your state, like Chuck Schumer, Joe Manchin, Lindsey Graham, Bitch McConnell, big names with big reputations. Tim Kaine is a nobody, just a bland and inoffensive white dude Clinton picked to be as uncontroversial as possible (she couldn’t pick a woman or a black person because then the ticket would have been “too diverse”). He’s not the future of the Democratic party, but I could see him trying to become part of the Senate leadership. Maybe the whip (vice leader), I don’t think he has what it takes to be leader outright.

I don’t think Mitt Romney (R-2012) will run for president again; that ship has sailed. Moderate Republicans are critically endangered, extinct in the wild, with single specimens in captivity (in Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maryland). After back-to-back losses in 2008 and 2012, I don’t think Republicans will run a moderate candidate ever again. Romney could maybe just maybe become the whip if he so desired, he’s a big enough name with support enough to become their presidential nominee, though he’ll never be the leader; McConnell was their golden goose, he gave hem exactly what they wanted and changed the game to give them an advantage even in minority. They will only ever elect hardliners like him from now on. Romney is too soft; he cares too much about the other side (he’s not liberal by any stretch of the imagination, he’s a Mormon for Brigham’s sake, but he voted to impeach Trump twice which means he may as well be a liberal in the eyes of the public)

Mike Pence has committed political suicide. Democrats hate him for his homophobia, sexism, racism, classism, and weird relationship with his wife who he calls “mother.” Republicans hate him because he didn’t break the law to re-elect Trump. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. He’s ultraconservative and super religious, so under normal circumstances he’d be a shoo-in for the nomination, but after breaking with Trump in January he’s dead in the water (he didn’t even really break away, there was literally nothing legal he could do; if he had tried anything it would have been struck down by the courts). And besides that, Pence is boring as hell. He’s milquetoast, he’s a saltine cracker without the salt because it’s too spicy, he orders plain hamburgers with ketchup on the side, all his steaks are cooked well done, he gets a boner when he sees a woman’s ankle and has to self-flagellate for penance, he sends back water if it has too much ice because it makes his teeth hurt. He’s the sacrificial lamb they’d nominate specifically to lose so they can save a stronger candidate for later when there’s no incumbent.

Kamala Harris is basically president-in-waiting (or rather nominee-in-waiting; who knows if she can actually win?) Biden ran on the unspoken promise that he would step down in 2024, making her the front runner, but he has recently walked this back and says he plans on running for a second term himself, pushing Kamala back until 2028 at least. She has good PR and has convinced half the country that she’s a progressive instead of a cop, so if she runs she’ll definitely have an edge over Democratic challengers. The media picks the nominee, and in 24 or 28 they’ll pick her for sure.

It’s becoming increasingly harder for people to stay relevant over multiple decades. I can’t imagine any 2004 candidates running in 2024, but Bob Dole managed to get on as Ford’s #2 and come back as #1 himself twenty years later (he lost both times, but still). Richard Nixon beat the odds and actually got elected in 68 after losing the presidency in 60 and the governorship in 62; he was pretty much coasting on Eisenhower’s legacy, selling himself as the anti-Goldwater, who lost in 64 to LBJ in a landslide.

Trump is acting like he’s going to run again, but whether or not he’ll fully commit is up in the air. On the one hand, his least insane niece says that he doesn’t want to put himself in a position where he could lose again, his ego couldn’t take it, he’s so embarrassed he can’t even admit it happened the first time. On the other hand, he’s too proud to accept defeat and just let some other candidate take his spot as leader of the Republican Party; the Republicans haven’t had a leader since Eisenhower, every other president has disappeared after leaving office.

Nixon resigned in disgrace

Ford was elected out

Reagan disappeared in the 90s because he didn’t want the country to see him deteriorate from Alzheimer’s

Bush Sr was elected out

Bush Jr was despised with approval in the 20s (record low), and could potentially have been tried at The Hague if Obama had balls

Now Trump wants to stick around, even though he’s older than Reagan and FAR less healthy. He’ll probably be dead in 15 years anyway; no way he reaches 90. His mind may already be going, but unlike Reagan he isn’t self aware enough to know it, so he might try to stay in the spotlight even after the dementia sets in. Wo knows?

What his niece says, and what I think is most likely to happen, is that he will pretend like he’s running in order to scam donors out of millions of dollars to pay his exorbitant legal fees, but then bow out of the race before the primaries. Whichever candidate he personally endorses will become the nominee and go up against Biden. Biden will win the popular vote, but I don’t know if he’ll win the electoral college; if this happens for the third time in a quarter century, I expect nothing less than chaos in the streets, perhaps even civil war (well, I expected civil war after 2020, and we’re still standing, so again, who knows?). All I know is that congressional Democrats will throw a hissy fit but do nothing to stop the Republicans from sneaking their way into office without a mandate AGAIN.

The last Republican to legitimately win the presidency was George Bush Sr in 1988. Jr lost to Gore, and only got re-elected in 2004 because he invaded Iraq the year prior. Democrats have won 7 of the last 8 elections, including the last 4 in a row. There are more Democrats and left-leaning independents than Republicans and right-leaners. If the Republicans lose-but-win AGAIN, I don’t think the county could take it; there would be phony calls for secession on TV and legitimate whispers behind the scenes, there would be lawsuits, there would be an even bigger assault on the Capitol than January 6, people would riot, the National Guard would attack brown people with impunity while peacefully corralling the white ones with shields and loudspeakers.

There hasn’t been an assassination since 1963, and no assassination attempt resulting in injury since 1981. Someone threw a grenade at Bush Jr in 2005, but they wrapped a handkerchief around it so the lever didn’t release. I think multiple politicians on both sides of the aisle might be targeted in the event of another electoral college screw up.

Trump could face jail time for his tax crimes, though given his high profile I think he’d get off with a slap on the wrist. He has never faced consequences before, so why would they start now?

[foreverlogical]

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.

While it is refreshing to see a bevy of conservative intellectuals and former Republicans take on Donald Trump with an eye toward electing Joe Biden as president, this mobilization seems bereft of a strategic plan for re-establishing a center-right party that is not rooted in white grievance politics and an insatiable desire to own the libs. Fair enough; there is a serious enough task at hand. But plan beats no plan, and planning can seldom start too early.

Put simply, if they are ever going to extirpate Trumpism from the Republican party or have a conservative party that is not anchored in the politics of race-baiting and xenophobia, never-Trumpers and anyone who cares about creating a vibrant center-right ought to have their eyes on a comprehensive plan for revitalizing American democracy. In fact, they owe it to the country to get behind a plan.

Only structural democracy reform – notably changes to the Senate – can destroy the electoral mathematics of Trumpism and create the conditions for a vibrant center-right to emerge. Within that context, conservatives would have the opportunity to build a new party, or purge Republicanism of its racist, anti-intellectual and anti-science elements. It’s not a short-term task, but the United States cannot do without another great political party in some form.

John Weaver, one of the Republican operatives behind the anti-Trump ad machine The Lincoln Project recently made clear that it would support important changes under a Biden administration. He named automatic voter registration and a renewed Voting Rights Act as two specifics. So far, so good. But never-Trumpers need to throw long when it comes to democracy reform. Nothing less will do, and everyone will have to pitch in.

Another way to think of structural democracy reform is a test of good faith among never-Trump conservatives, and their willingness to go after Trumpism, and not merely the man himself. Are they truly horrified by Trump and his policies, or is he simply too crass and rough to front for things they’d like to see done anyway? If the former is the case, never-Trumpers have to do more than help deny Trump a second term. History will judge them kindly if they do.

The warning signs that Trump is willing to steal the election — the sabotage of the postal service, the fight against mail-in ballots — are unmistakable. After the election, never-Trump activists should turn their fire on the Republicans who enabled Trump, and de-legitimize their influence on the political process. They broke faith with democracy at a critical moment in American history.

Democrats have proposed a set of reforms, H.R. 1, that has three basic pillarsdesigned to protect and expand voting rights (and end gerrymandering) in secure elections, reducing the influence of big money, and fortifying ethics laws. But there are other ideas out there that will be crucial to purging conservatism of Trumpism. Reforming the judiciary, which is now packed with Trump appointees who would gladly poke holes in democratic reforms, is one step. And so is expansion of the U.S. Senate to include the District of Columbia and possibly Puerto Rico, as well as the abolition of the filibuster.

These last parts, the ones that go beyond H.R. 1, are very important. The U.S. Senate is destined to be the last redoubt of Trumpism, just as it harbored to the bitter end other vicious strains of American politics, notably segregationists. It is not accommodating social change. The current Senate majority represents 48 percent of the U.S. population; by 2040, 68 senators could represent 40 percent of the population. Map that onto the country’s changing demographics and the trend is clear: whiter, older people are likely to have an outsized voice in the Senate. It’s where the people vying for Trumpist votes will dig in. More senators from diverse states, and rules that permit the majority to legislate, can ensure a functioning democracy.

Is it any surprise that would-be inheritors of the Trumpist throne are in the Senate? At least three senators (Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz, and Tom Cotton) are vying for the conservative-populist presidential mantle. One (Cotton) has boiled down his objections to DC statehood to a flatly racist trope about not giving “those people” a chance to vote alongside “real Americans.” There is a strong case to be made that these guys are more dangerous than Trump himself because they have the discipline and focus that he lacks.

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report has pointed out that 115 of the 241 Republicans in the House have been defeated, resigned, or are retiring, if they have not done-so already. And Trumpist, QAnon-spouting candidates are likely to win election in safe Republican seats. Those folks will then threaten Republican senators from the right, at least the ones who don’t toe the Trumpist line.

If never-Trumpers want a center-right party that is not built around xenophobia and grievance, they have to contribute to building a political system that makes it impossible for a party to win without being firmly anchored in the communities of color that constitute the expanding portion of the American electorate. Otherwise, the lure of racialized politics, built around a strategy of locking in white voters, suppressing black and Latino ones and winning narrow victories, will continue to characterize Republican politics. Un-rigging the system will force Republicans to evolve into a center-right party that can win elections based on its platform, not resentment – or face extinction.

The obvious objection that Trump-opposing Republicans will have to face is not hard to define. “Are you not asking us to destroy the party we once loved?” It is true that democracy reform of the sort on the table now would tip the playing field in Democrats’ direction by ensuring that its traditional constituencies can vote. But there are three basic responses.

First, it’s the right thing to do! Sad that we have to say this obvious part out loud, but that’s where we are in 2020. Second, Republicans are doing  a fine job of pulling themselves out of the equation right now anyway; a long-term path to renaissance is what’s on offer. Take it! Third, never-Trumpers don’t need to sign up for Medicare for All, a wealth tax or other polices to which they may have good-faith objections to be in favor of a vibrant democracy. Democrats, in turn, should welcome converts to democracy reform; a center-right party that’s not intellectually and morally bankrupt will help keep everyone honest.

To be a Trump-opposing conservative and ignore the heavily race-based, structural defects in our democracy requires a concomitant belief that Trump is an aberration, that his emergence and staying power have no relation to the ways in which Republicans built governing coalitions exploited by a decades long white backlash to the civil rights era in the 1960s. In fact, Trump ran a playbook, crudely and ruthlessly, that had plenty of genteel echoes in the recent Republican past. While it’s comforting that some Republicans are willing to face these facts, democracy reform would be a way to make amends.

A reformed American democracy would also be an opportunity to finally test the thesis that conservatives can and should appeal to, for example, devoutly Catholic Latino voters, who have some natural conservative inclinations. Ex-Republican, never-Trump conservatives: Got a strategy for picking off Democratic voters that doesn’t rely on racist appeals? Have at it. Appeal to the better angels of our nature that your beloved Lincoln once called forth.

Clare Malone of FiveThirtyEight wrote a nice distillation of the Republican historyof appealing, or not, to Black and Latino voters, and the question that has long hung in the air on the right:

“Should the party invest in appeals to new voters or pluck racism’s low-hanging electoral fruit?” Without structural reforms to American democracy, that forbidden fruit will continue to exert a strong pull on conservative office-seekers of the future.

Defeating Trump is, heaven knows, an important battle to fight – the electoral fight upon which all the world is fixated. And it can be won. But if conservatives don’t help extinguish Trumpism by protecting that sacred right to vote and promoting other vital reforms, they will have won a pyrrhic victory – for the conservative cause and for American democracy.

Carter Dougherty is a progressive activist and writer based in Washington, DC.

VISIT WEBSITE

[brother-hermes]

CORPORATE CENSORSHIP

Facebook hit me with a 24 hour ban for quoting Alexander Hamilton’s feelings on the American voter. The whole reason we are in this mess is because the Federalists set up an Electoral College that can override the popular vote. Care to guess who makes the final say? Your elected officials who fight to make sure you never figure out that the President is only a figurehead for government- one of three branches that all work together. I try and leave politics alone as I see the Hermetic Principle of Polarity being used in the most obscene ways by media, politicians, profiteers of race, etc. 

Look, I know our country is sensitive to an appalling point but that does not give Corporate entities the right to infringe on our basic rights to disagree with political confusion. People have the right to say things we don’t like just like we have the right to disagree. That is one of the cornerstones of our political system in its purest form. When Corporate entities decide what can or can’t be said we are stepping into the realm of Fascism- the blending of corporate and political powers. A perfect example of this line of thinking comes from the Nazi spin doctor Joseph Goebbels:

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.”

This man literally believed you could convert intellectuals using dark psychology and manipulation tactics. He laid down the repetition of effective arguments with such precision an entire country marched to the war drum of racial superiority. Think about the slander campaigns again; fact-checkers and all the inner workings of what we are told.

There are only 6 media outlets spread over 50+ shell companies that control 90% of what we see day in and day out. If you think they don’t have an agenda kick on Fox News or CNN for 15 minutes and watch. When you do this I want you to consider something:

“Everything is dual; everything has poles-pairs of opposites; like and unlike are the same: opposites are identical in nature, but vary by degree. All truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.”

This is the Law Of Polarity. So when these media outlets are dropping hot button issues that have extreme opposites they are inciting powerful emotions in the minds of the people. We end up arguing over Trumps racism or Cuties sexualizing children instead of focusing on the fact that we have a common threat. None of them hear the will of the people.

See, the two tier political system is a very effective method of control. They hand pick two candidates, present them to the people, polarize said people by arguing for the cameras and then go to the same fundraisers and private events after leaving Capitol Hill.  Half of the Senate and the House have sat in their appointed offices for 30+ years. You think they aren’t friends after working together for decades? Think about that. 

Now, these members also control the Ballot Access Laws which keep viable Third Party candidates from being able to participate.The Committee on Presidential debates made it to where these candidates have to pull 15% of the popular vote just to participate in the debates. Why? Because they want the two “extremes” to exist so they can continue to sway the people in whatever direction suits their needs at the time.

So don't tell me America is divided by race or religious belief, or any sectarian nonsense. I live in East Garland, and I'm the only white person on my block. You know what my Mexican neighbors are going to do this holiday season? Bring me tamales. You know what the young black men at the corner store say when I pull up? "What's crackin' my nigga, you good?" 

Social media is divided by design, but this isn't real life. Y'all keep buying that media nonsense while these politicians are running the same game they have for the whole 37 years I been on this planet. So, I'll say it again, media is divided. You're being duped every day you get on here and buy into the agenda they're pushing. Think for yourself and teach your kids to do better than you did. That's how we win. We kill the division by loving each other.

[random-thought-depository]

Something I noticed about U.S. politics while following the election this month and don’t get: why aren’t there Green and Libertarian Congresspeople etc.? Cross-posting the question I wrote about this on an internet forum:

The Libertarian and Green Parties always make quixotic bids for the Presidency and usually seem to end up getting a few percent of the vote each. Translate that much political support into Congress seats and I'd naively expect the Libertarian Party and the Green Party to each have at least few House seats and at least occasionally a Senate seat or two. Similarly I'd expect there might be one or two Libertarian and Green governors and they'd have a similar presence and influence in state legislatures and local governments. Instead the actual Congress seems to be basically all Democrats and Republicans with a handful of independents. You can say to actually get local government and Congress seats third parties would need geographically concentrated support, not just a consistent 1-3% of the vote over the whole country, but I think if anything that makes it even odder that they don't really seem to have a presence in Congress. Take California, for instance: the very liberal coastal districts would be good places to run a Green Party candidate for the House ("vote blue no matter who, splitting the liberal vote just helps Republicans!" loses most of its force when the election is taking place in an area where a Republican would probably be lucky to get 30% of the votes), while the purplish districts might be places where a Libertarian Party candidate might do well as they could peel off supporters from both of the big two parties. Similarly, I could see Libertarian Party candidates doing well in the bluish-purple states of the inland southwest, maybe even winning Senate and governorship elections there fairly frequently. So I'd naively expect the Green Party and Libertarian Party to have at least a decent chunk of House seats in western states, but they ... don't. I know a party gets more visibility out of running somebody for President even if they'll never win, but I think a local governments and Congress first strategy would have a lot to recommend it. It would let small parties leverage local support to actually have power in government and build networks and alliances and institutions inside the government, and running in actually winnable races is probably better experience for building a campaign apparatus that can actually win elections. Plus, having an actual presence in government would help them look like something more than fringe joke parties only eccentrics and extremists vote for. So ... why is the Congress etc. so thoroughly duopolized? Are the minor parties just not trying for some reason? Is the duopoly just that powerful? Is this to some extent actually happening in a way I don’t notice (e.g. the Green and Libertarian Parties actually have a significant presence in some state legislatures)?

[chaoskirin]

I saved this in my drafts and I wasn't going to post it because it's so angry, but I still hear people talking about how amazing they are for not voting because there's "no good candidate," so fuck it. Here comes my rant.

--------

EVERY TIME we pass a major election, I personally start pushing for change. I email my representatives. I educate people about ranked choice voting. I DO SOMETHING. You know what other people do?

Jack shit. And then when the election comes around, they either aren't voting, or they're voting "their conscience." After they spread the "voting doesn't matter" message for a few months, they go back to doing nothing, self-importantly believing they really made a change in the world.

Fuck them. Fuck everyone here who reads this post and thinks your armchair politics did anything for this world.

I want to be fucking clear. 'Cuz I'm pissed. The election is currently 47% to 47%. That last 6% is your third party.

You think that 6% is going to turn into 50% before next Tuesday? That's not how federal elections in the United States work, and you know it. The US is a two-party system paid for by rich PACs and Super PACs that E N S U R E the democrats or the republicans will win because money. That security is money.

"But I don't like Kamala Harris because--"

Shut up. You know what's worse that anything you hate her for? Fascism. All the analysts who were poo-pooing the use of the word 8 years ago are walking back their statements and saying "you know, maybe..." NO SHIT. The caution of these pundits RUINED EVERYTHING. "No, don't worry," they said. "Fascism isn't real! It's a dream! That orange guy is KIDDING." And detractors used that to shut down everyone who was warning people about what was happening.

Vote for Kamala Harris. I don't want to hear your excuses. Shut the fuck up. Block me. I don't care. If you're not willing to run the basic least-you-can-do damage control, get out.

And moreover, get over yourselves. You are not smarter; you are not more sophisticated or above the unwashed masses because YOU think you're the first person ever to think voting for a third party will teach the democrats a lesson. The democrats will be fine if they lose. They're all rich as fuck. They'll fall in line.

You know who won't be fine? Your neighbors of color. Immigrants (ALL immigrants, not just the kind white people hate.) Queer people. Children, the elderly, the sick. People who live in hurricane zones. Schools. Kamala Harris and Tim Walz and all other high-profile democrats won't see any difference in their lives. That's some lesson you taught them, huh?

If Kamala Harris loses this election, there will NEVER be another one. You think I'm trying to scare you? Good. I am. Look at the histories of other authoritarian governments. You think their dictator leaders were just so popular that they kept getting elected? Well fuck you if you do.

And when she wins? That's when you PUSH FOR RANKED CHOICE VOTING. If you want someone better, THE ELECTION RULES HAVE TO CHANGE. If you vote and then fuck off politics for four years, NOTHING gets done! If you want any chance for change, then WORK FOR IT.

Even if nothing happens from a Harris presidency, I am going to guarantee a status quo is better than what will happen if she loses. And if you're going to call me a "genocide apologist" because I said that, then pull your head out of your ass. You're an idiot. Because ONE PERSON is going to win, and one of them will start a whole lot more genocide. If you want to stop it, you HAVE to make progress forward. Even if it's tiny steps.

And on that note, if you're still in your own little soundproof bubble about this: if he wins, people will absolutely start disappearing. Activists will be killed. People will "commit suicide." And all you assholes who refused to vote for damage control will be crying for justice. You know what you'll get? A bullet to the head.

For anyone who still disagrees, here's a special message: don't bother typing up a long-winded response to this. I guarantee anything you have to say is a waste of anyone's time to read. You're a complete tool, and all you're doing is enabling further genocide. You don't vote? Great. You're the one enabling more death in this already fucked up world. You're the "genocide apologist" phrase that you casually throw around without understanding what it means. You're ensuring an entire people is wiped out. You. Not people who vote for Kamala Harris. You. Sit with that.

We are 8 seconds away from fascism.

If you (like me) want 3rd party candidates to be an actual viable option in USA elections so you no longer have to vote for Democrats OR Republicans as your first and only choice, then what we need is Ranked Choice Voting. In order for that to happen, we as voters have to do two things:

Vote Democrat this fall, because Republicans fucking hate Ranked Choice Voting, and in several Republican-run states they have outlawed it. So if you want it, you have to keep Democrats in power in your state.

Lobby for and then vote for Ranked-choice voting in your state!Many American states have already adopted Ranked Choice voting and several more are set to do so in 2024. The ball is literally already rolling on this, we just need YOU to help it along.

[outlanderalien]

How did the UK end up with Boris Johnson

For those who may be unaware or who aren’t in the UK to keep up with political events, here’s a quick run-down on how the UK ended up with Boris Johnson as it’s Prime Minister.

When David Cameron was Prime Minister, many Tory voters were defecting from the Conservative party to support the anti-EU party UKIP. To win these voters back, Cameron promised a referendum on EU membership. This is how he won back those voters and won the General Election.

But when the referendum arrived, it was a shock win for the leave side, which Cameron opposed. David Cameron resigned as Prime Minister which triggered a leadership contest within the Tory party, since the Torys are in government, whoever wins will become PM.

Theresa May (who had voted remain) becomes PM, but not by winning the contest, simply by being the last candidate standing. Her rivals had all dropped out before the final vote

Theresa decided to legitimise her leadership by holding a snap-election, she was doing very well in the polls, and Labour were struggling, this was her chance for a landslide victory. It backfired entirely and the Party suffered great losses. They had never been weaker.

With a very weak government, Theresa Mays negotiated deal she got from the EU was roundly rejected multiple times by parliament. Remainer MPs voted it down in the hopes that we could still reverse our position and return to the EU. Leaver MPs voted it down because it was considered to be “Brexit in name only” and not hard-line enough

Now, Leave and Remain wasn’t a Tory or Labour movement, both parties have a wide membership of both Leavers and Remainers, meaning the parties are both massively divided and weak

Third parties flourished from the main two parties failures. The Brexit Party scooped up the angry Leave voters from both parties, while the Libdems scooped up the angry remain voters from both parties. Now the two parties in our two party system are both immensely weak and panicking

Labour scramble to re-brand themselves as a Remainer party in order to win back votes from the LibDems. And the Torys decided to mimic The Brexit Party (Which is the new UKIP party basically)

After failing to get her negotiated deal through, Theresa announced her resignation, once again, triggering a leadership contest within the Tory party

The way this works is that several candidates put themselves forward after gaining the support of 9 Members of Parliament. Each round, the number of MPs support they need increases. Then when there are two candidates left, they are voted for by the entire Tory party membership. This means that the final two members are chosen by Conservative MPs

This is important because at that time, the Conservative party was nervous. They were rapidly losing members to The Brexit Party, so just like David Cameron, they frantically tried to appeal to these defected voters by appeasing the party they went to

Now, The Brexit Party want a No-Deal Brexit. No-Deal is walking away from EU negotiations without a deal, despite that being completely disastrous for the country and for the economy. This means that Tory MPs will want a no-deal brexit supporter to become PM in order to win back these voters and save the party. Enter Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson had avidly campaigned for Brexit, he was the Tory parties face of Brexit. He was popular with Brexit Party voters for supporting No-Deal, and his long history of being quite funny and clownish makes him instantly have 100% more personality than the other candidates, and personality often wins elections. Not to mention the American President had endorsed Boris, and Trump is very popular among The Brexit Party voters, so his words had weight

For panicking Tory MPs, Boris is the perfect candidate to appeal to The Brexit Party and win back their lost voters. They want to win the next General Election and they want to keep their seats. This is not about Brexit anymore

Johnson ended up in the final two with Jeremy Hunt, who essentially had the exact same Brexit plan as him, but he was less chaotic/clownish, except Hunt does have a bad reputation among some voters, especially from when he was Health Secretary and caused Junior Doctors to go on strike.  

The members got to choose from 2 Torys of the same flavour, except one was funny and made people laugh, while the other was bland in comparison and had a bad reputation that he couldn’t pull off as well as Boris could. Obviously Boris won.

But there is a sliver of hope. Many within the conservative party dread this choice and have declared their resignations. They have threatened that if Boris attempts to force through a No-Deal Brexit, then these rebel Torys will do what they can to bring Boris down, including conspiring with MPs from across the political divide within the Labour or Libdem parties.

Now Boris has been so successful BECAUSE he promises No-Deal, something he has said will be achieved by the 31st of October this year. If he does not go through with it, he will face massive backlash from his supporters and face being forced out. If he DOES try to go through with No-Deal, then these Rebel MPs and Boris’ No-Deal squad will inevitably clash within the next few months and it could spell a quick end for Boris Johnsons Leadership.

So as of right now, Boris is in a difficult position. One choice will cause rebellion. The other choice, will also cause rebellion. He could be the shortest running PM we’ve ever had. But only time will tell. 

[unless-we-choose-to-reverse-it]

A Biden presidency would be worse for the long-term goals of progressives in the United States than a second term for Trump would be.

So now that I’ve gotten your attention with a title like that, I should explain what I mean.

There are some posts going around progressive Tumblr that I’ve seen that amount to “hey, Biden isn’t all that bad, you should vote for him,” and I want to offer a counterargument.

The short answer: conservative Democrats hate you, and if Biden wins, they will never listen to a single thing that progressives and socialists have to say ever again.

The long answer: did everyone just forget that politicians lie to score brownie points, and fail to live up to their promises? This is a thing that politicians are infamous for doing. But now that Joe Biden has very suddenly released a list of progressive platforms that he “”“intends”““ to realize while in office, everyone has forgotten that.

Let’s be frank about Joe Biden’s record. He supported segregation way past the point of it being a dominant position. He was good friends with arch-segregationist Strom Thurmond, to the point of delivering the eulogy at Strom’s funeral.

Joe Biden acted as the architect for the modern war on drugs in many ways, including the use of harsh prison sentences for tiny amounts of drugs, both of which are currently being used to terrorize black and brown communities and uphold what is essentially a system of legalized slavery.

Joe Biden acted as a bag man for the banking industry during his time as senator for Delaware, consistently killing any legislation that might prevent banks to avoid taxes by basing themselves in Delaware.

Joe Biden supported the war in Iraq. This alone should be disqualifying.

Given his record, his sudden adoption of progressive policies should be interpreted as being a little suspicious. He is representative of the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, which has done little to oppose the worst excesses of modern capitalism, and has, in fact, done a great deal to exacerbate those failures. But now, there’s a more progressive wing; a wing that the conservative wing has routinely expressed their opposition towards, from Nancy Pelosi dismissing the Squad to Hillary Clinton’s assertion that Bernie Sanders never got anything done.

Do you really think that these people are suddenly going to adopt all those progressive policies, just as it looks like their guy is winning the race?

If you answered “yes” to that previous question, I think I have a bridge to sell you.

The Democratic Party believes it does not need to go left, because in their minds, there is nowhere else for progressives to go. American politics are expressly designed to make third parties an impossibility, so if progressives have nowhere else to go, then they don’t actually need to cater to those progressives in any way other than lip service. That’s what these promises amount to: lip service. I promise you, the second a Biden presidency takes power, all of those promises will go out the window. What’s more, progressive political forces will be ignored. After all, there’s nowhere else for them to go, so in the minds of the conservative Democrats, they cannot represent a meaningful threat to the Democratic party.

Of course, they’ll posture towards progressivism. But they’ll do so without actually making it happen, which will poison the politics around it. I believe that Justin Trudeau has done more harm to left-wing politics in Canada than any conservative politician, because his posturing towards progressive positions angers and energizes the right, but his politics fail to achieve left-wing goals.

And that’s the other side of why a Biden presidency would do so much damage. The right is going to think you’re a communist no matter what you actually do; think of what they did to Barack Obama, another man who ran as a progressive but governed as a conservative. It would energize the American right, it would sap the power of the American left, all the while the centrists prevent any meaningful change and the situation in the US just gets worse and worse.

And that’s the brutal reality. Neither Trump nor Biden will make the situation better. Both will make the situation worse in their own special ways. There’s no chance in hell that the Democratic party would actually make an effort to prevent the caging of children at the border, or the Gestapo-like behaviour of ICE; they’ve had four years to do that, and they’ve done nothing aside from complain about it, even when they’ve held Congress.

The fact is, the current Democratic party knows that progressive ideas are popular. But they have no intention of actually realizing those ideas, or fighting for any position, really. They maintain power through fear, by telling voters again and again that to expect anything better is a sure road to defeat, that the only way to win is to pick the most milquetoast, conservative candidate possible. They hate us progressives far more than they hate the Republicans; they can take the moral high ground over the Republicans, but we can take the moral high ground over them. Therefore, they will never change, unless forced to.

So, what’s my conclusion?

Just don’t vote.

I can already hear people calling me a privileged brocialist for suggesting that anything is more important than beating Trump, probably some people who are going to say that I don’t actually care about people and just want my team to win. To those people I say: I do care about people. That’s why I’m making this argument. A Trump win and a Joe Biden win hurt the American people in their own ways, and while a Biden presidency might help a bit in the short term, the long-term consequences will be disastrous.

I don’t want to be right. It would be fantastic if Joe Biden starting putting out progressive policies all over the place, and started listening to the progressive wing of the party. But I don’t think that’s a realistic assessment of the situation. Everything I’ve seen leads me to a different conclusion: Joe Biden will not help us.

So that’s why I say to not vote.

Because there’s a possibility that if the Democratic party loses here, they might actually start to consider that they actually need to move left in order to remain relevant. They will curse and spit every second of doing so, but it might convince them that serving progressive interests is necessary, that they can’t just rely on progressives caving to pressure and voting no matter what. It might force them to come to the table.

For my evidence, I turn again to Canada, and to the province of Quebec. People often wonder why Quebec gets so much attention in Canadian politics. It’s a large province, sure, but the sway it has on federal politics vastly outweighs its size. Some have suggested political correctness overrepresenting French Canadians, others have suggested political tradition, given how long Quebec has been a part of Canada.

I suggest that it’s because Quebec turns on a dime, politically speaking.

Basically every federal election in Canada of the past few decades has seen Quebec switch almost entirely from one party to another, sometimes inexplicably. The fact is, no party can call Quebec safe territory, and if the Quebecois feel like their needs are not being met, they tend to go for an entirely different party. Party loyalty isn’t really a thing in Quebec. So when election season comes around, every party is clamouring for Quebec’s attention, and after the election, they put in a lot of effort to make sure that the Quebecois like them. This means actually following through with their election promises.

The same is true for swing states in America. If you want politicians to meet your needs, then you need to make it clear that you might vote for them, but only if they’re serving your needs.

It’s gonna hurt like a sonofabitch, it’s true. But if you want progressive policies to have any hope of reaching the halls of power, it is your obligation to not vote in the American election in November, to demonstrate to the conservative wing of the Democratic party that victory is only possible by giving progressives a seat at the table. That can only be done by showing them what happens when they don’t have it.

Also, don’t vote for Trump to spite the Dems. That’s actually moronic. Just don’t vote.