I swallowed my misgivings and voted Democrat, just like I’ve done at each election since I turned 18, but handwaving away valid criticisms is not how you get people to side with you. Pressure needs to be put on the democrats to be better, too.
I’m 100% for valid criticisms—I don’t even consider myself a Democrat and I have no compunctions about criticizing them when I think they are wrong. But I’m pretty sure that meme is directed at those who withheld their vote.
It would be in theory, but mostly it’s just spread around as how any protest against Israel cost the democrats the US election (despite how it was considered widely unpopular to support Israel’s genocide by most democrats).
Then maybe Harris and her team should have listened to some feedback about their widely unpopular stance that seemed to somewhat equate them with the Republicans during an election which they absolutely couldn’t afford to be seen as remotely similar to republicans.
No, they were never going to do that. They’ve already said that they learned their lesson, and in 2026, they’re gonna double down on the losing strategy that they’ve been running since Clinton was in office and run on building the wall on the Mexican border and deporting immigrants to court the moderate Republican vote that doesn’t exist and never would vote for them even if it did.
By the Presidential election, it’s already years too late to force them to actually do good things. Protest votes and withholding your vote have done nothing to stop the slide that led to Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney in tow in the 16 years that I’ve been voting. If you want change, it’s only going to come by threatening the position of the people in charge of the party and replacing the old guard with people like AOC. Whoever gets elected President does neither of those things. Unless Krasnov declares the Democratic Party a terrorist organization and has them all arrested as political prisoners. But then we won’t have to worry about voting ever again, just like he promised.
Firstly, we can dismiss the notion that the candidate can’t be moved. The citation for that is Biden in 2020, who effectively campaigned during the primary as a moderate Republican, and until the southern states which we’re never going to go blue anyways weighed in, was getting his ass handed to him. The Sunday before Super Tuesday, the rat-fuckening, Oblivious Warren. All that old history.
And then something remarkable happened. Biden opened the doors to the tent and invited the progressive wing of the party in. He handed the Bernie-crats the platform and said “have at it hoss”. And it worked. Instead of disenfranchising the activist base, he embraced them, or at least, extended an olive branch by giving them the platform, without which he assuredly would have lost.
So: Candidates can be moved.
Second:
By the Presidential election, it’s already years too late to force them to actually do good things. Protest votes and withholding your vote have done nothing to stop the slide that led to Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney in tow in the 16 years that I’ve been voting.
Again. And I’m singling you out because you responded and well, here we are. This is an obtuse, bordering on bad faith interpretation of the argument being made. You aren’t arguing with me. You are arguing with the millions of voters who stayed home for Kamala but showed up for Biden. And you moralizing about an objectively misguided application of strategic voting didn’t/ doesn’t/ won’t/ change their votes. When your “strategic voting” strategy results in losing you the election, explain to me how and why its strategic?
You don’t/ can’t move millions of voters to a new position. Or at least it hasn’t been shown to be possible (2016, 2024). Asking voters to “vote against” instead of “voting for” doesn’t work and we now have so many receipts, that they will write text books on the matter. What can be done, is that the candidate can be moved. Its also been shown through an evidentiary process to work.
To summarize, candidates can be moved. Biden moved and won an election because of it. When you moralize about your own, demonstrated-to-be-wrong conception of strategic voting, you aren’t arguing with me, you are arguing with the literally millions of people left on the table by the Democrats. A strategy that when examined before hand will clearly lose, the insistence of then implementing it becomes a “burn the world down” moralization to wash your own hands: Democratic voters who reliably show up, but did not, because the DNC got a hall pass from those making the exact arguments you are making here. They did not need to respond to criticism because this argument you are making shielded them. And it cost us all, practically everything.
Further evidence that the democrats can be moved if we don’t let them maintain the delusion they can win while trying to be republicans: The entire party told Biden to drop out when it was clear he had no path to victory.
Sadly Kamala was allowed to believe she could win while embracing the same policies and messaging that killed the Biden campaign. Instead of screaming at the party to campaign on overwhelmingly popular left policy necessary to win the election and use every power at the democrat’s disposal to accomplish it, blue MAGA told anyone pointing out that we’re headed back towards the waterfall to shut up and paddle harder.
I’m not American so nobody got my vote, but seems to me like the issue is with the swathes of people choosing facism rather than progressives who chose not to vote.
Choosing how to act in a world like ours is tricky, anyone following a sense of right and wrong (even if I disagree with their judgement) instead of fear, hate, greed or whatever gets a gold star in my book.
Inaction is still a choice, though. I totally understand the sentiment behind that choice and even agree that we shouldn’t be forced to choose genocide, but the alternative that we got is a man who not only wants the same genocide, but wants to accelerate it, put American boots on the ground to assist in it, and then turn the bloodied ground into resorts while also wanting to worsen life across the globe. So, by refusing to act, they didn’t oppose that man getting into power. They cared so much about genocide that, ironically, they enabled making that genocide worse by not acting against that possibility.
The biggest issue, though, is with the people who couldn’t be bothered enough to vote. Some, what, 40% of Americans never vote? Of course, there’s plenty there who can’t due to things like gerrymandering, but there’s a huge swathe of white suburbanites who simply prefer the status quo to actually improving things.
But thanks to the two party system, what effect does it have? And I’m specifically talking about the voting day of the presidential election here, not primaries or other elections. Because that’s where those efforts will have the most impact. Not that the Dems deigned to give us even the illusion of a primary this election (or in 2016, truthfully), but so many of these people seem to shake their fist once every 4 years and then go to sleep like cicadas awaiting the next presidential election.
I don’t blame people for hating the weak candidates that the Dems consistently push forward to maintain the old guards’ leadership positions, but I do blame them for looking at the alternative and saying “I’m okay with the possibility of that man winning if I don’t vote or vote third party.” The chance of a Trump victory and all that it entailed was a line in the sand that they were willing to cross.
As a trans woman, I blame them for saying, “Your life is not worth biting the bullet for.”
Yet refusing to accept the reality of mathematics that showed that, in a FPTP system, not voting for a viable candidate opposing a fascist only helps the fascist is acceptable? Nah. The blood is on the hands of both dems and non-voters. Non-voters/protest voters don’t give a fuck about trans people, as shown by their actions.
3 of them are known to support a fascist and will vote, no matter what. They have religious figures reminding them and pressuring them to vote for the fascist and watch propaganda daily that maintains their outrage and support.
1 of them is a big supporter of the neolibs and will vote for them no matter what.
1 of them is a pragmatic leftist who grudgingly will vote for the neolibs because there is no other viable choice.
1 of them is undecided either because they don’t think fascism is that bad, or think it won’t impact them, or don’t consider how it could impact people who are not as privileged as them, etc.
The other 4 are:
2 who are too filled with apathy to care about voting
1 who the fascists keep setting up artificial barriers for in order to prevent political engagement
1 who is thoroughly indoctrinated in the cult of anti-electoralism
That’s 6/10 eligible voting (in line with the proportion of eligible voters that voted in 2024).
Further, historical data shows that when fewer people vote, the fascists win because of their dedication to their cause and authority figures coaxing them to do so. This data is readily available in terms that are easy to comprehend, even for those without technical or scientific education.
So, the breakdown is:
Fascism: 3
Neolibs: 2 or 3
Coin toss on whether the fascists win, because, of those deigning to engage in the electoral system, one of them is not convinced that opposing fascism is really that big of a deal.
What about third parties? They don’t matter in this but because it is first-past-the-post and only a majority of participating voters is required.
But, the majority of polled people support left-of-center policies! Why are we forced to vote for neolibs?! Doesn’t matter. 4 out of 10 eligible voters are going to vote in support of right-of-center ideologies. If more eligible voters voted, that wouldn’t be an issue and the voice of the majority would be heard. But, between apathy, voter suppression, and the anti-electoralist/accelerationist cult, 40% are not voting. And that’s still “good” compared to the last half-century.
So, there you go. Barely even scratching statistics and simple to digest as to why voters who refused to do their duty to oppose fascism share the responsibility with the neolibs.
Knowingly putting others lives at risk by refusing to do what is literally the least one can do, that is, voting in a strategic manner to prevent literal fascists who have repeatedly taken action against LGBTQ+ and made statements in support of committing genocide against them, POC, and people who are neurodivergent and/or impacted by mental illness is not what an ally does. It is an action that demonstrates that the non-voter/protest voter does not find vulnerable peoples’ lives important enough to warrant the effort needed to climb down off of their pedestal of egotistical moral superiority to do meaningfully lend support to their fellow human beings’ right to exist.
I swallowed my misgivings and voted Democrat, just like I’ve done at each election since I turned 18, but handwaving away valid criticisms is not how you get people to side with you. Pressure needs to be put on the democrats to be better, too.
I’m 100% for valid criticisms—I don’t even consider myself a Democrat and I have no compunctions about criticizing them when I think they are wrong. But I’m pretty sure that meme is directed at those who withheld their vote.
It would be in theory, but mostly it’s just spread around as how any protest against Israel cost the democrats the US election (despite how it was considered widely unpopular to support Israel’s genocide by most democrats).
Unfortunately it may have.
A lot of voters are stupid. They see Israel=Bad, Biden/Kamala = pro-Israel, they stay home.
Then maybe Harris and her team should have listened to some feedback about their widely unpopular stance that seemed to somewhat equate them with the Republicans during an election which they absolutely couldn’t afford to be seen as remotely similar to republicans.
The problem is that those people (leftist prostest not-voters) most likely wouldn’t have changed the results.
No, I agree. There weren’t enough single-issue Gaza voters to have changed the outcome. It’s still an idiotic position to have taken.
Shielding the Democrats from the pressure to adopt more popular positions lost this election.
No, they were never going to do that. They’ve already said that they learned their lesson, and in 2026, they’re gonna double down on the losing strategy that they’ve been running since Clinton was in office and run on building the wall on the Mexican border and deporting immigrants to court the moderate Republican vote that doesn’t exist and never would vote for them even if it did.
By the Presidential election, it’s already years too late to force them to actually do good things. Protest votes and withholding your vote have done nothing to stop the slide that led to Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney in tow in the 16 years that I’ve been voting. If you want change, it’s only going to come by threatening the position of the people in charge of the party and replacing the old guard with people like AOC. Whoever gets elected President does neither of those things. Unless Krasnov declares the Democratic Party a terrorist organization and has them all arrested as political prisoners. But then we won’t have to worry about voting ever again, just like he promised.
A few things.
Firstly, we can dismiss the notion that the candidate can’t be moved. The citation for that is Biden in 2020, who effectively campaigned during the primary as a moderate Republican, and until the southern states which we’re never going to go blue anyways weighed in, was getting his ass handed to him. The Sunday before Super Tuesday, the rat-fuckening, Oblivious Warren. All that old history.
And then something remarkable happened. Biden opened the doors to the tent and invited the progressive wing of the party in. He handed the Bernie-crats the platform and said “have at it hoss”. And it worked. Instead of disenfranchising the activist base, he embraced them, or at least, extended an olive branch by giving them the platform, without which he assuredly would have lost.
So: Candidates can be moved.
Second:
Again. And I’m singling you out because you responded and well, here we are. This is an obtuse, bordering on bad faith interpretation of the argument being made. You aren’t arguing with me. You are arguing with the millions of voters who stayed home for Kamala but showed up for Biden. And you moralizing about an objectively misguided application of strategic voting didn’t/ doesn’t/ won’t/ change their votes. When your “strategic voting” strategy results in losing you the election, explain to me how and why its strategic?
You don’t/ can’t move millions of voters to a new position. Or at least it hasn’t been shown to be possible (2016, 2024). Asking voters to “vote against” instead of “voting for” doesn’t work and we now have so many receipts, that they will write text books on the matter. What can be done, is that the candidate can be moved. Its also been shown through an evidentiary process to work.
To summarize, candidates can be moved. Biden moved and won an election because of it. When you moralize about your own, demonstrated-to-be-wrong conception of strategic voting, you aren’t arguing with me, you are arguing with the literally millions of people left on the table by the Democrats. A strategy that when examined before hand will clearly lose, the insistence of then implementing it becomes a “burn the world down” moralization to wash your own hands: Democratic voters who reliably show up, but did not, because the DNC got a hall pass from those making the exact arguments you are making here. They did not need to respond to criticism because this argument you are making shielded them. And it cost us all, practically everything.
Further evidence that the democrats can be moved if we don’t let them maintain the delusion they can win while trying to be republicans: The entire party told Biden to drop out when it was clear he had no path to victory.
Sadly Kamala was allowed to believe she could win while embracing the same policies and messaging that killed the Biden campaign. Instead of screaming at the party to campaign on overwhelmingly popular left policy necessary to win the election and use every power at the democrat’s disposal to accomplish it, blue MAGA told anyone pointing out that we’re headed back towards the waterfall to shut up and paddle harder.
I’m not American so nobody got my vote, but seems to me like the issue is with the swathes of people choosing facism rather than progressives who chose not to vote.
Choosing how to act in a world like ours is tricky, anyone following a sense of right and wrong (even if I disagree with their judgement) instead of fear, hate, greed or whatever gets a gold star in my book.
Inaction is still a choice, though. I totally understand the sentiment behind that choice and even agree that we shouldn’t be forced to choose genocide, but the alternative that we got is a man who not only wants the same genocide, but wants to accelerate it, put American boots on the ground to assist in it, and then turn the bloodied ground into resorts while also wanting to worsen life across the globe. So, by refusing to act, they didn’t oppose that man getting into power. They cared so much about genocide that, ironically, they enabled making that genocide worse by not acting against that possibility.
The biggest issue, though, is with the people who couldn’t be bothered enough to vote. Some, what, 40% of Americans never vote? Of course, there’s plenty there who can’t due to things like gerrymandering, but there’s a huge swathe of white suburbanites who simply prefer the status quo to actually improving things.
you can refuse to vote for a Democrat and still oppose the man getting into power.
But thanks to the two party system, what effect does it have? And I’m specifically talking about the voting day of the presidential election here, not primaries or other elections. Because that’s where those efforts will have the most impact. Not that the Dems deigned to give us even the illusion of a primary this election (or in 2016, truthfully), but so many of these people seem to shake their fist once every 4 years and then go to sleep like cicadas awaiting the next presidential election.
I don’t blame people for hating the weak candidates that the Dems consistently push forward to maintain the old guards’ leadership positions, but I do blame them for looking at the alternative and saying “I’m okay with the possibility of that man winning if I don’t vote or vote third party.” The chance of a Trump victory and all that it entailed was a line in the sand that they were willing to cross.
As a trans woman, I blame them for saying, “Your life is not worth biting the bullet for.”
that chance was thrust upon all of us. accepting reality doesn’t make him acceptable.
Yet refusing to accept the reality of mathematics that showed that, in a FPTP system, not voting for a viable candidate opposing a fascist only helps the fascist is acceptable? Nah. The blood is on the hands of both dems and non-voters. Non-voters/protest voters don’t give a fuck about trans people, as shown by their actions.
support your claim
Suppose there are 10 people eligible to vote.
3 of them are known to support a fascist and will vote, no matter what. They have religious figures reminding them and pressuring them to vote for the fascist and watch propaganda daily that maintains their outrage and support.
1 of them is a big supporter of the neolibs and will vote for them no matter what.
1 of them is a pragmatic leftist who grudgingly will vote for the neolibs because there is no other viable choice.
1 of them is undecided either because they don’t think fascism is that bad, or think it won’t impact them, or don’t consider how it could impact people who are not as privileged as them, etc.
The other 4 are:
2 who are too filled with apathy to care about voting
1 who the fascists keep setting up artificial barriers for in order to prevent political engagement
1 who is thoroughly indoctrinated in the cult of anti-electoralism
That’s 6/10 eligible voting (in line with the proportion of eligible voters that voted in 2024).
Further, historical data shows that when fewer people vote, the fascists win because of their dedication to their cause and authority figures coaxing them to do so. This data is readily available in terms that are easy to comprehend, even for those without technical or scientific education.
So, the breakdown is:
Fascism: 3
Neolibs: 2 or 3
Coin toss on whether the fascists win, because, of those deigning to engage in the electoral system, one of them is not convinced that opposing fascism is really that big of a deal.
What about third parties? They don’t matter in this but because it is first-past-the-post and only a majority of participating voters is required.
But, the majority of polled people support left-of-center policies! Why are we forced to vote for neolibs?! Doesn’t matter. 4 out of 10 eligible voters are going to vote in support of right-of-center ideologies. If more eligible voters voted, that wouldn’t be an issue and the voice of the majority would be heard. But, between apathy, voter suppression, and the anti-electoralist/accelerationist cult, 40% are not voting. And that’s still “good” compared to the last half-century.
So, there you go. Barely even scratching statistics and simple to digest as to why voters who refused to do their duty to oppose fascism share the responsibility with the neolibs.
prove it
Knowingly putting others lives at risk by refusing to do what is literally the least one can do, that is, voting in a strategic manner to prevent literal fascists who have repeatedly taken action against LGBTQ+ and made statements in support of committing genocide against them, POC, and people who are neurodivergent and/or impacted by mental illness is not what an ally does. It is an action that demonstrates that the non-voter/protest voter does not find vulnerable peoples’ lives important enough to warrant the effort needed to climb down off of their pedestal of egotistical moral superiority to do meaningfully lend support to their fellow human beings’ right to exist.