I live in a swing state and want to minimize the chances of Koncentration Kamp Kamala from getting elected so I directly supported Trump rather than indirectly.
I could no more vote Trump ‘tactically’ than I could Harris. I think one ought vote according to one’s concience. The whole notion of tactical voting makes a mockery of democracy, if no one could be persuaded to vote tactically there’d be significantly less ‘electioneering’. More like the Nordic model, with way more parties catering to a broader range of political views.
You only have to look at the current Democrat campaign, they barely need a policy at all, they’re running almost entirely on being not-Trump.
Ignores all the policy announcements Kamala made, complains that there aren’t any policies.
But yes, actually, being not Trump is an excellent reason to vote for Kamala, because there are only two possible outcomes of this election, and one of them is a wannabe dictator, KKK-supporting, idiot putin stooge, racist, hate-filled, selfish, duplicitous, personally disloyal, insurrectionist, unamerican, country betraying, diaper-wearing emotional crybaby thrower of money at the already super-rich, and frankly I’m tired of people pretending that he doesn’t desperately need keeping out of the White House.
there are only two possible outcomes of this election
And there’s the problem with all these responses in a nutshell. Shortsightedness.
Yes, there’s only two possible outcomes to this election, and yes Kamala is the better candidate by miles. But your voting actions don’t only affect this election, they affect all future elections. They’re the background against which all political strategy is determined.
If you just bend over every time you’re threatened with four years of some fuckwit in office, then you’ve committed to a political system where your opinion on policy ceases to be relevant. All that’s required for a complete autocracy is for one party to be a unbearable fascist and then the other party doesn’t even have to consider what the electorate actually think because they’re the not-fascists, and that’s all that’s needed.
And this isn’t even slippery-slope. It’s happening right now. The not-fascists are actually complicit in war crimes and are still getting your vote . How much worse will it be in four year’s time after they’ve had it proven to work? Why would they ever listen to the electorate on anything ever again?
Yes, there are just two outcomes. If Trump wins, the Democrats will again move to the right to occupy what passes for the centre ground in American politics. Kamala is one of the most pro worker candidates they’ve had in my lifetime. If they lose against the most incompetently bad president the country had in my lifetime with the most left candidate they’ve had in decades, they will pivot back to the “centre”.
So if they loose because leftists don’t like their policies enough to vote for them, they’ll pivot right? What would be the logic behind such a decision?
There’s thousands of leftist votes available, all they have to do to access them is produce a more left-wing agenda (like, say, not being complicit in war crimes).
But you’re suggesting in response to this loss (as a result of not denouncing war crimes) they’ll not, you know, denounce war crimes next time, but rather shift even more into the ground that’s in direct competition with their only opponent and try to win die hard Republicans who’d vote a Big Mac into government if it wore a MAGA cap?
Can you explain what you think their rationale would be for such a move?
I could no more vote Trump ‘tactically’ than I could Harris. I think one ought vote according to one’s concience. The whole notion of tactical voting makes a mockery of democracy, if no one could be persuaded to vote tactically there’d be significantly less ‘electioneering’. More like the Nordic model, with way more parties catering to a broader range of political views.
You only have to look at the current Democrat campaign, they barely need a policy at all, they’re running almost entirely on being not-Trump.
Ignores all the policy announcements Kamala made, complains that there aren’t any policies.
But yes, actually, being not Trump is an excellent reason to vote for Kamala, because there are only two possible outcomes of this election, and one of them is a wannabe dictator, KKK-supporting, idiot putin stooge, racist, hate-filled, selfish, duplicitous, personally disloyal, insurrectionist, unamerican, country betraying, diaper-wearing emotional crybaby thrower of money at the already super-rich, and frankly I’m tired of people pretending that he doesn’t desperately need keeping out of the White House.
And there’s the problem with all these responses in a nutshell. Shortsightedness.
Yes, there’s only two possible outcomes to this election, and yes Kamala is the better candidate by miles. But your voting actions don’t only affect this election, they affect all future elections. They’re the background against which all political strategy is determined.
If you just bend over every time you’re threatened with four years of some fuckwit in office, then you’ve committed to a political system where your opinion on policy ceases to be relevant. All that’s required for a complete autocracy is for one party to be a unbearable fascist and then the other party doesn’t even have to consider what the electorate actually think because they’re the not-fascists, and that’s all that’s needed.
And this isn’t even slippery-slope. It’s happening right now. The not-fascists are actually complicit in war crimes and are still getting your vote . How much worse will it be in four year’s time after they’ve had it proven to work? Why would they ever listen to the electorate on anything ever again?
Yes, there are just two outcomes. If Trump wins, the Democrats will again move to the right to occupy what passes for the centre ground in American politics. Kamala is one of the most pro worker candidates they’ve had in my lifetime. If they lose against the most incompetently bad president the country had in my lifetime with the most left candidate they’ve had in decades, they will pivot back to the “centre”.
So if they loose because leftists don’t like their policies enough to vote for them, they’ll pivot right? What would be the logic behind such a decision?
There’s thousands of leftist votes available, all they have to do to access them is produce a more left-wing agenda (like, say, not being complicit in war crimes).
But you’re suggesting in response to this loss (as a result of not denouncing war crimes) they’ll not, you know, denounce war crimes next time, but rather shift even more into the ground that’s in direct competition with their only opponent and try to win die hard Republicans who’d vote a Big Mac into government if it wore a MAGA cap?
Can you explain what you think their rationale would be for such a move?