How is it dumb? Because you don't like supporting an imperfect candidate? I understand that, but "never red until dead" is what got us Trump. Like, literally. I've posted this before, but this would have been the result if "Did Not Vote" was a political candidate in 2024:
And 2020:
And 2016:
That's enough to swing the election to either party, all 3 times. Hell, it could have handed both the 2016 and 2024 elections to an unaffiliated, 3rd-party candidate who had zero corporate sponsors and would 100% work for the benefit of working people in every state in the country, without having to listen to a single lobbyist! And Trump would have never been president.
But we have to be realistic. With the Electoral College and our "first past the post" system, a 3rd-party candidate has no chance of winning a presidential election. Not yet. Now, that alone will piss people off and they'll downvote this very comment, but it's the truth. Other countries have more than 2 parties, so they can organize strategic coalitions. If that "Did Not Vote" actually was a political party, both sides would have to pay attention to them, because again, every single election they could defeat either party. Power to The People.
So why do I mention this in the context of "vote blue, no matter who"? Because of Trump. Because the Republican party doesn't pivot to working for The People when they can't win elections. They pivot to fascism, voter suppression, unlimited dark money in elections, discrimination, Supreme Court overreach, foreign interference, fake electors, and literal fraud. But all of this corruption, unaffordability, and incompetence could have been avoided, simply by supporting the candidate who was not my favorite and probably not yours either. It's much more important to defeat Republicans than it is to have a purity test most politicians will fail. At least until we have election reform. Because the very instant we have more than 2 parties, I'll shut up about this. But until then, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good...
Don't worry, America isn't close to either, your choices are bad and badder and by continuing to engage with the system you condone making society worse.
Cool, maybe keep voting for bad then, the people who are actually enacting other forms of voting, and getting rid of first past the post. It definitely isn't the 3rd party or badder parties that are doing that. *i only include 3rd party because 3rd party simply never gets power to make change, until we have a new voting system in place. *
People might be downvoting you because it's not clear whether you mean my comment or the post. Of course you're allowed your opinion, but I'm curious: what do you find suspicious?
EDIT: I didn't notice this was the OP I was replying to. So that simplifies it: Why is that dumb, and what about my comment with sources is suspicious? Is it more suspicious than a post encouraging people not to vote...?
If everyone would do blue no matter who that might be a united force. Biden was imo not a good alternative for Trump, but he clearly was the better option. Fight for your first choice obviously, but also for your second and third one after your favourite doesn't make it to 'the next round'.
Nahh, blue no matter who is a recipe for disaster.
Its a solid concept but its a half measure. Liberals need to grow a backbone and defending their beliefs may be the only way.
Theyve gone too long just assuming they always have moral high ground but are doing zilch to bring the party undercontrol and enact strategy that will move the country forward.
I feel, making them put their money where their mouth is may be the only way to put things right. That means they'll have to evolve and not just count on a exhausted electorate to swallow poison pill after poison pill until regime change is the only way.
They should also fight for their choice. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be based on morals and principles. I do see where you're coming from. But anything that leads to people not voting at all could have very shitty consequences.
Its not sustainable. We cant rely on the electorate to understand how to weather the storm. The only reason the DSA is taking hold now is because some of us said "incrementalism" and accepted we will plant trees we wont ever get to enjoy the shade of. No, the DSA types want the trees, the sky, the stars themselves and do not care for the cost of it all.
We cant rely on an electorate that wont accept anything but instant gratification. Without a system that can change entirely on a whim they will never get it.
So Blue MAGA is now openly admitting to being the heirs of McCarthy? We're now openly acknowledging that the DNC is not to the left of anything but the RNC?
"Better dead than Red" sounds like the perfect mantra for such a party.
Imagine thinking the billionaire owned party is going to save you from the other billionaire owned party.
21 Comments
Janx@piefed.social · 18 pts · 13h
How is it dumb? Because you don't like supporting an imperfect candidate? I understand that, but "never red until dead" is what got us Trump. Like, literally. I've posted this before, but this would have been the result if "Did Not Vote" was a political candidate in 2024:
And 2020:
And 2016:
That's enough to swing the election to either party, all 3 times. Hell, it could have handed both the 2016 and 2024 elections to an unaffiliated, 3rd-party candidate who had zero corporate sponsors and would 100% work for the benefit of working people in every state in the country, without having to listen to a single lobbyist! And Trump would have never been president.
But we have to be realistic. With the Electoral College and our "first past the post" system, a 3rd-party candidate has no chance of winning a presidential election. Not yet. Now, that alone will piss people off and they'll downvote this very comment, but it's the truth. Other countries have more than 2 parties, so they can organize strategic coalitions. If that "Did Not Vote" actually was a political party, both sides would have to pay attention to them, because again, every single election they could defeat either party. Power to The People.
So why do I mention this in the context of "vote blue, no matter who"? Because of Trump. Because the Republican party doesn't pivot to working for The People when they can't win elections. They pivot to fascism, voter suppression, unlimited dark money in elections, discrimination, Supreme Court overreach, foreign interference, fake electors, and literal fraud. But all of this corruption, unaffordability, and incompetence could have been avoided, simply by supporting the candidate who was not my favorite and probably not yours either. It's much more important to defeat Republicans than it is to have a purity test most politicians will fail. At least until we have election reform. Because the very instant we have more than 2 parties, I'll shut up about this. But until then, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good...
https://www.environmentalvoter.org/updates/2024-was-landslidefor-did-not-vote
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · -5 pts · 9h
Don't worry, America isn't close to either, your choices are bad and badder and by continuing to engage with the system you condone making society worse.
Zoot@reddthat.com · 1 pts · 4h
Cool, maybe keep voting for bad then, the people who are actually enacting other forms of voting, and getting rid of first past the post. It definitely isn't the 3rd party or badder parties that are doing that. *i only include 3rd party because 3rd party simply never gets power to make change, until we have a new voting system in place. *
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -12 pts · 12h
I find this post very suspicious and hope its just plainly isn't for me.
Janx@piefed.social · 3 pts · 9h
People might be downvoting you because it's not clear whether you mean my comment or the post. Of course you're allowed your opinion, butI'm curious: what do you find suspicious?EDIT: I didn't notice this was the OP I was replying to. So that simplifies it: Why is that dumb, and what about my comment with sources is suspicious? Is it more suspicious than a post encouraging people not to vote...?
sculptor0725@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 21h
they already did "better dead than red" but they meant communists
ChicoSuave@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 19h
I'm going to start using it again but mean Republicans
huppakee@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 19h
If everyone would do blue no matter who that might be a united force. Biden was imo not a good alternative for Trump, but he clearly was the better option. Fight for your first choice obviously, but also for your second and third one after your favourite doesn't make it to 'the next round'.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -14 pts · 19h
Nahh, blue no matter who is a recipe for disaster.
Its a solid concept but its a half measure. Liberals need to grow a backbone and defending their beliefs may be the only way.
Theyve gone too long just assuming they always have moral high ground but are doing zilch to bring the party undercontrol and enact strategy that will move the country forward.
I feel, making them put their money where their mouth is may be the only way to put things right. That means they'll have to evolve and not just count on a exhausted electorate to swallow poison pill after poison pill until regime change is the only way.
Edit: Oof, seems some are salty.
huppakee@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 19h
They should also fight for their choice. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be based on morals and principles. I do see where you're coming from. But anything that leads to people not voting at all could have very shitty consequences.
I'm not counting on it.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -5 pts · 18h
Its not sustainable. We cant rely on the electorate to understand how to weather the storm. The only reason the DSA is taking hold now is because some of us said "incrementalism" and accepted we will plant trees we wont ever get to enjoy the shade of. No, the DSA types want the trees, the sky, the stars themselves and do not care for the cost of it all.
We cant rely on an electorate that wont accept anything but instant gratification. Without a system that can change entirely on a whim they will never get it.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 21h
I feel like “never red ‘till dead” is just inviting them to vote for dead people
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 1 pts · 12h
That has literally happened before. John Ashcroft famously lost an election to Mel Carnahan despite Carnahan being dead.
"Sorry, John. The dead guy just scares me a lot less than you do." - Robin Williams on the subject
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 11h
that's embarrassing, lol.
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -1 pts · 21h
I vote dead people
affenlehrer@feddit.org · 5 pts · 18h
Why can you only afford two colors?
FinalRemix@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 14h
Have you seen the economy lately??
affenlehrer@feddit.org · -1 pts · 12h
Is this "economy" with us in the room right now?
JigglySackles@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 18h
Never red, even dead.
Ghyste@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 18h
SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org · 1 pts · 10h
No, you are an idiot
DudleyMason@lemmy.ml · -4 pts · 8h
So Blue MAGA is now openly admitting to being the heirs of McCarthy? We're now openly acknowledging that the DNC is not to the left of anything but the RNC?
"Better dead than Red" sounds like the perfect mantra for such a party.
Imagine thinking the billionaire owned party is going to save you from the other billionaire owned party.