"Anti-war voters in battleground states should vote for Harris to prevent a Trump victory.

Jonathan Glick

@evan yes, but strongly disagree (the majority) might mean two very opposite answers

Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:

@Jonathanglick @evan
One of the statements that I don't like in this poll is the assumption that Harris is not an anti-war candidate.

She and Biden are now literally trying to forcibly deescalate the situation in Israel/Gaza, while Netanyahu is holding out for a Trump victory so he can ignore whatever demands Biden makes.

Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:

@evan @weyoun6
As someone who worked in politics, I can tell you this is a misconception. Political candidates don't really know who is voting for the third party, or whether there is even a way to get those people to vote for them: many people vote for third parties on the basis of straight up misinformation, or general dissatisfaction with the two-party system (which we really do need to get rid of, and which we will be able to undermine under Kamala Harris but not under Trump), so it isn't seen as viable to chase those voters at this point.

To give an example of misinformation, Putin has poured a huge amount of money into Jill Stein, who has been actively and purposefully misrepresenting the Biden/Harris policy on Gaza in an attempt to get Trump elected for what seems to be nothing more than narcissism?

People shouldn't vote for Jill Stein. Her own party allies are demanding she stepped down at this point, and she really doesn't deserve any more attention than that.

Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:

@oliphant @mishi @weyoun6 @evan
I also want to note that there are a lot of Democrats who have been trying to get us things like cheaper housing and healthcare, and that those things are now in a politically viable state: it's pretty reasonable to assume that Harris will go after these things as they are right now at the forefront of issues.

The big difference between the Democrats and Republicans right now is that, with the democrats, we can pressure them for things, and we can make gains for a less partisan system. With the republicans, we are looking at an all-in attempt to literally dismantle our democracy.

Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:

@oliphant @weyoun6 @evan
Conversely, this caused a schism in the Democratic party that we saw the results of in 2018 and 2020, where the group that rigged the 2016 primary for Hillary Clinton was kind of pushed out of power (Pelosi resigned), and the group that took prominence was the group that kept telling Hillary Clinton to shut up and accept the fact that she had thrown the election by being stupid.

We definitely need to get rid of the two-party system, but let's give credit where credit is due: the Democrats have been the better party for a while now, and they've made improvements in recent years.

Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:

@oliphant @mishi @weyoun6 @evan
Also, people forget the kind of gains that we make under Democrats, in terms of civil rights and economic policies.

Yeah, they are too busy hesitating to give us any sort of socialized medicine, but they did give us Obamacare, which did get a lot of people healthcare, especially those of us with pre-existing conditions or who couldn't afford it before.

Yeah, they sometimes want to keep quiet on queer issues, but let's not forget that it was Obama who got us gay marriage and Biden who got us an openly transgender surgeon general.

Yeah, they have dragged their feet on ending the drug war, but let's be clear: electing Kamala Harris will legalize marijuana.

And yeah, the majority of them won't talk about UBI, no matter how many of us in the economics field openly supported, but Republicans literally want to legislate preemptively to get rid of it, and pretty much any other economically stabilizing social program.

As I keep saying, the difference is night and day.

DeepSpace🔺9

@weyoun6 @Raccoon @oliphant @evan

Obamacare gave more to insurance companies & corporations than to people. With it, my premiums went way up until my employer (Equinox) dropped tons of us, leaving us with nothing. Until healthcare is not tied to work & is universal, it’s not enough.

Weed is too profitable to stay illegal. UBI is less important than low income housing.

Democrats settle for nothing & anyone is better than nazis. Raise the bar.

Oliphantom Menace

@evan @mishi @Raccoon @weyoun6 The DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor) in Minnesota is technically an offshoot of the Democratic Party, it’s Tim Walz’s party. Anyway, the Dems won a bare majority in both state houses and the governorship. A trifecta, they call it. They immediately legalized weed, gave former felons the right to vote, free school lunches for kids across the state, and so many other left priorities. Republicans were left fighting against legalization, against free school lunches, against the right to vote.

The distinction was pretty clear, at least in this state. Agreed about healthcare, though.

Sean Tilley

@evan I voted Strong No, simply because the Democratic party needs all the support it can get, in safe states as well as swing states.

While I have many criticisms of the Democrats, we have to ensure that Trump does not see a second term. Additionally, a stronger Democrat representation in the House and the Senate are crucial for pushing back the Project 2025 agenda.

Evan Prodromou

Hey, all. So, I am somewhat agree.

I realize if you are not directly affected by the War in Gaza and Lebanon, this may seem extremely high risk and a little precious.

Evan Prodromou

But perhaps put yourself in the shoes of an Arab American who has asked for common-sense conditions to reduce some portion of the misery in Gaza and Lebanon and have been rebuffed time and again by a candidate who is ashamed of being supported by you.

Evan Prodromou

And then being threatened that if you don't vote for the candidate anyway, more people will die, and you yourself will be in danger domestically.

Not, let's all fight this together, but, unless you comply, you are fucked, and we will not help you, and you will be to blame for your own misery and that of people overseas.

Evan Prodromou

And finally, that you have some tiny sliver of power to possibly swing the election, but everyone is betting that you will not use it. That you must remain disempowered for everyone else's benefit.

Evan Prodromou

Maybe you can imagine that this is not actually as easy a choice as everyone seems to suggest.

Evan Prodromou

I think, anyway, that dividing up between battleground and safe states gives a permission structure for people in those battleground states to vote strategically for Harris. Knowing that others are going to send the signal in places where it is low risk makes it possible to vote for someone who you really don't like, in order to keep out someone you really, REALLY don't like.

Evan Prodromou

There are two big problems with this strategy, however.

First, it's hard to know which states are safe. If enough people in near-swing states vote third party, that "safe" state becomes unsafe.

Evan Prodromou

Second, which has been pointed out in the comments, it's actually hard to send a message in the voting booth.

I think if you're trying to send a message that an anti-war vote exists, voting for Trump or abstaining from voting does not show that signal. It gets lost in the noise of MAGA or apathy.

Evan Prodromou

So it has to be for one of the anti-war third party candidates, like Jill Stein, Cornell West, or Claudia de la Cruz.

Evan Prodromou

I think if some single-digit percentage of voters go for these candidates in California (say), it will give a little pause in post election analysis. Ah, the anti-war protest vote, they will say. There it is, 6% in California. And then they'll move on.

bumblefudge

@evan small difference nationally but significant pressure left ward within California's multiwing, splintery democratic party and populace