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

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

Dave

@evan the choice *is* easy. Vote Harris, live to fight another day. Keep your right to vote, keep society *somewhat* democracy-oriented.

Vote Trump, lose your rights, game over, you're fucked.

Vote third party or abstain, you directly enable Trump instead of fighting him and place your safety and well-being into the hands of the other voters, hoping you don't get fucked too hard.

Evan Prodromou

But maybe the signal isn't for the Democratic Party, or for analysts at MSNBC, or for strategists already thinking about the 2026 mid-terms.

Maybe it's a signal for other average Americans, and for people overseas, maybe in Europe and New Zealand, maybe in Namibia and South Africa, maybe in Gaza and Egypt and Lebanon and Israel.

That anti-war Americans exist, that we are still fighting, and that we haven't given up. And if you are against the war, we stand with you.

bumblefudge

@evan CO and CA, two deep blue states with v active third parties, also house a huge chunk (almost half) of aerospace and war manufacturing... side effects matter more than the direct impacts of voting in an electoral college system where Republicans haven't won a popular vote in decades, and can't even break 45 in a high turnout year

Jonathan Glick

@evan In my opinion, that will only encourage more Putin/GOP-backed fake protest candidates in future cycles. The only path to a two-state solution is a Democratic Party that is unafraid of attacks from evangelical and Likud-supporting constituencies. (A very difficult task considering the necessary breadth of the Democratic coalition)

Evan Prodromou

@Jonathanglick I think you're absolutely correct. Right now, we have the Democratic Party that refused to put a Palestinian American on the stage at the convention. They gambled that they can lose Arab Americans in Michigan and elsewhere and still win.

That said, it would have been hard in 2004 to predict that a vocal anti-Iraq-war candidate would win the presidency in 2008. Things change fast in American politics.

Evan Prodromou

@Laird_Dave maybe read the rest of the thread first.

Evan Prodromou (@[email protected])

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.

CoSocial (cosocial.ca)

Fifi Lamoura

@evan um, I don't think that's the message voting for Jill Stein sends at all. Nobody really sees her as antiwar, they see her as a Putin apologist.

Evan Prodromou

@fifilamoura welp, 40% of Arab Americans in Michigan say they're going to vote for Stein. It might be because they want to vote for a Putin apologist, but I think it's because of her position on the war.

reuters.com

(www.reuters.com)

M. Grégoire

@evan In US presidential elections, most states send strong majorities for one or the other of the two main parties. In such states voters who are dissatisfied with the Ds or the Rs should vote not against a candidate they dislike, but in favour of the candidate they most support, secure in the knowledge that theie votes are highly unlikely to tip the race in an undesired direction.