Tbf, the Democratic party nomination process is not a 2-party system. They did say that back then, and they were wrong to do so - hoping that people wouldn’t notice that difference.
But now we are talking about the real deal, the thing that they were trying to falsely tie an equivalence to, the actual vote for the actual presidency. Democracy in the USA may not last the decade regardless, but voting one way is for ditching it in favor of Project 2025 and among other things, ironically enough even moar-er support for genocide, while the other is a vote for hopefully a little better than the current status quo.
Both offer short term pain and long term destruction… but not equally so.
they’re not suggesting a third party candidate can win
they’re suggesting that the democratic platform can shift
How though? And more importantly, why? Like, what “leeway” does Kamala have to say anything different than she already has, which she could shift to?
Maybe after she wins yes, but at this point the choices are Trump vs. not-Trump, so I don’t see how a vote for a third-party would help in this case. At one point, with Bernie Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton there were different thoughts about how a vote for Bernie would cause Hillary to shift more towards the left - but most of that again gets back to the nomination process, not the final show-down between the two parties, and after that was a disastrous example of how voting for the 3rd-party candidate didn’t help the democratic party shift, except in the sense that it handed literally hundreds and hundreds of judicial nominees to the Republican party that, among other things, ended the protections of Roe v. Wade.
Two months ago the situation with Biden was VERY DIFFERENT than the situation now faced, with Kamala. Back then we could - and yay, did! - shift and pivot to adjust to the harsh realities that he was not capable of running again. We very likely would have lost if he had. But that was then, and this is now.
Anyway I think that I’m preaching to the converted here, so maybe I just misunderstood something that you said. Tbh, I don’t agree with your take on the OP - I think it really does show voting not for a 3rd party but voting for the other side b/c “bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe” (the title of the post), specifically wrt genocide. I think that b/c there are only 2 tracks shown… Also, the genocide being mentioned implicitly in the graphic (“but worse…”) shows how its focus is on short-term effects immediately after the election, not long-term ones about telling the Democratic party how the American populace would very much enjoy it if it would become more liberal if they would please and thank you very much.
Like, what “leeway” does Kamala have to say anything different than she already has, which she could shift to?
a significant enough chunk of her voter base credibly withholding a vote based on a desired policy change would force a shift toward that desired policy change
i’d say biden’s platform in 2020 was significantly more left-wing than clinton’s in 2016
But that was then, and this is now.
this is the same “it’s too late” or “it’s too unprecedented” or whatever you want to pick that was exactly the justification for biden being kept in as long as he was
I think it really does show voting not for a 3rd party but voting for the other side b/c “bOtH sIdEs ArE tHe SaMe” (the title of the post), specifically wrt genocide.
people the post targets aren’t voting red. they’re just not voting at all, or voting third party. it’s an argument to a position held by an insignificant fraction of the left-anti-harris crowd.
it doesn’t address the core issue they have. they’d say that continuing to vote for the least-bad party is the reason both parties are bad, and that at a certain point you have to attempt to force a more radical change.
