Almost like Clinton should have run a real campaign in MI😃. Stop running unpopular candidates and blaming it on greens. How embarassing lol.
It’s possible more than one thing contributed to Clinton losing…
At any rate Harris is running a great campaign. So much so that every single potential voter is being considered, even the people that might be getting scammed into voting for Jill Stein. I don’t think the Hilary’s campaign even considered going after the people voting green because it was assumed those votes wouldn’t be a significant factor. The Harris campaign isn’t leaving any stone unturned. That means challenging people who are promoting third parties more.
Harris has declined in popularity with every day that passed after her coronation. She is running a mostly adequate campaign, and trying to please everyone has never been a seriously effective Democratic strategy, especially in the long term.
Harris has her strengths. Very few Democrats would have stood their ground as well as she did in the Fox ambush interview. That’s where she really shines, when she can let out that inner prosecutor. Waltz was a great addition, but the campaign hid him away the second Harris took on most of Hillary’s campaign advisors.
Just like Biden before her, Harris’s greatest advantage is how much Trump is despised outside of his cult. Let’s not be deifying her for that.
trying to please everyone has never been a seriously effective Democratic strategy, especially in the long term.
Do you think it would be more effective to piss off people? Maybe she could start telling us which voters she thinks are “deplorable”? Is that more effective than trying to please as many voters as possible?
The Dems have won three out of the last four elections. Not sure why you’re saying this strategy is not effective given the one they lost was the one where their candidate called some voters deplorable.
Waltz was a great addition, but the campaign hid him away the second Harris took on most of Hillary’s campaign advisors.
The VP candidate is not supposed to overshadow the Presidential candidate. Walz has been on the campaign trail basically non-stop, and doing local interviews which may actually be more important than national interviews. The national media doesn’t pick up on things Walz is doing all the time, but don’t confuse that with the campaign hiding him away. Harris’ debate performance and national interviews are much stronger than Walz’s debate performance on the national stage. So why would they be trying to push a guy to do national interviews that he’s not great at instead of doing rallies and local interviews which he is good at?
a vote for stein is a vote for trump, both of which are a vote for poo-tin
But I didn’t want Clinton to win. My picks were: 1. Lessig, 2. Sanders, 3. Stein, 4. Johnson (Gary), 5. blank. Knowing only what I knew in 2016, I disliked Trump and Clinton equally, and would never have voted for either one.
(And yes, I did know that Sanders had endorsed Clinton.)
I would hope that you learned something from your error, but this comment shows clearly you haven’t. I learned it when I voted for John Anderson and in my tiny way contributed to Reagan winning: in America, you vote to keep the worst fascist out of power, and if it means voting for someone who isn’t perfect but has the numbers to do it, that’s who you vote for. The primary may be your opportunity to show support for other parties, and you can go to rallies and spread the good word to influence the discussion, but until the day your third party candidate has enough potential votes to actually win it, you help hold the wall.
Shit, I wouldn’t even discount trying to vote 3rd party when it comes to local elections or state elections. You have to chip away at the power the big parties have at the peripheries first, before trying to do big stuff like voting 3rd party in the big presidential election where they are basically guaranteed to not win.
We wouldn’t have a 6-3 conservative supreme court with Clinton, along with a rash of conservative lower courts. Not only have we had extreme fallout from this already. But it will be affecting us for decades.
A bunch of our red states likely wouldn’t have swung to extremism, like my home state which went from Asa Hutchinson to Sarah Huckabee-Sanders. I don’t know if my kids will legally be allowed to learn that slavery existed in school.
There you go again. Blame third parties for your own failure. Keep doing it, tell yourself it’s true.
This proves that left leaning holdouts have real leverage. The Dems need us to win and if they want our votes they have to appeal to our values.
I guess…
Alternatively, left leaning holdouts for some reason really like to punch themselves and all their friends and family in the nuts and are a real wanker class.
Edit: At least 11 people are giant fuckin wankers
Supporting genocide crosses a line for me that I am unwilling to compromise on. If that makes me a wanker I’ll call myself a wanker proudly.
Trump is a clear supporter of the genocide. He wants Israel to destroy Palestine and he wants the US to do more to help them accomplish this. Harris is nowhere near as bad as this. She’s not going to withdraw support for Israel, but she’s at least going to try to rein them in and return to the pre-war status. Not great, but realistically the best that we can hope for with how supportive our politicians are of Israel in general.
These are the only two people that have a chance at the White House. If you don’t want to support the genocide, don’t waste your vote on somebody that is absolutely, without a doubt, going to lose. Instead, use it to vote for the one candidate that is possibly able to win over the person that is explicitly, unequivocally supportive of the genocide.
In my eyes, not voting for Harris is supporting the genocide. Anything that allows Trump into office is supporting the genocide.
left leaning holdouts for some reason really like to punch themselves and all their friends and family in the nuts
My brother is voting for Jill Stein because Biden (and by association Harris) supposedly supports genocide - but he thinks Putin is a good person (and has recently started talking about how great China is) and waves his hand when I mention that Trump would support Netanyahu even more. Your “for some reason” resonates with me because I have no fucking idea what happened to my brother to make him start saying this kind of nonsense - except that I know he stopped reading books and now gets his news entirely from his Facebook feed.
If you don’t like stein, consider voting party for socialism and liberation instead.
They’re running Claudia de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to israel.
I found out recently that they’re on the ballot or have official write in status in 42 states, so unless you’re in Alaska, Nevada, Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Georgia or Pennsylvania go for it!
E: forgot Nevada. They’re not officially recognized in Nevada.
I’d advise that no one buy into any of this nonsense. De la Cruz has a mathematically impossible chance to win, and at this point will serve only to siphon votes and spoil the election. Knowingly or not, this is what is happening.
Think about it: Ever wonder why you’re really only hearing about them recently? Where were they four years ago? What have they done to prove they will even do as they say? They have no track record to stand on, but for some reason, these people seem to think they can sneak into an election and have a chance to win on unproven, untested policy with no practical or effective way to make any of it happen?
Make no mistake- there is no good intention from anyone asking you to throw away your vote on these people this late in the game- NONE.
Were it a year or two ago, I could maybe see it. But weeks away from what might be the most important election of our lifetime- to even think to request people not do everything they can to stop a racist rapist traitor to America from forcing our own militarily against us, systematically removing the rights of our LGBTQ+ friends and family, and the rights of women to have body autonomy is as shamelessly in bad faith as one could possibly be.
DO NOT LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE.
I might be misremembering the electoral values of the states here, but I think the combined value of the states they’re not official write ins or on ballot is only 64.
That leaves 474 electoral votes that psl could get, so they very much could win.
The history of the party is easy to find. They’ve been around for a little while now.
I’d choose a party with no track record over one with a consistent track record of genocidal violence and extrajudicial killings, but luckily psl has a track record of grassroots activism that’s pretty consistent, so I don’t have to take a gamble.
It’s a bit absurd to call opposition to genocide and apartheid unproven, untested policy.
I’m swiftly climbing the ladder of age and my whole life people have been saying “well, you should have been advocating for this or that last year, it’s too late now, this is the most important election of our lifetime!”
The best time to vote (and do groundwork for) psl was last year, the second best time is now!
I agree with the last part though, don’t listen to people peddling tired cliches and misinformation trying to manipulate you into voting one way or the other!
News flash genius…. Most everyone here is opposed to genocide. As has been said before, you’re not part of some fringe grassroots group that figured out that genocide was bad ahead of everyone else.
Stop with that shit. I don’t believe you’re here in any good faith to help anyone in any way.
Are they running anyone in elections they might actually win? I might vote for a party like that for mayor or something. But I wouldn’t even vote for them for state house representative unless they were well known enough in my state that they might actually win.
‘Third’ parties in this country can show themselves as serious if they try to establish themselves from the bottom up. If all they do is run for president and occasionally Senate or House, then they show themselves as unserious parties which are probably nothing more than attempts to siphon votes that might have gone to a real candidate.
I don’t know odds, I’m not much of a gambler. You gotta start somewhere though and winning isn’t all that matters: at the presidential level losing parties’ turnout determines their ballot access, event presence, access to funds and media and obviously how much you hear about them.
At the state and local levels there are Byzantine other benefits to having some percentage of the vote that vary wildly from place to place.
So its worth it to vote for a small candidate even if they lose because it can have big effects down the road.
Psl runs candidates at lots of local races, especially in California because that’s where they started.
Of course, if your main worry is having voted for a candidate that can win: good news! Psl can win every race it has a candidate in as far as I know. People were saying that they didn’t have enough ballot presence to tip the electoral college but they were wrong!
