Anonymous #2 6d

the context is a lot of leftist people on here saying they refuse to vote in 2028 if the democratic candidate isn’t anti-Israel enough for them. i think it’s that specific branch of leftists that person was talking about

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

Then don’t say white leftists lol

5

Anonymous #1 6d

wasn’t me who said it just trying to be helpful

-1

Anonymous #3 6d

I don't think that branch of leftists is necessarily wrong. If the US's involvement in the mass slaughter of civillians abroad isn't a point where we should apply some kind of pressure to our party to change their policies either through messaging or the actual withholding of votes then idk what kind of power citizens really even have over elected officials anymore

5

Anonymous #2 6d

there are lots of ways to apply pressure that don’t involve boycotting a general election

6

Anonymous #3 6d

no one’s saying “do nothing” it’s just that specific thing could put another Trump in office

9

Anonymous #3 6d

Sure and Im willing to talk about them. Because assessing our options is productive. Labeling leftists as egotistical bad actors however isn't productive and thats why I think its a garbage take lol.

6

Anonymous #2 6d

i guess that’s fair but i also think the anger and judgment from people who are suffering badly under trump right now is valid

1

Anonymous #3 6d

I think so too but that should be pointed at Trump and not at the left flank. We're also suffering under trump.

1

Anonymous #2 6d

of course it’s pointed at Trump but when people out of nowhere start saying “if the dem candidate isn’t X i won’t vote” they’re basically threatening everyone else with more Trump

4

Anonymous #2 6d

The overwhelming majority of my criticism is at Trump and the right

8

Anonymous #3 6d

Sure but if the dems win with someone ineffectual and unwilling to make major changes to the party goals as Biden was after the first Trump presidency then we end up just allowing the republican ps to have more time to prep another far right candidate to do maximum damage as happened in trumps second term. When people say that theyre prioritizing the actual change in policy over the short term change in leadership and that again isn't random cruelty bc they want trump to its a valid strategy

6

Anonymous #2 6d

it’s a valid strategy for people who would probably survive another four years of Trump but not all Americans are in that category

2

Anonymous #2 6d

Sorry can you explain that last part in more detail?

0

Anonymous #3 6d

4 years or 8 years it doesn't matter. Nobody at genuine risk survives long if the party doesn't change drastically and soon. But if it does we could make lasting changes that ensure those people some level of safety and security without the 4 year limit and new life threatening anxiety around election time

1

Anonymous OP 6d

that strategy involves a calculated risk where if your pressure on the democrats doesn’t work, a republican wins the election. #2’s argument is that the risk is worth it because a democratic presidency would give the republicans more time to think up a strategy for 2032. but if there’s a republican presidency 2028-2032 the left’s point gets made and the 2032 candidate will probably be better. the problem is a lot of people will be killed, deported, or stripped of rights in 2028-2032

6

Anonymous #3 6d

so it doesn’t really sound like a very fair trade for the people who would be most vulnerable

3

Anonymous #3 6d

lol wonderful, so this is a game to some people?

1

Anonymous OP 6d

apparently so

4

Anonymous #3 6d

The people who were most vulnerable were also vulnerable under dems just not under immediate threat. Dems were literally talking about increasing ice funding and military budgets in the Harris campaign. People would be vulnerable under that brand of democratic leadership too. Maybe not as openly or to the extent of absurdity as it is now but the only way out of that is to organize against party leadership at some point. Now if you think that shouldn't be now thats fine but we have to eventually

1

Anonymous #3 6d

also if we’re talking about this like it’s a game my strategic critique would be in those four years the left wing will likely lose a lot of its voting power to voter suppression, gerrymandering, and oppression so like you wouldn’t win 2032 anyway because all us small people you risked can’t vote anymore

6

Anonymous #3 6d

Exactly

2

Anonymous #2 6d

“Maybe not to the extent of absurdity as it is now” “Just not under immediate threat” Isn’t that an acknowledgement that you’re trading more harm in the short term for long-term political gain?

3

Anonymous OP 6d

Im not thinking of this as a game. Im going to be affected by this decision immensely. I just genuinely think that actually pressuring the party is worth the risk. We don't have to jump straight to withholding votes. Thats just the best bargaining chip we have because they get a lot of funds from PACs.

4

Anonymous #1 6d

I didn't comment. Just quote. That was prob someone else

0

Anonymous #3 6d

Thats also true so I would propose that instead of name calling at eachother we talk about how best to pressure dems to actually change their policy position instead of just changing their messaging. Can you think of any better ways than withholding votes?

3

Anonymous #2 6d

I think pressuring the party is worth the risk, but withholding votes in the general election backfires immensely. We need to identify a progressive candidate and rally around them ASAP

9

Anonymous OP 6d

Figure out how to get them attention in the media, get them interviews, etc

9

Anonymous #2 6d

again no one is saying do nothing. the whole point we’re trying to make is stop jumping to withholding votes. i think primaries are a great time to exert pressure— find a candidate to rally around and reject candidates that aren’t what you want

5

Anonymous #3 6d

volunteering/working for a campaign you believe in could really help

7

Anonymous #3 6d

I agree about the primaries for sure. I think that having this convo at all before the primaries is a lil silly but thats the convo thats happening so thats out of my hands

1

Anonymous #3 6d

and even if your candidate ends up losing the presidential primary, the level of support they get during is a strong signal to the party of what voters want and can influence the candidates that get put forward for senate, house, and local government and those are really important too

6

Anonymous OP 6d

I agree with this but how would you get around democrat leadership fear mongering and flexing their PAC money against further left candidates as they did with Bernie in 2016? Bc the leftist response to that has been making accepting pac money as politically toxic as possible such that the information that someone does it means they bleed votes

1

Anonymous #2 6d

Grassroots donations and smarter messaging imo. The establishment failed terribly with Cuomo and royally fucked themselves with Malinowski (NJ-11)

1

Anonymous OP 6d

They definitely did. Mamdani has been a huge source of hope for me in that regard too but that unfortunately felt like a perfect storm for him where Cuomo's team wasn't really trying that hard and just slinging racism amd islamophobia at the wall to see if it woukd stick. Idk if we can count on that for the presidency

1

Anonymous #3 6d

Agreed! I think door knocking campaigns will be a huge factor in the next election since so much of people interactions with representative politics has been stripped down to media

6

Anonymous #2 6d

Yeah that’s true, I’m not sure how Mamdani would have done against a competent candidate who didn’t have scandals

3