• Ferrous@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    “because you need to pressure and criticize Biden without actually making him lose”

    “We need to be toothless about our criticism of Biden” FTFY

    The threat of making your candidate lose is the only power you have to shift them.

    Next time you’re negotiating for a car, see how much the seller budges after you preceed negotiations with “Now, I am fully committed and happy paying sticker price, but how much can you lower the price?”

    Edit: at least have the intellectual honesty to say out loud that Biden could do anything, and you’d still vote for him

    • daltotron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      The threat of making your candidate lose is the only power you have to shift them.

      I mean this is also not really a threat, though. I think realistically biden and trump are both closer to each other than either of them are to this like, eclectic amalgamation of positions that is the “youth vote”. Him not winning isn’t like, still a victory, in that circumstance, but it’s not like, a loss to them in the same way that it would be if they actually had to do all the stuff the “youth vote” wanted. Basically I’m just saying that they, the DNC broadly I suppose, would rather give as little as they absolutely can, while still maintaining a delicate balance of power where they’re the only ones that can maintain the status quo rather than a backslide into total fascism. Going with all the “youth vote” positions, to them, would be as big if not a bigger loss than a slide into total fascism.

      Which is to say, I think they’re willing to lose as long as it means they don’t have to really do anything major.

      • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Which is to say, I think they’re willing to lose as long as it means they don’t have to really do anything major.

        100% agree. This is something liberal and moderate voters are completely blind to.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m fully committed to lesser evil voting since it’s the only viable electoral strategy. So as long as Biden is better than Trump I would vote for him. I have a hard time understanding why people don’t see that this is the most rational way to vote. If you don’t like it, and I don’t either, then you need to pursue strategies to change it, particularly outside the electoral system. Since these strategies do not conflict with voting I think it’s rational to pursue both actions.

      And no I don’t think we need to be toothless. But a lot of people don’t seem to be smart enough to walk the line of threatening to withhold support without actually doing so. I’m not going to go right up to Biden and tell him that’s what I’m doing. He doesn’t know what my strategy is, so it can still be effective.

      • daltotron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I mean so lesser evil voting is generally a good strategy for damage control, but it’s not necessarily a great strategy in terms of like, blanket things you can just effect to the whole. If you take a voter in a non-swing state, say, california, a state that votes very consistently, them defecting their vote to a third party which represents them more accurately, is going to be of much lesser weight in totality than if someone in a swing state had done so. They are probably much safer in their estimation of walking up towards the line without crossing it. This is probably also true of states who get their votes tallied up later on, and also of states where projections are already in favor of certain candidates, since those projections affect elections.

        This also kind of discounts “not voting” as an electoral strategy because that doesn’t send a super clear signal, but it’s probably not the worst thing in the world, since we could kind of file them away under like, either the average non-voter’s position in their state, or just the average non-voter’s position at large, which is probably going to be more radical of an average position than most would think.

        But yeah, all of this still tracks with what you’re saying so far. I think the biggest determining factor for me, though, is that electoralism as a strategy at all hinges on the assumption that democrats would rather move left than lose to republicans. And I dunno, that’s kind of a tenuous assumption, and I think is the major disagreement on people who are willing to engage in electoralism vs those who aren’t, is that most people who aren’t, assume that the democrats would rather lose to republicans and ensure a status quo/backslide into fascism rather than move to the left.