You just gave up a tool to fight back, even in the form of a lesser evil, for no reason but misplaced zeal.
If you fight back in other ways, fair enough, but that still means you didn't do everything you could to prevent the worst, but, good news, you'll hardly be the one responsible for that being the dilemma presented to you.
I really dislike when people who don’t know anything about me assume what I’m doing. I give up nothing. I’m just illustrating the librul mindset. It will be their downfall if you don’t consider it fallen already. 🏴🏴🏴. We’re on the same side regardless. Rock on, Comrade!🤘🏿
The two current candidates are so far apart the people who claim to be undecided are ignorant or stupid, willingly or otherwise. I'd understand riding the fence between Biden and Bernie, even if I've made my choice between them, but between Trump and Biden?
That's the kind of person who is undecided if they want to drive to work or walk down the middle of i-95
I think you are perhaps uninformed about the economic state of the poor and working class. Biden hasn't done a whole lot about people's grocery bills doubling and tripling, or the soaring increases in rent while the housing supply has remained artificially low, but he's made sure that blank checks for war appear out of thin air at every turn.
Can't expect to win an election like this when people can't afford to miss a day of work.
Like the original commenter said, you are either ignorant or stupid.
Anyone who actively lived during Trump's awful years in office has all the info we need to NOT vote for that fucking orange idiot, and instead CLAMBER to anyone with ANY semblance of sanity.
If you honestly think that Biden losing will help anyone in any way whatsoever (besides Trump and his little rich bastards who are as evil as he is), you, and anyone else who feels that way, are a lost cause.
Let's just cut to the chase--is your argument that both sides are the same? Or that voting for Biden is just as bad as voting for Trump, or not voting? Or are you just arguing to stir things up? Trying to figure out where your willful ignorance lies.
Anyone who is eligible to vote actively lived through the trump years. And a third of those voters disagree with you. Calling them stupid is not an effective way to help them change their minds or voting decisions.
Day to day economic realities matter to the average voter.
I don't give a flying fuck about changing anyones mind any more. If you actively lived through the awful Trump years, you don't need your fucking mind changed. Most of those "third of voters" are a lost cause, so I do not give a fuck about trying to get them to maybe open their eyes just a little bit.
Also, yes, I'm sure the "economic realities" really matter to those voters when this is who they will allow back into office.
The only Democrat with the power to do anything at the moment is Biden, and his power is limited.
But he's been doing a lot within that limited power.
And I genuinely don't care whatever some asshole from hexbear with their Lemmy World alt is about to pop in here and reply with, because the fundamental issue is not Biden, it is Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress is absolutely fucked, and that is not Biden's fault, it's the Constitution's fault, and the fault of Red State conservatives that have completely gerrymandered their states to hell, and the Supreme Court that did not stop them. It is not biden's fault at the Supreme Court is now stacked with corrupt conservative justices that will strike down anything he does that they think they can make a case against.
It is very, very convenient to forget that the other two branches exist when you're intent is to make Biden look like he hasn't done anything or committed to his campaign promises.
Honestly, no. In Turkey the opposition used that strategy since 2002 and lost every single vote, except the last local elections where they finally decided to do things a little differently (+ the financial crisis). If your only selling point is "not being the other guy" then your whole election campaign is basically an advertising for the other guy.
In Canada at the federal level the Conservatives are on their way to have a majority using this exact tactic, they're voting against anything the government tries to do (even stuff they asked for in the past) and they're promising to make everything better once elected, no one knows how, not even them.
Exactly this. It just boils down to manufacturing consent for the other guy’s terrible policies, and results in hopelessness leading to voter apathy. Braindead strategy with 0 concept of leadership.
It's a losing strategy politically because people are too fucking dumb to vote against someone holding a gun to their head unless someone else is promising them a unicorn, but as a potential voter, it's an exceptionally good reason to get off your ass and actually vote for a candidate who can win.
I think it depends on the context and the details.
If your sell is “I’m not Mitt Romney,” that is pretty weak, even if you don’t like Romney.
If your sell is “I’m not Donald Trump,” that is a much more compelling thing to consider. I mean the fucker is on trial for and got impeached for some things that are truly heinous to see from a random schmuck, never mind the freaking President of the US.
This. I've never voted for 'not the other guy', but I will this time. Honestly, the democrats could run Vinny the Wino and I'd vote for him over Trump.
It's really not if you're a wage earner in 2/3 of US states, where it's still perfectly legal to pay you $7 an hour. Since Idaho got away with criminalizing abortion, 2/3 of the states will soon follow.
Hell, homelessness jumped 12% in 2023 alone. I'm guessing, for those people, "I'm not Trump" isn't going to be as persuasive an argument as you might think.
It blows my mind how often people try to argue that someone should be elected on the strength of the economy when said economy isn't doing jack shit for the poor and working class.
Wish we had a party who gave a shit in order to vote for this, and that it were a much bigger plank of their platform. It’s a disgrace that anyone is unhoused in the richest nation on Earth.
I can’t even begin to describe how much more I would prefer we do this, than to continue fattening the wallets of boomers who own multiple homes and only live in one of them. We literally don’t invest in building new housing in order to maintain this status quo, and it’s absurd.
There are a bunch, sadly none of them stand a chance, despite being better candidates. In the upcoming election, voting for Biden results in a better outlook in every aspect. I've always voted 3rd party, but I pivoted last election cycle because anything is better than Trump, and I recognize that. Once he's out of the picture I'll go back to third party.
The US Green Party is just a useful puppet for Russia. Unfortunately that’s the reality of a FPTP voting system. If people don’t like it then they can try to organize grass roots changes in order to bring about longterm systemic change. But sadly too many voters just wake up once every four years, see that there isn’t a single candidate that perfectly aligns with their world view, and then just spite vote or spite abstain.
It’s like the ultimate form of taking democracy for granted; democracy isn’t just voting in one election every four years. There’s loads of local elections, primaries, and campaigning in between that have equal or even more impact on people’s daily lives, and which influence the candidates that appear on the presidential ballot.
This cartoon might reflect my local council election where everyone running is an NPR liberal but it definitely doesn't reflect the US presidential election, where there are very big and clear differences between the candidates.
If you claim the campaign is saying something, but openly admit the campaign is not reaching you, then you are doing exactly what I said: not looking for yourself and just parroting what you were told the are saying.
This isn't difficult. The Biden campaign is not saying what the OP is claiming they "see a lot of," he has provided plenty of platform and has seemingly gone out of his way to me minimize mentioning trump (although I expect that the change). The claim that it's happening a lot is just mindlessly parroting a talking points being fed to them.
Does my comment have to fall in line with your point to be useful? I wasn't aware I was in the presence of the sole person reaponsible for determining the course of the discussion, it's an honor to meet you.
It doesn't have to fall in line to be useful. But I suggest that if you are jumping in to challenge a point you make it clear that your point has nothing to do with the point being made. Most people are going to respond to things considering the context.
Yes-- campaigns that involve influencing people's opinions with covert guerrilla campaigns across social media with no accountability. Among the other shady tactics in their playbooks.
In a system where all the non-winning votes are lost in a step and not counted at the end, like the USA form of weak democracy, this becomes a valid tactic.
It's not only the presidential vote that's like this, but ALL fucking votes. It's astonishing how weak the US system is.
And still some see the US constitution as this pinnacle of democracy when it's vastly outdated by now
Even the founding fathers anticipated a lot of reforms and for the whole thing to become obsolete quite soon but yet here we are with people worshipping them as this infallible being and weighting their words on a scale as if it's impossible for them to be wrong
It's a shame they made it so hard to modify. Both the 2/3 of both houses or 3/4 of states routes are quite unfeasable when there are only two quite polarised parties... :-/
The voting system makes it so the system will always tend toward two parties. Parties aren't in the constitution at all. That's where you get occasional independent candidates
No, parties and primaries (which are just parties borrowing election infrastructure to choose who they support) aren't in the Constitution at all. But first past the post voting always trends towards two party systems as a stable equilibrium.
Eh, the founders more or less ensured that a wealthy land-owning aristocracy would be able to overrule the will of the people if need be. That's more or less what the SCOTUS is there for, to ensure things don't get too democratic.
The US was an early modern democracy, but has never been a particularly good one.
Even the founding fathers anticipated a lot of reforms and for the whole thing to become obsolete quite soon
...which is why they built a mechanism into it to make alterations. But the people upset about things like the electoral college don't have the support necessary to use that mechanism.
The problem is that even a Constitutional Convention gives more power to land than people. If one actually happened it would probably end with amendments forbidding divorce, abortion, and interracial marriage.
The problem is that even a Constitutional Convention gives more power to land than people.
Specifically in the case of a Constitutional Convention 2/3 of states have to agree to have one and 3/4 of states have to agree to any changes.
You'd have an easier time convincing the federal government to condense a few states - we don't really need TWO Dakotas, and Montoming seems like a good idea. Maybe also split California into a few pieces. The whole "land over people" thing is only really a problem because a couple of states blow the curve - House apportionment is done in a fashion that mathematically minimizes the average difference in people/representative between states while having a fixed number of representatives, but California blows the curve by being so utterly massive compared to any other state and there just not being enough representatives to go around. So all but a few states are pretty close in terms of people/representative, a couple are sitting at the 1 representative minimum while being tiny, and California blows the curve on the other side.
Either increase the House size, merge some of the smallest states, split California up or all of the above - and all of those can be done without passing an amendment.
Of course, then Texas will invoke the clause in the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States and split itself into five states, each of which gets its own Senators and whatever number of Representatives the math would work out to.
It is fptp (thanks, Justin), and seemingly getting worse, but Canada's two major parties don't have near the stranglehold on the electorate/people that they do in the u.s.
I think it's interesting folks take this as talking about Biden.
Biden has a platform, Biden and the Democrats have accomplishments ... what does Trump and the last decade of Republican congressional dominance have?
"DEMOCRATS ARE DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY!!"
"HEALTHCARE IS A MESS!! I'VE GOT A BRILLIANT PLAN I DIDN'T PASS OR EVEN PROPOSE IN CONGRESS LAST TIME. WE'RE GOING TO GET IT DONE THIS TIME. IT WILL BE SO MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT THE DEMOCRATS CAME UP WITH. NO I'M NOT SHARING IT NOW, YOU MUST BE SURPRISED." "I MADE MY RICH FRIENDS MONEY!!"
