Well yeah, but that’s only because it would favor things I want.
What you need to tell us is how splitting the votes between Liberal 1 and Liberal 2, when there’s Conversative 1 with no Conservative 2 to split that vote, helps LIBERALS.
As I mentioned before, these “hardcore left” types don’t much care about helping (sneer, roll eyes, make air quotes) liberals.
Just a potential jumping off point to consider:
It’s worth voting against that.
@Velocity is right. I’d be delighted if there were 3rd party candidates pulling votes from Trump. Yes, I’m a complete hypocrite.
Unfortunately, in the real world we’ve inhabited the last 24+ years, the 3rd parties only hurt Dem presidential candidates. (Hell, Pat Buchanan’s right-wing 3rd party candidacy in 2000 accidentally even helped the Republican win.) So let’s focus on them, shall we?
Yeah I’m not optimistic any argument is going to convince her.
But the one that is most likely to work, IMO, is the fascist angle. I mean Trump is a fascist, saying that is no longer the reserve of the out there far left. His own generals are saying that (I get this is unlikely to be a trusted source for your friend, but it shows that it’s just an accepted fact across the political spectrum). The far left love their fascist-related absolutist statements, even more than they love absolutist statements generally. Well here you are. You have an actual fascist about to seize power and you as alleged anti-fascist can do something about it (namely vote) or be complicit in it by your inaction. You can be fascist or anti-fascist there is no middle ground here.
Of course, the inevitable reaction will be well “Harris is just as fascist as Trump, look at her support for the genocide in Gaza”. And that’s such a nonsensical statement no logic is going to get round it. But seriously, being a single issue voter on Gaza, and voting in a fascist who also is far and away the biggest foreign supporter of Netenyahu and the most vocal Zionist in the history of the US presidency, are incompatible positions. Allowing Trump to be voted in is being both pro fascist and pro Genocide in Gaza.
The position of “oh well he can hardly be any worse than the Democrats” is something only someone safely living in the US would ever say. There are many many ways it will get worse with a fascist actively encouraging Netenyahu to do his worst, which Trump absolutely will. Mass expulsion of the population of Gaza into Egypt and annexation of Gaza strip by Israel would absolutely be on the cards
Not really. She just never talks about how communism would make everything better. She truly does want to do things that would make things better for the elderly and the disabled. She’s very involved with community groups that espouse those things. And you’re going to run into true communists at those gatherings. Shoot, the writers’ group we belong to had a guy who was a true communist. His writing focussed on communist causes directly. Well, that and how good mangoes are. Really loved mangoes, that guy.
Whether she’s really a communist or not doesn’t matter to me. Hell, as an ex-Jehovah’s Witness, I’m not into patriotic flag waving. But I just don’t think she cares that much about Palestinians that it would decide her vote. I think she’s just enamored of giving the system the finger.
Which is fine. But now is not the time for this sort of thing. The situation is way too dangerous.
she’s protesting for causes she doesn’t really care about in the name of an ideology she doesn’t really understand…I stand by my assessment
Though we kind of all agree that hackneyed responses on OPs like this get both tiresome and irksome … allow me:
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.
–Jonathan Swift
The main reason I think that matters So. Goddamned. Much. in this election is:
Decided voters have their minds well and truly made up. Low-information voters – IMHO – have probably still seen and/or heard orders of magnitude more of the endless fire hose of bullshit from the Trump camp than anything from the left.
Meaning: there’s a(n) Herculean task to be confronted in bringing undecideds back to baseline – disabusing them of the innumerable things they’ve heard that are quite simply untrue – before one could even begin to feed them factual information that paints Harris in a better light and Trump in a worse light.
I’ve also said before that Trump’s strategy has leaned heavily on two things: Brandolini’s Law and the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
But the reason I posted that Serge Kovaleski/Trump abomination is the theoretical possibility that an appeal to your friend’s emotions – just as Trump and all other demagogues throughout history have (rightly) believed – might have some chance of landing.
We’re talking about someone on the radical left ignoring the difference between a Democrat who is “sorta left” and a Republican who has already said out loud that he supports using the military to “handle” people who are radical left.
Kamala isn’t supporting Palestinians enough. Trump wants to put you on a train at gunpoint.
I encountered something sorta kinda like that on another board. On a pro-firearms pro-2nd Amendment board I frequent, one user has gone full Never Trump because the Don, in true Dantean Trimmer fashion, betrayed the Cause by signing a bump stock ban and voicing support for summary confiscation of firearms under Red Flag laws when that looked like the popular thing to do. The rest of that board is incredulous that this user continues to call for boycotting the election or voting third party rather than vote for “gun confiscator” Trump– when the alternative is a Democrat in general and Harris in particular. It got so bad that I accused him of secretly being a provocateur working for the Democrats. Apparently he finds Trump loathsome already (hey, no argument there) but Trump’s acquiescence to gun control drove him over the edge.
This points out that this whole tactic is just as stupid when used by either side.
There are other ways to influence the process. Run for office yourself, lobby, vote differently in primary. But in a general, where there’s another side that is so much worse on whatever issue you are up in arms about, you don’t really care about the outcome if you don’t understand the dynamics.
So this just increases the likelihood there is no logical argument that will ever change her mind.
I mean I understand how the current situation in Gaza could produce an absolutist “with us or against us” mindset. It’s truly awful and it’s being perpetrated by US allies under the current government’s watch. But on any other left wing issue (environment, inequality, healthcare, etc.), the Democrats have not been perfect, but if are willing to allow a fascist who is diametrically opposed to your beliefs on the issue to become POTUS, then you don’t really care about the issue. You just want to make a meaningless political statement and don’t care about the issues you claim to.
I’m reminded of the Danish television series “Borgen”, about the leader of a tiny swing party unexpectedly becoming Prime Minister because of a fluke in the parliamentary rules. At one point she admonishes her fellow party members saying something like “only people with no power have the luxury of principles”.
Not yet mentioned is why someone would vote for Cornel West over Jill Stein.
Stein is on the ballot in more states.
AFAIK, the only state where West is on the ballot, and Stein is not, is Vermont.
I tried googling to see the difference between the two. Just looking at stated positions, you might say – not a lot. And I’m not sure if most voters vacillating between West and Stein will see it as I do. But it seems that:
– The Green Party is divided on Ukraine, while West is more out and out pro-Russia.
– Stein is an extreme progressive, while West is an extreme socialist.
– Those who fancy themselves to be revolutionaries prefer West.
If I am correct about this, Stein supporters, in swing states, may be persuadable for Harris. West supporters, not so much.
All these people got ballot access where I live:
- Kamala Harris, Democratic Party
- Donald Trump, Republican Party
- Chase Oliver, Libertarian Party
- Jill Stein, Green Party
- Claudia De la Cruz, Party for Socialism and Liberation
- Laura Ebke, Liberal Party USA
At a bare minimum Oliver will siphon some votes from Trump. And once again, I will point out that you can’t just say “Look what would have happened if all this third party vote went to my guy” without doing the same for the other guy and seeing if anything changed. In 2016 in Pennsylvania, for instance, Trump still wins if all Johnson (and possibly Castle as well) voters go for him and all Stein voters went Clinton.
I’m sorry, but the second quote I posted shows why the first quote I posted makes absolutely no sense. Sure, it’s her vote, but that doesn’t somehow mandate that you not make an effort to get her to see something that important.
This reminds me of Doonesbury on Election Day, 2000:
“If you’d like to see abortion re-criminalized,
If you’re for unrestrained logging and drilling, and for voluntary pollution control,
And if you favor more soft money in politics,
Then the choice today is clear…
Vote Nader.”
Then again, perhaps if Illinois was up for grabs, then she might think differently.
Also, having a “neither Trump nor Harris” option keeps people from thinking, “I don’t like either candidate, so I just won’t vote at all.”
So? Voting for Stein or West accomplishes the exact same thing as not voting at all.
I wouldn’t say that the first quote makes no sense, but it is the final reality. I guess you could argue that it is a moral imperative for me to try to dissuade her from voting for West, and to vote for Harris. But I have my doubts about how successful I would be. I’m not sure it’s worth the effort, however much of a virtuous effort you could frame it as.
Mainly as they wouldn’t really be properly left wing if they weren’t riven by countless schisms. Obviously Stein is a reactionary splitter and true revolutionaries would only consider voting for West.