The animating concept behind the Trump campaign will be chaos. This is what history shows us fascists do when given the chance to participate in democratic political campaigns: They create chaos. They do it because chaos works to their advantage. They revel in it, because they can see how profoundly chaos unnerves democratic-republicans—everyone, that is, whether liberal or conservative, who believes in the basic idea of a representative government that is built around neutral rules. Fascism exists to pulverize neutral rules.
So they campaign with explicit intention to instill a sense of chaos. And then comes the topper: They have the audacity to insist that the only solution to the chaos—that they themselves have either grossly exaggerated or in some cases created!—is to vote for them: “You see, there is nothing but chaos afoot, and only we can restore order!”
Cool. Vote third party. We’ll get Trump (or one of the other authoritarian dominionist clowns in the car), who will end up pushing for a nuclear attack on Gaza while dismantling every institution we have here, meager as they are, but people still need them. Then in 2028, don’t vote at all because you will probably lose your right to do so. At least you voted with your heart<3 though, so have a nice cup of tea and give yourself a hug.
We do not have a system in place where your idealistic protest can do anything other than make things worse. Fix the goddamn system, put people in power on a local level who have a chance, and work up from there. Fuck outta here with any Jill Stein horseshit.
If not voting Biden is a vote for Trump, wouldn’t not voting Trump be a vote for Biden by the same logic? The logic only works if you assume all third party voters would be voting Democrat which isn’t the case.
You know what I’m talking about. Of course not all third party voters would vote for the Democratic candidate, but how many leftists would otherwise vote for the Republican? I reeeally doubt these people are stumping for the American Freedom or Constitution candidates.
Trump arguably won in 2016 because of the 13% of Obama-Trump voters, Bernie-Trump supporters are also a thing, and not all Trump voters are politically engaged people as aren’t many Democrats, and only about 66% of eligible Americans voted, with lowest rates in the 50s-low 60s being red states. A third party wouldn’t necessarily only “steal” Democrat voters because this isn’t a closed system with one option. The logic I presented there is perfectly valid because not everyone is a leftist, for “not voting Biden is a vote for Trump” to work you have to ignore a bunch of voters and potential voters. It’s just something people say online for people to say “yes” to that has no relevance or impact on material politics at all.
I’m referring specifically to actual politically engaged people who refuse to vote for Biden because he isn’t progressive enough. Also, as I have not addressed it, I do get why they do refuse, as he would not be my first choice either, and I absolutely agree that Biden (and most democrats, tbh) needs to reach out to these voters because the base is more progressive than is reflected in their representation. I was aware of Bernie-Trump voters but, beyond their disdain for the establishment party politicians, I do not understand their motives; however, I will read up on it because it so baffles me.
I do hope that you’re right about this; being a mediocre white guy, I am not really in any danger of the fallout of a Trump presidency beyond what it would mean for all of us, but I don’t want to see more of what happened to marginalized people during his administration, as I fully expect things to be even worse if he gets in, just out of spite and due to redhats becoming even more deeply emboldened to act out. Not that they won’t act out otherwise, but I expect them to see themselves as self-appointed enforcers.
No, because you assume both sides are equally likely to switch their vote to third-parties. Right-wing voters are less susceptible to fits of conscience, and are much more reliable getting to the voting booths. They are more likely retirees, or zealous Fox News foot soldiers. The GOP knows this and that’s why mushy “both sides suck” third-party pushes disfavor democrats.
The lowest rates of voter turnout are actually in red states on average, which are 50s-low 60s, and Trump arguably won because of the 13% of Obama-Trump swing voters. Not all Trump voters are even politically engaged just like most Americans, some see the media and Democrats going crazy about him yet haven’t felt any impact of this on their daily lives so they don’t connect with the “vote for us because we’re not Trump” messaging at all. The most ignored group of Trump voters are people who just vote for him for some dumb superficial reason and don’t really care about politics, next to Obama-Trump swing voters.
I hear your point, but I do think “Obama-Trump swing voters” is a defined group that is fun to talk about without any true diagnostic purpose. It captures too many different types of voters. They’re not all just those who change affiliation with the slightest breeze - many are probably people who went down alt-right rabbit holes between 2012 and 2016, or the cumulative effect of Fox News, or voters who more often vote against the incumbent party seeking “change,” and so on.
But also, even if the lowest rates of turnout is in red states, that doesn’t mean that in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc GOP voters will be more reliably good foot soldiers. Turnout naturally will trend lower where the votes in fact matter the least, I’m sure that’s true for both parties. The relevant metric is comparative voter turnout in swing states.
Isn’t Trump’s victory predicated on an electoral college victory?
How does voting third party impact whether or not your state’s electors vote for Donald Trump?
Sure we do. Look at the very origins of the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln emerged as the frontrunner against a Whig Party that was in full collapse. It was only possible thanks to Freemont’s break from the Whigs in 1856, galvenizing abolitionists into a full formal partisan block.
Or consider the Farmer-Laborer party of North Dakota, which controlled the state for several decades before merging with the Democrats under Roosevelt.
Or consider the rise of Libertarian, Socialist, and Fascist candidates within the major parties. Primary insurgency candidates will routinely build a base of non-partisan support before joining the major parties as outsiders. Sanders ran as an Indie from Vermont for 14 years, before stepping up to run for President in 2016. Donald Trump himself was a Reform Party candidate in 2000 and was a staunch Democratic mega-donor/bundler in New York well, before defecting the GOP in 2012. Senators like Mike Lee and Rand Paul built their brands outside the party system before winning primaries in their respective branches.
The split in the Dem Party in '68 gave rise to Nixon and Reagan’s Southern Strategy, which secured the Presidency for the GOP (with the exception of the narrow Carter win in '76) for the next 24 years. Great news for Dixiecrats who cared more about maintaining racial supremacy than New Deal economics and who found a way to profit handsomely from Reagan-Era giveaways to large land owners and shareholders.
Third Party campaigns have a long and proud history in the US of paving the way for more successful general election runs in subsequent election cycles. They don’t always pay off year-of, but they can have a seismic effect on politics going on decades afterwards.
It doesn’t have to be. If there are enough splits to deny any candidate an outright majority in the EC, the task of choosing a president falls to the congress in the ‘contingent election’ procedure, whereby state congressional delegations each have 1 vote. If 26 states have republican delegations (which seems plausible, given how many states are controlled by the gop) it’s very likely Trump wins if it goes to a contingent election.
If anything, this supports the argument against voting 3rd party protest votes in any FPTP election
Well, double damn then. I’m in a heavily gerrymandered house seat so now my vote extra doesn’t matter.
That’s heavily predicated on how midwestern states manage their house seats in the next election. Pennsylvania’s forced redrawing of maps in 2018 flipped five or six house seats. Wisconsin and Michigan redistricting fights could cost as many more, each. Dems are within range of the House (barring another landslide swing like in 2010 or 2018) if too many of these break the Dems’ way. And now that Dems appear more focused on winning state SCOTUS elections, that’s not inconceivable.
I’m guessing you’re not a Lieberman 2008 guy. And who can blame you?
But folks with sufficiently high name recognition can definitely win third party. Just ask Lisa Murkowski. Or Jesse Ventura, for that matter.
i don’t think so. i voted for howie in 2020 and we got biden.