I see two motivations people give behind their voting decision: to express their preference, or to affect policy. Given the opportunities available to achieve both of these ends, the protest vote generally strikes me as taking your hands off the wheel to shout at the other drivers.
âMultivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.â
2 Likes
I understand thatâs the running narrative, but people who actually track that kind of thing (including Politifact) disagree.
Note: I voted Sanders.
7 Likes
Yeah, itâs been kind of disheartening (if not surprising) to see how this has played out. Twenty-five years ago Hillary Clinton came on the scene, and AM talk radio started screaming about how she was a lying, conniving, backstabbing, hyper-controlling bitch on wheels. The further left you were, the more you rolled your eyes and saw that for the pure unadulterated rage-fueled sexism that it was.
And then gradually, gradually, over the course of a quarter century, they got it to become the basic narrative starting point about her even for some segments of the Left. Credit where itâs dueâthey played the long game here. The 20-year-old âprogressiveâ who agrees with her on 95% of the issues and yet somehow knows in his soul that Clinton is a scheming harpy wouldnât have gotten there if Rush Limbaugh and company hadnât been incredibly persistent with the narrative they built around her.
7 Likes
You hit this on the nose. HRC had to build her political base while working voters in the U.S. were still voting too often for Gingrich and W types. She was tough, pragmatic and made pragmatic alliances. Does that make the tired, old âfeminaziâ AM radio narratives about her true? It doesnât.
5 Likes
Too much bombast on my part.
I mean that Clintonâs progressive promises shouldnât be trusted. These arenât her core positions, and the constituencies that she caters to attend demanding them.
Iâm willing to wait and see how the Clinton campaign and the DNC respond to Bernieâs clear endorsement before making any decisions either way.
You said previously that you refuse to vote whatsoever.
Write in ballot. Itâs what Iâm doing.
I generally only vote primaries, but could be motivated by an actual show of something awesome.
Just remember that if you support a liberal progressive platform then your reluctant Clinton vote will do loads and loads to change the things in the Democratic party that you donât like.
Right?
1 Like
Voting for HRC will help stop the racist GOP from changing the policies, laws, budgets, voting districts that you may like.
To change the democratic party platform, we have to do more than vote every two years.
6 Likes
She probably has the numbers already with her base.
To some itâs less of a risk than pinning our hopes on some unprecedented reinvigoration of the electorate.
I donât know how Iâm going to vote, but Iâm not going to begrudge people who deliberate on the risk and choose to take it.
2 Likes
Agreed. Do we agree that voting is the bare minimum, entry level work for progressive politics?
And the Sanders campaign does seem at least like a not recently precedented reinvigoration of the working voter electorate.
2 Likes
OK, but letâs compare the possible scenarios given the candidates and the two-party system:
- Hillary wins, delivers on progressive promises: net win
- Hillary wins, does not deliver on progressive promises: White House promotes status quo, leaving other politicians to push for a progressive agenda
- Trump wins, delivers on horrific promises: fascist hellscape
- Trump wins, does not deliver on horrific promises: US still becomes a (far bigger) laughingstock, progressive politicians must wait 4-8 years to even attempt furthering a progressive agenda
Any way you slice it a Clinton win is still the best way to go.
8 Likes
Unfortunately, 1-4 all include more years of zero effective action on climate change. Which is globally suicidal.
We need to shut down the global coal industry today. Not in a decade or three, now.
Would it be better under Trump? Absolutely not. Are we all lethally fucked whichever one wins? Yup.
1 Like
Then an HRC vote is a necessary but not sufficient condition for accelerating toward the goal, right?
2 Likes
My point is that a gradual acceleration âtowardsâ is fatally insufficient. It isnât a âgoalâ, itâs an immediate necessity. And a vote for Clinton is a statement that the status quo, although flawed, is tolerable. It isnât.
Itâs 1936 and weâve got one side claiming that Adolph is our friend, while the other is suggesting that we might, at some indefinite point in the future, consider slightly reducing the amount of arms weâre selling to Germany.
Honestly, I think weâre at least a decade past the point where it became ethically justified to physically sabotage carbon-polluting infrastructure.
2 Likes
I agree but donât see a more rapid acceleration option that doesnât include voting for HRC. The goal is to increase alignment among stakeholders and reach sufficient political consensus for action as fast as possible. It is damage control, and it is going too slowly.
Thatâs why you donât call it a day once Hillary takes office. You continue backing any politician or group that will push for a progressive stance on climate change.
Sure, Hillary isnât as far left as many of us would like. But itâs a hell of a lot more likely that progressives will make progress on climate change under a pragmatic centrist than under a fascist egomaniac.
1 Like
