this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
93 points (87.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7179 readers
347 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
First step first in bluffing: Don't. Whats great about that strategy, is that when/ if they call your "bluff", you now have the opportunity to go all in.
So what does all in look like? I've been wondering and thinking about this.
Here is what I propose:
Some kind of simple website maybe similar to an act-blue thing. Effectively it is a map with some numbers and the text "Arms embargo now!"
The premise: you go to this website and sign up (maybe via act-blue so they know we're not faking it.) By signing up, you are effectively you are making a commitement to withhold your vote in November if the Harris/ Biden administration/ Harris campaign does not commit to an arms embargo. The count of voters who have committed to with-holding their vote is displayed on each state. These numbers are compared to the "tipping numbers" from 2020. Keep in mind that its was counts of votes in the ranges of 10's of thousands that determined the 2020 election. Every day, a digest of this is sent as a press release to a bunch of left/ progressive/ mainstream media outlets.
Effectively, you put it out there that our votes are on the line, and she can do a thing, and it releases the donations to the Harris campaign.
Sorry, that didn't answer my main question at all.
I understand what the movements goals are. I'm not interested in discussing the strategy.
My thinking goes like this, say the movement is a major success. And she tries to call your bluff (again lack of a better phrase here) and the movement true to its word and values succeed in being the deciding vote, let's say. What are the possible results? There's likely more than two but the obvious groups are either she loses or she wins. My question is then what?
She either won without the movement kinda giving them a political w and proving their power all while demoralizing folks that get invested. Or, she loses and the movement is blamed and scapegoated as the sole reason she lost and whole lot else.
I'm wondering about what folks in this movement think will happen after the election. Are we ready for the worst-caae scenario?
I mean the basic idea here is to make it obvious what the candidate is leaving on the table. Its setting up a basic quid-pro-quo. If she wins without the movement well its not like she was listening anyways, so nothing gained nothing lost. If she loses, its gonna be pretty fucking obvious that she could have won by listening.
The issue is that by allowing the candidate to continue down a deeply unpopular path, you are setting up the worst case scenario. We have an exact historical analog with Joe Biden no less than 2 months ago. There is this brain parasite that got into leftist communities around strategic voting which is just factually and functionally wrong a couple years ago, and its done real fucking damage. Supporting the lessor of two evils actually makes the lessor evil less likely to succeed.
By allowing the candidate with a policy position that 80% of the US voters disapprove of, we're doing her a disservice and decreasing her chances of success.
Fair enough. We're talking past each other at this point and I don't really feel like repeating myself.
I disagree with the movement's strategy, and lack thereof, and I disagree with your entire first paragraph. There is absolutely a lot to lose and it's beyond frustrating and disrespectful for someone like you to say there isn't. I'd implore you to think about even just one negative outcome that could occur because of your movement's lack of consideration for their fellow citizens.
That said, I'd bet decent money you're not a Muslim-American, that could be banned from visiting their family in a foreign country, or a Mexican-American that might be at risk of being deported/their family being deported, etc. My guess is you'll be just fine no matter what happens and you don't really care about the people that could suffer most due to your reactionary political goals.
It seems that way because you are insisting that a strategy which has been objectively demonstrated to work, in the very recent past, is going to backfire. Your stance is completely ahistorical and without merit. Its based on speculation and ignores the facts on the ground the very real demonstration that by withholding your vote, you can move politicians to a better, more popular political position.
So to be clear, your disagreement isn't with me, its with objective reality; material factual things that have happened.
You've convinced yourself you are doing harm reduction by telling a people being genocided that its fine because look this party that also supports your genocide has a brown woman leading it. The fact that the Democrats are no better on Gaza hurts them in November and we can fix that. In-fact, holding back votes specifically to move the party on some issue is the only thing that has kept Democrats competitive in this race.
The exact same argument you are making right now was being made 3 months ago regarding Joe Biden. That we needed to support Joe or else. That we needed to back Biden because Trump.
And it was wrong. It wasn't wisdom it was idiocy. The exact argument you are making now was the same exact argument that led to Democrats UTTERLY FUCKING FAILING in November.
You just want to believe yourself to be on the side of what you perceive to be "right" but you have no evidence to suggest that what you are doing is actual harm reduction.
And guess what? The uncommited movement is being led by Muslim-Americans, so this point:
Is just complete bullshit. If you are voting blindly for Democrats, you ARE the fucking problem because you are enabling them to have these shitty stances which cause real material harm, AND you are decreasing their chances of success in November.
Dude, I didn't say most of what you're assuming I said. It's weird what you're doing. We're not convincing each other of anything. The idea is to try and understand each other. I'm not going to engage with the original convo anymore because it's not fruitful. Now, I'm more interested in the poor/lack of communication going on.
I mean, you wrote a whole lot in response to my saying "you're not understanding me" with a defensive rant about how you are actually understanding me, I just can't tell or am lying to you. I'll say it once more. You're not understanding me or what I'm trying to convey. I'll accept my part in failing to communicate but it takes two.. to u know not assume an entire thesis about what the other is sayinf
I personally would never criticize people doing what you're doing (not voting/voting third party). I disagree with it, but do your thing. I tend to criticize the Dems so it's wild you think I was saying Biden shouldn't drop out. You're saying legit silly things and it only makes sense to you and maybe people that already agree with you. I mean, you didn't even answer the one question I asked, about what happens after the election, and you now you've jumped to thinking I'm against everything you stand for or something. That's wild bro!
This is what frustrates me most. I disagreed with one thing you said, and you went nuclear like I'm basically your number one enemy. It's like you'd prefer to be all alone and/or have less allies.
I honestly care a bit less about politics since realizing most of us can't even have a very basic, low-stakes conversation about what each person thinks. I mean, if we don't truly understand what the other is saying what's the point?