Scalia died almost a full year before Obama left office. That was his appointment, but the Dems didn’t bother putting up a fight because they were convinced Clinton would be the next president and wanted to focus on the election. Then in freaking late October 2020, days before the election, they once again allowed another Trump appointment without putting up any sort of fight or stall tactic because they didn’t want to rock the boat before the election.
The party should have fielded better candidates instead of constantly pushing candidates that appeal to right-wing voters who would never even vote for them to begin with.
Seems that’s the only direction they go since all their wealthy donors prefer it that way which is why we keep getting status quo “business as usual” candidates like Clinton and Biden getting all the party support, while progressive candidates get sidelined, get excluded from debates, get zero media coverage, get treated like lunatics, etc.
If you think voters are “getting what they want” then you haven’t been paying attention to politics in this country.
What “strategy?” That’s what the system is. It’s a two-party system, inherently.
You have two candidates to pick from. You either pick the candidate who is closer to your ideals or you pick the candidate that’s farther away from your ideals. If you don’t vote or you vote for a “third party” candidate then you’re just throwing your choice away and abdicating it to those who do vote for one of those two options.
the video you linked called it strategic voting, and the real takeaway from that video is that strategic voting leads to voters having fewer choices and losing representation.
If they don’t vote strategically then they give the advantage to their opponents. The alternative is to take votes away from a party that doesn’t quite align with you but could win and give them instead to a party that can’t win, resulting in an increased chance of the party that doesn’t align with you at all winning.
It’s a question of whether you want to win somewhat or lose completely. Democracy is compromise; you’re never going to find a candidate that perfectly aligns with your interests.
If you insist that you will only vote for a niche third-party candidate under a system like America’s, then you’ve taken yourself out of the effective voting pool. Now neither of the two candidates who has a chance of winning needs to care about your interests at all.
Banking on voters picking the least terrible option instead of giving them actual reasons to vote is a dogshit strategy that disenfranchises voters, loses elections, and gives republicans a majority. That dogshit strategy.
Again, it’s not a choice to rely on that. It’s the physics of the system. There is no other practical way to contest an election in the United States. It’s a first-past-the-post electoral system.
There. Are. Two. Candidates.
Only two. You pick from those two. One of them will likely be closer to your ideals, the other will be farther away from your ideals. Pick one. Which one do you pick? The one closer to your ideals, or the one farther away?
Or will you decide not to vote at all and just let everyone else pick for you? How is that a better strategy? You still get one of those two candidates.
Your RGB point is the first one of merit. Sure should have left at an advantageous time.
The judges were appointed by a majority Republican Congress with a republican president. In what way could democrats stop it?
Scalia died almost a full year before Obama left office. That was his appointment, but the Dems didn’t bother putting up a fight because they were convinced Clinton would be the next president and wanted to focus on the election. Then in freaking late October 2020, days before the election, they once again allowed another Trump appointment without putting up any sort of fight or stall tactic because they didn’t want to rock the boat before the election.
The majority republican congress and the republican president are also their fault. They’re pretty much the only ones running against them.
So more people should have voted Democrat, despite misgivings, to avoid a worse outcome that comes from not voting Democrat.
It’s a two-party system, those are your choices.
The party should have fielded better candidates instead of constantly pushing candidates that appeal to right-wing voters who would never even vote for them to begin with.
When the farther right candidate wins, that’s the direction they go. It sucks, but they’re going to follow the voters.
Seems that’s the only direction they go since all their wealthy donors prefer it that way which is why we keep getting status quo “business as usual” candidates like Clinton and Biden getting all the party support, while progressive candidates get sidelined, get excluded from debates, get zero media coverage, get treated like lunatics, etc.
If you think voters are “getting what they want” then you haven’t been paying attention to politics in this country.
That is exactly the kind of dogshit strategy that disenfranchises voters, loses elections and gives republicans a majority.
What “strategy?” That’s what the system is. It’s a two-party system, inherently.
You have two candidates to pick from. You either pick the candidate who is closer to your ideals or you pick the candidate that’s farther away from your ideals. If you don’t vote or you vote for a “third party” candidate then you’re just throwing your choice away and abdicating it to those who do vote for one of those two options.
If you want it to be different from that then the fundamental voting system itself needs to be changed. The current one that America operates under inevitably becomes two-party. CPG Grey did a video a few years ago explaining why this is so.
the video you linked called it strategic voting, and the real takeaway from that video is that strategic voting leads to voters having fewer choices and losing representation.
If they don’t vote strategically then they give the advantage to their opponents. The alternative is to take votes away from a party that doesn’t quite align with you but could win and give them instead to a party that can’t win, resulting in an increased chance of the party that doesn’t align with you at all winning.
if I vote for somebody who doesnt align with me I can’t win at all.
It’s a question of whether you want to win somewhat or lose completely. Democracy is compromise; you’re never going to find a candidate that perfectly aligns with your interests.
If you insist that you will only vote for a niche third-party candidate under a system like America’s, then you’ve taken yourself out of the effective voting pool. Now neither of the two candidates who has a chance of winning needs to care about your interests at all.
Banking on voters picking the least terrible option instead of giving them actual reasons to vote is a dogshit strategy that disenfranchises voters, loses elections, and gives republicans a majority. That dogshit strategy.
“Picking the least terrible option” is a reason to vote. It’s the only one that the system allows for.
Relying on that is a dogshit strategy that disenfranchises voters, loses elections, and gives republicans a majority
Again, it’s not a choice to rely on that. It’s the physics of the system. There is no other practical way to contest an election in the United States. It’s a first-past-the-post electoral system.
There. Are. Two. Candidates.
Only two. You pick from those two. One of them will likely be closer to your ideals, the other will be farther away from your ideals. Pick one. Which one do you pick? The one closer to your ideals, or the one farther away?
Or will you decide not to vote at all and just let everyone else pick for you? How is that a better strategy? You still get one of those two candidates.
In that case it’s their parents faults for fucking.
It’s not their parents fault they’re incompetent corrupt pieces of shit. Or maybe it is a little bit, just not as much.