news Update - Cornel West launching multi-3rd party POTUS run, seeking Green Party nom

[Harrier]

24 minutes ago, Communion said:

What's not strategic about voting for a person who says they support M4A while both Democrats and Republicans refuse to support M4A?

 

How do you teach a politician that M4A is a necessary policy if they don't have to fear ever losing your vote for not supporting it?

But you completely ignore the fact that 'teaching a politican' means willingly handing the presidency over the christofascists to score a moral victory against the neolibs. it's clearly and obviously illogical to vote for a candidate that can't win instead of using your vote to sway a result to a more favorable outcome.

 

Your logic only works if you think Biden & the Republicans are the same. You can point to individual issues where they are the same - like on M4A - to argue that case. But it's a completely indefensible idea that they are the same more broadly.

 

So third party voters are:

(a) irrational in that they can't distinguish between candidates they don't like

(b) moral purists that refuse to think of voting strategically

(c) single-issue voters

(d) just doing an emotional protest

(e) believe in a theory of accelerationism where we let the fascists win until socialism takes over or whatever (good luck with that one)

 

 

[Communion]

14 minutes ago, Harrier said:

a moral victory

Again, this is the issue at hand. You want to frame it that people could only be achieving something abstract like an emotion or doing a decision rooted in abstract morals, but when both parties are materially the same on an a specific policy, then no, the decision is indeed strategic with a clear set of material goals weighed against material losses. 

 

If the material reality of M4A passing or not is objectively the same whether Biden or Trump would win, how is it then a moral decision to not vote for Biden when the material harm is not worsened by fallout from Trump?

 

You can decry "single issue voters" but you're essentially also asking peopoe to be single issue voters on abstract concepts like democracy. 

 

Are you nervous there's more single issue voters on healthcare than on issues like democracy or foreign policy or LGBT rights? 

 

If there are so many single issue voters on healthcare, doesn't that sound like a policy imperative than to any winning presidential campaign?

[Sazare]

13 hours ago, Ryan said:

Question: Why is it that you people seem hellbent on supporting candidates with no record of success or failure, with no experience in government on any level, and think they can win a national campaign when they can’t even win local/county/state elections?

Well. Our last president managed to take office despite lacking all those qualifications. And I suspect that won’t be the last time that happens.

[loveisdead9582]

13 hours ago, Ryan said:

I don’t think anyone under the age of 40 is genuinely excited for Biden. We know the reality we’re facing and no one on the left wants a repeat of the Trump Administration. Biden isn’t the one people want, but he’s the only option that legitimately stands a shot at thwarting Trump (who will win the nomination). 
 

I can’t afford to be idealistic. The reality is someone actively trying to make our lives miserable versus someone who isn’t great but isn’t the most terrible either. It’s a pragmatic approach. 

All of this. I would’ve preferred Bernie or half of the other candidates but Biden is what we got. 

[Archetype]

1 minute ago, Sazare said:

Well. Our last president managed to take office despite lacking all those qualifications. And I suspect that won’t be the last time that happens.

Tr*mp is an extremely obvious standout due to his personality, popularity, money, connections, etc. A votable candidate without relevant qualifications and experience needs to be somewhat popular and make noise (good or bad) outside of their niche starter fanbase. This guy does not have that.

 

11 minutes ago, Communion said:

when both parties are materially the same on an a specific policy, then no, the decision is indeed strategic with a clear set of material goals weighed against material losses. 

You'd be correct if your strategy was to vote for a candidate that is 100% going to lose, which in turn looks like a protest vote with zero impact.

 

[Communion]

10 minutes ago, Archetype said:

that is 100% going to lose

Again, how is this a meaningfully persuasive argument when the objective reality is there being no difference between Trump and Biden on the specific policy? 

 

"Your candidate is going to lose" doesn't convince anyone. If my candidate loses, M4A doesn't happen. But also, M4A doesn't happen whether Biden wins or loses or Trump wins or loses. But Democrats may be forced to support it if they lose because they lost progressice. Maybe someone like Cornel West could get to 5% and thus qualify for national funding then used to elect actual progressives into state legislatures and Congress. 

 

You can't run on "nothing is still better than losing everything" and then try and argue it's irrational to vote for the small chance of something over nothing cause, y'know, something is better than nothing. 

 

Odd how we wouldn't be having these conversations if Biden simply didn't hate poor people and didn't hate universal healthcste. 

 

Also  at referring to Dr. West as "this guy". Are some of yall even American?

 

[ClashAndBurn]

2 hours ago, Harrier said:

Cornel is welcome to do what he wants. It's a democracy. I do hope that his campaign can help move Biden left in some way along with Marianne and I prefer progressives to do something as opposed to what Bernie, AOC, Liz Warren etc seem to be doing right now.

 

But progressives that actually do vote for him in swing states in Nov 2024, rather than merely threatening to do so, would be making a tremendous mistake. That much is obvious. Trump/Desantis are not worth a quick lil W against corporate dems.

 

I hope that people play it right and ultimately choose to use their votes strategically instead of basing it on emotion. That's how we should view voting, as one part of a strategy to move things leftward - not this absurd moral thing where we can only vote for candidates that completely align with our views. Hell that's certainly how I vote in my country.

He won’t even make the ballot in most states. Democrats have been successfully suing to keep the Green Party off in states like North Carolina and intimidating/guilting Senate candidates into dropping out and endorsing corporate Democrats like Sinema.

 

People’s Party has much less legitimacy than the Green Party. It’s an actual joke. If he’d run for the Green Party nomination, he’d genuinely have a better chance, even though it’d still be zero.

[Ryan]

42 minutes ago, Communion said:

Again, how is this a meaningfully persuasive argument when the objective reality is there being no difference between Trump and Biden on the specific policy? 

 

"Your candidate is going to lose" doesn't convince anyone. If my candidate loses, M4A doesn't happen. But also, M4A doesn't happen whether Biden wins or loses or Trump wins or loses. But Democrats may be forced to support it if they lose because they lost progressice. Maybe someone like Cornel West could get to 5% and thus qualify for national funding then used to elect actual progressives into state legislatures and Congress. 

 

You can't run on "nothing is still better than losing everything" and then try and argue it's irrational to vote for the small chance of something over nothing cause, y'know, something is better than nothing. 

 

Odd how we wouldn't be having these conversations if Biden simply didn't hate poor people and didn't hate universal healthcste. 

 

Also  at referring to Dr. West as "this guy". Are some of yall even American?

 

 

Okay, Susan Sarandon. 

[Communion]

6 minutes ago, Ryan said:

 

Okay, Susan Sarandon. 

I mean, if you think Biden is a progressive president, then her theory was proven true. 

 

There's no way for Sarandon's acceleration theory AND Biden being a progressive president who moved to the left on issues from pressure to both be false. As they both prove the truth of one another. If Biden succeeded, Sarandon was right that the reaction to Trump moved Dems to the left. If Sarandon is wrong, that's a confession that Biden has been a conservative president who has only made things worse and moved Dems to the right. 

 

Which is why it's funny when partisans try to mock the idea of 3rd party voters as irrelevant because all it does is suggest voting at large is materially insignificant. 

 

"Yes, Biden sucks and NO you will NEVER convince him to change". You just convinced countless people to not vote lol?

[DAP]

He has no chance of winning (much less candidacy) and he knows it but then that’s the point isn’t it? That the US government is not a democratic institution. 

[Bloodflowers.]

Democracy is a good thing, two party system never gets you anything but of course Democrat and Republican party won't allow any change to happen

[chessguy99]

This is how Trump wins. A credible progressive to siphon off the die hard progressives who vote Democrat because what alternative do they have.

[JoeAg]

I like him, but I will say I like Marianne more

 

I just wish either of them had a chance...

[Communion]

 

https://twitter.com/CornelWest/status/1668781531849199616

Well things just got interesting 

[Vroom Vroom]

11 hours ago, Communion said:

 

https://twitter.com/CornelWest/status/1668781531849199616

Well things just got interesting 

This changes everything. If he gets on the Green Party ticket he could make an impact on the final election results