• Wrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Uhh huh. You seriously think any of the voters that we lose to RFK Jr or West care at all about things like policy or actions of democrats in office? Reality has no place in that discussion. Unless democrats start going for the fringe conspiracy nutter vote, those votes are a lost cause

    • Dinsmore@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I would love it if that were the view that most Democrats had - then I could vote for the people I like in peace. Unfortunately, every day we get a new “vote blue no matter the genocide” post trying to shame people into voting for Biden. I pray to one day be a lost cause who isn’t worth being yelled at (the earlier the better).

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s always a group that is simultaneously

      • big enough to ruin the election for the democratic candidate
      • too small to make it worth pursuing their votes
      • OKRainbowKid@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t see how those statements are contradicting each other within the context of US presidential elections.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          If they are big enough to ruin re-election chances then they are by definition big enough to make pursuing their votes worthwhile (because without them you will loose)

          If you want a system where you can disregard that reality then you need a different electoral process. An easy way to mitigate that risk is to eliminate 3rd party candidates and make voting mandatory (or pressure 3rd parties to drop out and guilt non-voters into voting, as it were), but an astute observer might notice that looks an awful lot like something called a ‘sham democracy’.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Lol no, but as long as you’re asking what I want: I want a system that can provide actual choices, rather than force a choice nobody wants.

              But as long as that’s not realistic, I want the choice that’s blaming me for the destruction of my country to address my concerns in exchange for me choosing them.

              What is definitely NOT what I want is to be blamed for my country’s destruction AND have my concerns be ignored. That doesn’t seem like a good system to me.

              • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Lol no, but as long as you’re asking what I want: I want a system that can provide actual choices, rather than force a choice nobody wants.

                Well voting third party, even if that party managed to succeed, will not accomplish what you claim to want.

                We’ve had third parties that were successful in the past, guess what happened to the old party? It was displaced and became electorally irrelevant and then we were back to two parties again.

                  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    So how does voting for third party do anything to further any change to the current system toward one you’re talking about?

                    This really isn’t that complicated. The country doesn’t run a two-party system because of arbitrary or conspiratorial reasons, it runs one because the system’s structure produces two parties.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Anything to place the blame on a small outside group and away from the main inside group who holds power and responsibility over their current predicament.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m pretty sure everyone cares about their own well-being. I haven’t been paying much attention to RFK Jr since he’s a non-factor, but at a glance I can see why some would like his policies: https://www.usatoday.com/elections/voter-guide/2024-11-05/candidate/robert-f-kennedy

      Yes, there is the whole conspiracy theory thing, but I don’t think entire groups of people should be completely written off as crazy since people’s justifications and motivations aren’t so straightforward. I often see democrats claiming that we shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to faults with their favored candidate, but this luxury isn’t afforded to other candidates. If support for genocide can be overlooked, I’m sure far lesser things can be as well (though RFK Jr is the same on support for Israel/genocide as Biden).