The animating concept behind the Trump campaign will be chaos. This is what history shows us fascists do when given the chance to participate in democratic political campaigns: They create chaos. They do it because chaos works to their advantage. They revel in it, because they can see how profoundly chaos unnerves democratic-republicans—everyone, that is, whether liberal or conservative, who believes in the basic idea of a representative government that is built around neutral rules. Fascism exists to pulverize neutral rules.

So they campaign with explicit intention to instill a sense of chaos. And then comes the topper: They have the audacity to insist that the only solution to the chaos—that they themselves have either grossly exaggerated or in some cases created!—is to vote for them: “You see, there is nothing but chaos afoot, and only we can restore order!”

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    209
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    11 months ago

    Whatever. I’m voting D no matter what, for every election, because republicans are disgusting traitor filth.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      96
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t consider myself a Democrat, but in this two-horse race, I vote Democrat because, as my father was fond of saying and said as far back as at least the Reagan era, “the worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.” Sad but true. I’d rather have a senate of Bob Menendezes and lose Susan Collins in the mix. Menendez is a corrupt bastard, but at least he votes as if he gives a shit about other people. Collins tries to sound reasonable and fair and then votes in lockstep with the rest of the Republicans most of the time anyway.

    • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      79
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Lol yeah I remember when I used to consider positions, evaluate the candidates, check historical records etc. GOP has made this very easy the last few years because “fuck women, gays, immigrants and the disabled. Science is fake, Jan 6 is fake, covid is fake, trump is a saint and the rich need more help”.

      Wow what a winning platform. ☑️ D

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        GOP has made this very easy

        I’m a Houstonian. I’ll vote straight ticket, but I can already tell you how the election will shake out.

        Texas will go bright red. Houston will go bright blue. My vote at the state and national level won’t matter, because its winner-take-all. And many of my neighbors will be subject to harassment, disenfranchisement, and voter caging because they’ve got African American / Pacific surnames, which flag them as easy targets for reducing D turnout. That’s before you even get into how reliable a Jane Nelson / Ken Paxton administered election is expected to be, given how frequently we’ve had rules for mail-in ballots, voter id, and county-wide voting challenged by the current state administration.

        The GOP has made the decision to vote against them easy. They have made the process to vote against them increasingly difficult.

        Science is fake, Jan 6 is fake, covid is fake, trump is a saint and the rich need more help.

        The same folks who say this shit are the ones expected to tally the results of the election faithfully.

        As the saying goes, “Its not the votes that count but who counts the votes”. Our dogged reliance on the machinery of elections in a state with a decades long history of shady election practices is naive af.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I used to be an Independent voter. I’d consider reasonable Democrats and Republicans alike. No more. Dems down the ballot for me.

    • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Same but I primary whenever I can for candidates that even entertain being progressive. Anyone who want to stop the plutocracy, treat our planet like we need it, or will act with empathy.

    • lir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      67
      ·
      11 months ago

      Too many people can’t bear conscience for voting for someone actively abetting a genocide. A lot are boting 3rd party this year, so the vote’s split

      • root_beer@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        59
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        Cool. Vote third party. We’ll get Trump (or one of the other authoritarian dominionist clowns in the car), who will end up pushing for a nuclear attack on Gaza while dismantling every institution we have here, meager as they are, but people still need them. Then in 2028, don’t vote at all because you will probably lose your right to do so. At least you voted with your heart<3 though, so have a nice cup of tea and give yourself a hug.

        We do not have a system in place where your idealistic protest can do anything other than make things worse. Fix the goddamn system, put people in power on a local level who have a chance, and work up from there. Fuck outta here with any Jill Stein horseshit.

        • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Cool. Vote third party. We’ll get Trump

          If not voting Biden is a vote for Trump, wouldn’t not voting Trump be a vote for Biden by the same logic? The logic only works if you assume all third party voters would be voting Democrat which isn’t the case.

          • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            If not voting Biden is a vote for Trump, wouldn’t not voting Trump be a vote for Biden by the same logic?

            No, because you assume both sides are equally likely to switch their vote to third-parties. Right-wing voters are less susceptible to fits of conscience, and are much more reliable getting to the voting booths. They are more likely retirees, or zealous Fox News foot soldiers. The GOP knows this and that’s why mushy “both sides suck” third-party pushes disfavor democrats.

            • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The lowest rates of voter turnout are actually in red states on average, which are 50s-low 60s, and Trump arguably won because of the 13% of Obama-Trump swing voters. Not all Trump voters are even politically engaged just like most Americans, some see the media and Democrats going crazy about him yet haven’t felt any impact of this on their daily lives so they don’t connect with the “vote for us because we’re not Trump” messaging at all. The most ignored group of Trump voters are people who just vote for him for some dumb superficial reason and don’t really care about politics, next to Obama-Trump swing voters.

              • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I hear your point, but I do think “Obama-Trump swing voters” is a defined group that is fun to talk about without any true diagnostic purpose. It captures too many different types of voters. They’re not all just those who change affiliation with the slightest breeze - many are probably people who went down alt-right rabbit holes between 2012 and 2016, or the cumulative effect of Fox News, or voters who more often vote against the incumbent party seeking “change,” and so on.

                But also, even if the lowest rates of turnout is in red states, that doesn’t mean that in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc GOP voters will be more reliably good foot soldiers. Turnout naturally will trend lower where the votes in fact matter the least, I’m sure that’s true for both parties. The relevant metric is comparative voter turnout in swing states.

          • root_beer@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            You know what I’m talking about. Of course not all third party voters would vote for the Democratic candidate, but how many leftists would otherwise vote for the Republican? I reeeally doubt these people are stumping for the American Freedom or Constitution candidates.

            • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Of course not all third party voters would vote for the Democratic candidate, but how many leftists would otherwise vote for the Republican

              Trump arguably won in 2016 because of the 13% of Obama-Trump voters, Bernie-Trump supporters are also a thing, and not all Trump voters are politically engaged people as aren’t many Democrats, and only about 66% of eligible Americans voted, with lowest rates in the 50s-low 60s being red states. A third party wouldn’t necessarily only “steal” Democrat voters because this isn’t a closed system with one option. The logic I presented there is perfectly valid because not everyone is a leftist, for “not voting Biden is a vote for Trump” to work you have to ignore a bunch of voters and potential voters. It’s just something people say online for people to say “yes” to that has no relevance or impact on material politics at all.

              • root_beer@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                I’m referring specifically to actual politically engaged people who refuse to vote for Biden because he isn’t progressive enough. Also, as I have not addressed it, I do get why they do refuse, as he would not be my first choice either, and I absolutely agree that Biden (and most democrats, tbh) needs to reach out to these voters because the base is more progressive than is reflected in their representation. I was aware of Bernie-Trump voters but, beyond their disdain for the establishment party politicians, I do not understand their motives; however, I will read up on it because it so baffles me.

                I do hope that you’re right about this; being a mediocre white guy, I am not really in any danger of the fallout of a Trump presidency beyond what it would mean for all of us, but I don’t want to see more of what happened to marginalized people during his administration, as I fully expect things to be even worse if he gets in, just out of spite and due to redhats becoming even more deeply emboldened to act out. Not that they won’t act out otherwise, but I expect them to see themselves as self-appointed enforcers.

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

          Cool. Vote third party. We’ll get Trump

          Isn’t Trump’s victory predicated on an electoral college victory?

          How does voting third party impact whether or not your state’s electors vote for Donald Trump?

          We do not have a system in place where your idealistic protest can do anything other than make things worse.

          Sure we do. Look at the very origins of the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln emerged as the frontrunner against a Whig Party that was in full collapse. It was only possible thanks to Freemont’s break from the Whigs in 1856, galvenizing abolitionists into a full formal partisan block.

          Or consider the Farmer-Laborer party of North Dakota, which controlled the state for several decades before merging with the Democrats under Roosevelt.

          Or consider the rise of Libertarian, Socialist, and Fascist candidates within the major parties. Primary insurgency candidates will routinely build a base of non-partisan support before joining the major parties as outsiders. Sanders ran as an Indie from Vermont for 14 years, before stepping up to run for President in 2016. Donald Trump himself was a Reform Party candidate in 2000 and was a staunch Democratic mega-donor/bundler in New York well, before defecting the GOP in 2012. Senators like Mike Lee and Rand Paul built their brands outside the party system before winning primaries in their respective branches.

          The split in the Dem Party in '68 gave rise to Nixon and Reagan’s Southern Strategy, which secured the Presidency for the GOP (with the exception of the narrow Carter win in '76) for the next 24 years. Great news for Dixiecrats who cared more about maintaining racial supremacy than New Deal economics and who found a way to profit handsomely from Reagan-Era giveaways to large land owners and shareholders.

          Third Party campaigns have a long and proud history in the US of paving the way for more successful general election runs in subsequent election cycles. They don’t always pay off year-of, but they can have a seismic effect on politics going on decades afterwards.

          • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Isn’t Trump’s victory predicated on an electoral college victory?

            It doesn’t have to be. If there are enough splits to deny any candidate an outright majority in the EC, the task of choosing a president falls to the congress in the ‘contingent election’ procedure, whereby state congressional delegations each have 1 vote. If 26 states have republican delegations (which seems plausible, given how many states are controlled by the gop) it’s very likely Trump wins if it goes to a contingent election.

            If anything, this supports the argument against voting 3rd party protest votes in any FPTP election

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              If there are enough splits to deny any candidate an outright majority in the EC, the task of choosing a president falls to the congress

              Well, double damn then. I’m in a heavily gerrymandered house seat so now my vote extra doesn’t matter.

              it’s very likely Trump wins if it goes to a contingent election.

              That’s heavily predicated on how midwestern states manage their house seats in the next election. Pennsylvania’s forced redrawing of maps in 2018 flipped five or six house seats. Wisconsin and Michigan redistricting fights could cost as many more, each. Dems are within range of the House (barring another landslide swing like in 2010 or 2018) if too many of these break the Dems’ way. And now that Dems appear more focused on winning state SCOTUS elections, that’s not inconceivable.

              If anything, this supports the argument against voting 3rd party protest votes

              I’m guessing you’re not a Lieberman 2008 guy. And who can blame you?

              But folks with sufficiently high name recognition can definitely win third party. Just ask Lisa Murkowski. Or Jesse Ventura, for that matter.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Vote third party. We’ll get Trump

          i don’t think so. i voted for howie in 2020 and we got biden.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Part of the problem with the Biden Administration (and Obama before him) is that it seems content to allow guys like Abbott and DeSantis to Do As Thou Wilt in their respective states. Biden could win reelection in '24 and we’d still see a genocide of border people, entirely because his administration is unwilling to pick a fight with a powerful governor in a state flush with heavily armed state border guards.

          • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Sorry, I didn’t word that very well. I mean within our borders. The extremists on the right wing get tingly in their swimming suit areas over the idea of killing their fellow citizens, and over stupid shit like not being sufficiently deferential to their Orange Jesus (OJ), being POC, gay, an uppity woman or liberal, and so on.

            I’m assuming they are a fringe, but this kind of terrorism on a nation-state level does not require a majority. Not even all of the conservatives taken as a group are a majority. I suspect the teabaggers types are 30% or less of the population, and the ones that will gleefully cheer on/actively participate in genocide are probably less, but it’s still at a very scary point, since even 10% of them and having a government that backs them is a recipe for disaster.

          • Dojan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I think the logic here is that Biden, while endorsing genocide outside of the U.S., isn’t causing it inside of the borders. With Trump you’d have it both outside and inside.

            Ergo, they see the choice as less genocide or more genocide. Both terrible but why choose more over less?

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Here is why you should never vote third party in a FPTP voting system.

          This only holds when the respective parties are roughly evenly tied with one another and the two major parties have the marginally more-popular candidates.

          In a state where one party or the other is an overwhelming favorite to win, this math doesn’t matter. In a state where both parties have put up a shit candidate (say, you’re in Arizona or West Virginia and being asked to support Kristen Sinema or Joe Manchin yet again), a third party vote is the only way to clear the deck of deplorable alternatives. If you’re in Nebraska and the popular frontrunner is the indie union activist Dan Osbourne you would be foolish to vote party line as that’s effectively a vote for Deb Fischer.

          • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            No, it holds regardless. Your argument is the same as saying there’s no point in voting if you don’t win.

            Your real problem is as I said, Primary Elections, where we have EXCEPTIONALLY terrible voter turnout. The primaries are where you choose your party representatives. If you are complaining about the General election, the fight was already lost.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              there’s no point in voting if you don’t win

              This is demonstrably true, though. Hell, there’s no point to voting if you do win, when the election is sufficiently lopsided. The general election process is the tail end of a far larger and more financially involved whittling of the candidate pool.

              Even then, the focus is on building a movement rather than a single candidate’s campaign. Elections are not one-and-done. Candidates can rise and fall in iterative races based on the coalitions they built (or squandered) in prior campaigns.

              Primary Elections, where we have EXCEPTIONALLY terrible voter turnout

              Turnout hardly matters when only a few candidates have the resources to compete. This Presidential primary is case-in-point. When Trump is favored to win 60% of the primary vote and Biden is virtually uncontested, volume of participation is irrelevant. Whether turnout is 10% or 100%, the same two guys are going to move on to the general.

              I’ll spot you that primaries have an outsized influence and that entryists in the democratic process are savvy to focus their attentions on these races. But Beto O’Rourke winning the primary for Texas Senate and then Texas Governor did nothing to overcome the enormous support-deficit he suffered in the general.

              • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                So what do you propose? Do what instead of voting? Seems like the lowest hanging fruit to me. The left tends to win with turnout. The left tends to be more progressive and more conducive to evidence based problem solving. Fixing the parties at the primary level seems like the lowest effort solution for the largest pay off.

                Encouraging voter apathy is counterproductive, unless you are going to propose we do something else that’s more effective for the same energy expenditure.

                I truly believe that if every person who complained about politics spent as much time voting as they did complaining, we’d have a more representative government.

                We complain about a government that is corrupt, run by the wealthy as if we’re not the ones who put them there. Inaction is an action. Why should they represent our interests if we don’t even vote? All not voting tells a politician is that you aren’t their constituent.

                • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Do what instead of voting?

                  Depends heavily on what kind of problems you’re facing at home. In my home town of Houston, the state government has hijacked the school board of HISD and imposed a bunch of shitty rules and regs, designed to waste money and torture kids. So I joined my local PTA. We go to meetings and harass/shame the bureaucrats involved. We reach out to the teachers and administrators who are under the gun to enforce these policies and offer them our support. There was a picket of the school district’s office in October for instance.

                  Direct action - refusing to comply with harmful public policy, harassing public officials who are advocating and endorsing this policy, and getting other parents and teachers on board with alternative policy that you can implement outside the scope of the administration - is an effective means of undermining an unelected bureaucracy appointed by a corrupt state government.

                  I truly believe that if every person who complained about politics spent as much time voting as they did complaining, we’d have a more representative government.

                  There’s more to politics than complaining. You need workable alternative and you need a popular consensus. Ten different people all pulling in ten different directions won’t affect any kind of change. But ten activists with a shared understanding and vision, pulling in the same direction can.

                  We complain about a government that is corrupt, run by the wealthy as if we’re not the ones who put them there.

                  We’re not. Far more often, it is the wealthy and well-organized interest and advocacy groups that put these people in power.

                  Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton aren’t rogue agents who just kinda bubbled up from a political morass. They are the direct beneficiaries of large social mobilizations - O&G lobbying groups paid for with overpriced fossil fuels, large religious organizations like Houston’s Second Baptist Church and Lakewood Church which galvenize masses of people along socially conservative political issues, doctors and lawyers and real estate associations and car dealership clubs who have formed cartels designed to guarantee higher salaries. One of the most politically active people in my community is Jim “Mattress Mack” McIngvale, a local celebrity businessman with a penchant for hookers and blow and QAnon conspiracy bullshit. This guy single-handedly bankrolls half a dozen talk-radio shock jocks with his advertising money and influences hundreds of thousands of my neighbors. Another is Dr. Peter Hoetz, a close personal friend of Dinesh D’Souza, who helped produce “2000 Mules” a documentary about how Joe Biden stole the 2020 election from Donald Trump.

                  Knowing who these people are and how they influence the body politick is instrumental in understanding where and how public opinion is crafted and distributed. If you’re just showing up to the polls every two years and praying that Truth Will Prevail, you’re walking to the slaughter. Only by recognizing who these assholes are, how they’re seeding conspiracy theory and bigotry into the public domain, and where they fucking live so you can put a few rocks through their windows, can you discourage them from continuing.

        • Clbull@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I think the problem is that third parties are thinking too big. You can’t just rival the Democrats or Republicans on a national level overnight.

          Let’s say hypothetically, one state becomes disillusioned with the mainstream parties and a third secessionist party starts making headway in mayoral and state elections, soon winning over the people.

          If it’s a big state like Texas, that’s well over a hundred electoral college votes lost for the Republicans.

          • GaMEChld@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The problem is the spoiler effect. It’s a well documented shortcoming of FPTP.

            We need to all ask ourselves what is the biggest impact I can make politically with the energy I am willing to spend. For me, energy spent voting should never be LESS than energy spent complaining about politics.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s funny. It’s already election year and you can’t even name a 3rd Party candidate with any sort of shot. But yes, some perfect candidate will declare in late September, right?

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          The Green Party was an absurd joke even decades before Stein the Russian useful idiot came along…

          I hate it, but there is just no viable third party choice for progressives in this country.