I don’t get it. You are a progressive voter. You agree the difference should be enough to make you vote Democrat, yet you don’t. Why?
The rest of your argument rests on the assumption that moving the policies of a presidential candidate is easier than moving individual votes. But how can that be the case? The positions a presidential candidate take are determined by a lot of very powerful, sometimes mutually exclusive interests. The positions a presidential candidate takes are the results of a lot of work and negotiations among these competing interests. Of course it is incredibly hard to change the policies of a candidate.
On the other hand, individual voters like yourself have two choices, and it seems reasonable you would choose the best of the two, or the least bad, if you will. You yourself said that the differences between the two choices you have should be enough to convince the voter to choose the option closer to their ideals.
So it seems to me that convincing individual voters is a much more efficient and likely to be successful strategy than trying to change the policies of Kamala.
I’m talking about how best to reach those potential voters so Kamala doesn’t fuck it up.
My bad then. I thought you were justifying not voting for Kamala. Of course I agree with both tactics being used. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive
I don’t get it. You are a progressive voter. You agree the difference should be enough to make you vote Democrat, yet you don’t. Why?
The rest of your argument rests on the assumption that moving the policies of a presidential candidate is easier than moving individual votes. But how can that be the case? The positions a presidential candidate take are determined by a lot of very powerful, sometimes mutually exclusive interests. The positions a presidential candidate takes are the results of a lot of work and negotiations among these competing interests. Of course it is incredibly hard to change the policies of a candidate.
On the other hand, individual voters like yourself have two choices, and it seems reasonable you would choose the best of the two, or the least bad, if you will. You yourself said that the differences between the two choices you have should be enough to convince the voter to choose the option closer to their ideals.
So it seems to me that convincing individual voters is a much more efficient and likely to be successful strategy than trying to change the policies of Kamala.
What?
I’ve voted D for literal decades, exactly one of those times I was voting for someone and not against R.
And the only reason I haven’t already voted D, is Im in the blue part of a red state and they like to play games with mail ins.
I’m talking about how best to reach those potential voters so Kamala doesn’t fuck it up.
So if you want to yell at someone till they vote, it’s not me. I literally can’t vote for Kamala anymore than I already am. Just one vote homie.
I don’t think your approach will actually help, but I’m not going to stop you or discourage you from what you think will help stop Trump.
And I’d appreciate it if you dont try and stop progressices from trying to pull Kamala left to meet voters.
Maybe your way is faster. Maybe my way is.
But I feel like the best bet is both us doing it, and the worst bet is us both stopping to have a slap fight with each other.
Or you could double down on arguing, I’d just block you tho, trump is to dangerous to be wasting time with that.
My bad then. I thought you were justifying not voting for Kamala. Of course I agree with both tactics being used. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive