I am not arguing that you supported Trump. I specifically stated that I believe you hate Trump. I am suggesting that you should have been rooting for Trump in 2016 given your beliefs, and that for the same reason, it would make sense for you to root for him in 2024 if he is running against a Joe Biden type in the general election.

It's perfectly defensible to vote for the lesser of two evils. In 2016, you apparently saw Trump as the lesser of two evils (not personally, but in terms of his effect on the United States in the long term). You have explained your reasons. I don't find those reasons compelling. In fact, I find them crazy. That's why I expressed skepticism that you really believed what you were saying. But if you do, that's fine. We don't have the luxury of running parallel universes to see which one of us is correct. So I guess there is nothing more to say.

Oh you don't have to infer or assume this at all. Here's Bernie Sanders' press secretary asking whether progressives should just "let" Trump win.



I think it's flawed for many reasons. It's not clear progressives have that power, it's not obvious that the DNC will come to the conclusion they need to move left if Trump wins, if you think the status quo sucks, younger, poorer less white voters not voting 40 years ago (the group progressives claim, perhaps dubiously, are the most progressive) lead to the current status quo etc. Did not vote already beats every candidate every year. Not at all clear a small subset joining the largest political faction in the country is going to somehow make things much different than they are.

Bolded is just a wee bit discordant with:

It is theoretically possible for short term disasters to lead to better long term improvements in society. No one is arguing against that concept in the abstract. The question on the table is whether the election of Trump is one of those short term disasters. Your statement above makes clear that you believe it was. That's where we disagree.

It is not discordant at all.

In this Trump and Hilary can be the specific examples but the principle i am exposing for my BELIEF SYSTEM can transcend them as individuals.

I believe that voter turn falling, voter apathy in general, and citizens views of politicians generally falling to ridiculous lows are all connected.

They are all connected via citizens feeling they have no power in these Lesser or Two Evils gambits forced upon them.

This was leading us to a slippery slope to disaster eventually and the longer people kept accepting the Lesser of Two Evils gambit the worse it would eventual become.

I believe Trump was only possible because people kept having the lesser of two evils shoveled down their throat for decades prior.

And had Hilary defeated Trump then that slide would have worsened making it more likely that another Trump or worse Trump could win in the future.

I believe the system was sick. That a healthy system that is not lesser of two evils cannot produce a Trump that is viable. That it only once all confidence in politicians is so eroded that a Trump can appear and win.

You don't have to agree and I am fine with that but you telling me I am wrong or it does not make sense is nonsense. It is my opinion and i 100% believe it. Thus it is not wrong.

Once Politicians realized neither Party had to actually deliver on election issues or promises as the other side was no better that relieved them of that burden jointly and allowed them to turn unabashedly to serving the donors once elected and instead to just campaign on the Lesser of Two evils gambit.

That is terrible for a Country and I believe Hilary would have accelerated the US down that line and Trump has at least opened the door to that changing back towards the better again. We will see before 2024 and in the 2024 GE if the Dems go back to full status quo (lesser of two evils gambits) again, but for now I think many think they actually need to move away from that and offer (and hopefully deliver) real substance.

to be clear Rococo I have no issue with you disagreeing.

I only take issue if you suggest the thought process or belief is wrong or flawed.

We can agree to disagree on what the results may be in the future and only the future will tell.

I am generally a pessimist in politics so I am not expecting any grand huge win. But the slide we were on was pretty clear in my view. IT was straight down into the very depths of Lesser of Two evils with the Republicans moving ever more Right and the Dems getting as close as possible with as little daylight as possible and then screaming at voters 'you NEED to vote. LESSER OF TWO EVILS!'

A 'Trump' like figure was always going to be born of this descent imo. it was inevitable.

His appeal for so many was the wrecking ball aspect or '**** everyone' nature of his candidacy which only happens when you have eroded so badly the faith in both parties and all politicians.

Some embrace some chaos when they can see the controlled descent is heading to hell regardless.

Other people criticize you as an old codger. I've never done that, and I don't think it is fair.

The quote above is evidence that you are keeping up with the times. Most U.S. teenagers agree with this sentiment.

That’s not at all what she said.

Voter turnout is not falling in presidential elections in the United States. Turnout % among the voting age population has been relatively stable since WWI, ranging from 48.2% to 62.8%.

The 62% turnout in 2020 was the second highest in the last century, and the highest since 1960.

Yeah. That's an exceptionally aggressive interpretation of that tweet.

If the Democrats move away from the status quo, it won't be because of Trump imo. I feel very strongly that Bernie would have had a better chance of winning the 2020 primary if the Republican candidate had been someone other than Trump.

It’s funny because it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if there actually are Berniebro wing nuts out there who really would take Trump over Biden. Brie-Brie was booted off Bernie’s team for being too much of an obnoxious wingnut. Of course I could also play the game of finding unsavory Clinton associates who’ve said/done silly things, not too sure what anyone would take away from that game of cherry-picking.

I realize our experiences are anecdotal and (more importantly) you live in NY where people where more familiar with her flaws but.....I'm still guessing you haven't met very many Hillary voters if you haven't met one with the attitude I describe.

I remember well all the finger pointing at Bernie Bros and Susan Sarandon. There are more then just a few outliers who feel that way. Some of the posters in this very forum do.

Most of them have probably got over it by now, but it was a thing at the time.

I couldn't even guess how many Hillary voters I have met. I know tons of HRC voters who were critical of Bernie and Bernie Bros. But no matter what they thought about Bernie, they invariably agreed that HRC had significant flaws.

It’s not an interpretation of the tweet. It’s how she says many progressives feel when she interviews Chomsky in the video she posted. Yeah Her paraphrase of Chomsky is completely disingenuous fwiw.

Something like 80%+ of the people who voted for Bernie in the primary voted for Hillary in the general. Bernie himself aggressively campaigned for her. But hey, this misquote of a fringe loon is an important point!

Maybe Hilary and Biden winning the primary is good for the country “in the long run”? Or maybe the long run thing is just post hoc nonsense that only applies to candidates you admit are better in ranked choice but have a personal aversion to.

I didn't realize you were referring to the video.

Yeah my bad. I was lazy and didn’t link properly. But “Trump or Biden who cares” was definitely a huge topic of discussion among the online left and even some mainstream progressive voices like Gray. It’s fashionable to point out how out of touch with regular folks DNC activists are but it applies to many progressives as well.

In this case it is accurate though as neither of us knows what the alternate future looks like so we are just theorizing.

Again I am not suggesting you have to agree with me, not even a little bit. And I totally respect your opinion although I disagree with it.

To me, the slippery slope of Lesser of Two Evils voting is exactly what created room for Trump. It needs to stop, one way or the other and allowing the Establishment to ONLY and ALWAYS put you to that gambit so you cannot change it is the definition of madness.

Each and every vote then, they will make sure is only a lesser of two evils for that very reason. So the voters cannot pressure them to change a thing.

They own you, if you accept you must always vote the lesser of two evils candidate because they are in fact "lesser"

I get the logic of this, but he big thing independent of Trump was that Sanders needed a drastically younger median age for dem primary voter than normal. If the median age for the primary was the same as the general, Sanders might have won, but this youth wave never materialized and I’m not sure Trump mattered at all in that.

Do voters have any responsibility for who the candidates are in the general election?

Or is that something for which the Establishment has sole responsibility?

I assume that the median age for voters is always quite a bit higher in the primaries than it is in the general election.

I mean you do have to secure enough loot to really even have a chance. For the most part that acts as a pretty serious filter. Most candidates are already coming up thru the standard pipelines. Finding a trump-type who has the money/progressive/willing to actually run/has the personality etc is prob. going to be a real one-off. And even if someone did manage to get thru all of that they're still going to have Congress etc to contend with.

The system has almost made that irrelevant thx to the Establishment.

So you can get a politician like Kyrsten Sinema who represents herself as an uber progressive when she needs to win a Primary and immediately after getting elected can stick in her middle finger up and tell Progressives to f*ck off with their expectations as she is racking in so much money from the Establishment she will not be near impossible to dislodge.

And plus the system is ultimately corrupting once you are in and it is so by design.

That is not hyperbole. The system, as you say is one that is enormously difficult to over come once you are in if you turn to Big Donor money by abandoning any agenda you ran on and adopting theirs.

Not only that the system paints a clear path to post services riches if you just play along as a corporate stooge while in. Be a good servant and the lobbying jobs will come.

Everyone sees the path and how lucrative it is and all the higher ups make sure you know that not rocking the bottom or challenging the status quo is the path to those riches. Rock the boat and you will be excluded from key positions that enhance your future value.

It was not always that way for Politicians. When I was young it was not thought of as the path to riches and was truly about service.

Progressive are back in that mold and only achieving some power and independence due to crowd source funding otherwise they would have no chance to get change.