A small request: Please tell the ruling class to 'go f*ck themselves'

I generally don't ask people online for things, but I'm making an exception this time around. I'm asking you to send a message to the wealthy elites who are screwing you over.
The question is how best to send this message?

If you are part of the MAGA crowd, or the vote-blue-no-matter-who/McResistance, then this essay isn't for you. You need to stop watching Fox, CNN, and MSDNC.

The easiest way to register your disapproval is with your vote.
Will it change things? Absolutely not.
But I'm only asking for you to send a message. Asking you for more than that would be presumptuous of me.

The media is quick to tell you that you only have two choices in our "democracy" - Red Team or Blue Team.
That is a lie. The reality is that you have four choices.

Choice #1) Vote Team Neofeudalism
Do you enjoy being a serf? Then vote for the MSM-endorsed Republican or Democrat. Go Team!
If you think there is any real difference then you aren't paying attention.

Choice #2) Don't Vote
The game is rigged, so why participate?
Well, you got the first part right. It's all rigged, but you obviously don't understand the game if you think you can opt out. We are all trapped in this system, and not voting is a choice.
Think of it this way. Half of all eligible voters don't vote. Do you think that the political class is worried about their legitimacy? Not in the slightest. If the voting rate dropped to just 10% they still wouldn't care.
In fact, a disengaged, apathetic public is a close second preference to Choice #1 for the ruling elite. Want proof? When is the last time (outside of the Sanders campaign) has any politician done anything to increase the electorate? Historically the ruling class has always tried to limit participation.
So the only message that you send by not voting is "I don't care" or "I give up."

Choice #3) Vote for someone you like
A.K.A. Throwing away your vote.
A.K.A. Helping Putin.
A.K.A. Voting for Trump (for people that flunked both math and civics).
The purpose of democracy is to vote for someone that represents your interests. The fact that this logical, rational act has been demonized by the MSM is proof that the ruling elites don't approve of this choice.
So if you want to tell the ruling class FU on their choices, this is an easy way to do it.
It's not the best way, but it is a way.
The reason that it's not the best way to send a message is because the Democratic Party truly doesn't care if it loses to the GOP. The wealthy donors still win.
So as long as only a token number of voters vote for a 3rd party, then the ruling elite still win. They just don't win in a manner that they would prefer, and that slightly annoys them.

Choice #4) Get Active. Get In Their Faces
The only way to really piss off the ruling elites is to threaten their power.
The Democratic Party establishment and the media will always be against everyone on the left.
However, that isn't even the most important parts of the establishment, and it's something that the Left absolutely must fix regardless of whether the strategy is to take over the Democratic Party or jump to another party.

For starters, let's look at the one place where the Left should dominate - Labor Unions.
No left-wing movement worth a damn fails to have labor behind it. The rank-and-file are generally economic leftists, but union leadership has often been totally corrupted.
That has to change.
The same goes for civil rights and enviromentalist groups.
Failure to do this will doom any leftist economic movement or party.

However, changing things > sending a message.

Halfway in between changing things and sending a message is primarying incumbents.
The political establishment gets furious when the grassroots challenges them.
You can tell by all the ways that they'll break every rule and violate every value when this happens.
It's a true FU to the ruling class. It makes them fight over something they thought that they had already won.

While Bernie's defeat (and abandonment of his own movement) was discouraging, there are still people fighting the good fight.
For example, Justice Democrats have a 3 - 2 record in 2020 so far.
The DSA has 13 primary challengers coming up.

This is only a request. You should only do what you are ready to do.
But I think it's not a bad strategy to act in a way most contrary to the wishes of the ruling class.

Tags: 
Share
up
39 users have voted.

Comments

Cassiodorus's picture

I did a series of interviews with them. I've also been attending their Zoom meetings. Here were the last two Zoom meetings:

https://caucus99percent.com/content/report-dsa-candidates-congress-forum...

https://caucus99percent.com/content/takeaways-our-revolution-la-meeting

You know, the next People's Party one is June 4th.

Personally I think that all of America ought to go on strike. We need to ditch the "Respect our President" jive and the Biden bullying and get down to the specifics of how and how much we're being ripped off.

up
28 users have voted.

"There is no good future for the US if neoliberalism, and neoliberal elites, continue to rule." -- Ian Welsh

mimi's picture

anymore without getting fired or banned for sure. Just know that probably most of the discussions go on behind the curtain in the pm area and I won't accept using that escape mechanism anymore.

Accept my 'no comment' comment's silence as a sign of appreciation of your work here.

up
17 users have voted.
ovals49's picture

Hurray!

I know, his opponent Joe Kennedy is also a Democrat, but still it is with great pleasure that I look forward to his possible defeat. In some ways it’s more satisfying that the challenge comes from within the party and from a “friend”. I will continue to reflexively vote for any left of center challenger of any entrenched incumbent. In the absence of a third party candidate, it still is a way to raise the middle finger to the organized crime ring that currently serves the oligarchs.

up
10 users have voted.

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
Albert Einstein

@ovals49
I too voted in the primary. For Bernie sanders delegates. What a waste of time that was.

Voting against the establishment in local primaries? I did that too. Here in Cook County the primary winner is THE winner. (R)'s don't even bother putting up a token candidate.

Local State's Attorney Kim Foxx has come under a firestorm of criticism for letting off the rich and well-connected. Foxx is black. She had a white challenger. The party engineered two other white challengers, nobodies with ethnic names, one Irish, one Italian. Foxx won with 40% of the vote. Almost two to one against her and she is assured of her re-election.

There isn't a functional Republican Party in Illinois as there was in my youth. The party is full of Tea Party zealots, religious nutjobs, and MAGA Trumpistas aka modern Know-Nothings.
No longer any liberal republicans or even conservative Republicans with a sense of noblesse oblige like the late Senator Dirksen.

You might think that at least in Cook County there might be a Left Party, but the Greens run a few candidates for the Water Reclamation Board that's all. Their focus is the environment only. Most voters are concerned with taxes (very regressive)), jobs and crime. Greens are silent on these issues.
I vote Green as a protest, but I know it is just a protest.

up
11 users have voted.

We are so screwed.

ovals49's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness
Also, there are usually many State and Local issues that appear on the ballot in my state (MA) as referendums or warrant articles. Local voting issues still offers some meaningful uses for our right to vote. National offices are pretty much a foregone conclusion in our “liberal” state.

Swing Staters may have reason to continue casting votes at the National level, assuming they are ok with “lesser-of-two-evils” voting.

YMMV

up
4 users have voted.

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
Albert Einstein

boriscleto's picture

@The Voice In the Wilderness

    TAX JUSTICE
  • End Social Security Tax Cap on High Incomes
  • End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
  • Cut Corporate Welfare
  • Financial Transactions Tax
  • Progressive Wealth Tax
  • Progressive Estate Tax
  • More Progressive Personal and Business Income Taxes
  • Land Value Tax

https://howiehawkins.us/platform/

up
11 users have voted.

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

Roy Blakeley's picture

@ovals49 His history and positions on issues are at least as progressive as those of Joe Kennedy III (Senate sponsor of Green New Deal, long-term good positions on environmental issues and nuclear disarmament). There are certainly negatives, but the same is true of Kennedy.

up
8 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@Roy Blakeley

he seems to be just one more republican that hides behind saying that he is a democrat. He is on board with cutting social security and other bills that republicans are pushing for right now. I got a lot of this info from watching Rising and and tweets on people who are calling him out on the issues.

Of course I don't live there, but even before this move I had read articles years ago that shows he is just another blue dawg republican hiding inside the D party. Oh and he uses his name to kid people into believing that he stands for the people.

up
11 users have voted.

"It seems to me that the problem is that group party interests, in this case, are placed above the interests of the entire society and the interests of people,"

Roy Blakeley's picture

@snoopydawg I have seen negative comments about Kennedy as well. I was wondering if I was missing something.

up
4 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

What does one thing have to do with the other?

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has chosen to let Hillary Clinton get away with calling her an agent of the Kremlin, dropping the defamation lawsuit for the sake of party unity and defeating President Donald Trump.

While Gabbard and her campaign “remain certain of the action’s legal merit,” the new reality of the Covid-19 pandemic requires them to “focus their time and attention on other priorities, including defeating Donald Trump in 2020, rather than righting the wrongs here,” her attorney Dan Terzian wrote in the court filing withdrawing the lawsuit on Wednesday.

It was a far cry from the fiery tone of the original complaint, filed in January, accusing Clinton of lying “publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent” when she claimed Gabbard was “the favorite of the Russians,” in an October 2019 interview.

Gabbard’s withdrawal of the defamation claim against Clinton clearly represents the final stage of ‘bending the knee’ to the party.....

Thoughts on this comment?

This tells me that Hillary is on standby to replace Biden. Got to clear the decks. Gabbard has been warned off.

up
12 users have voted.

"It seems to me that the problem is that group party interests, in this case, are placed above the interests of the entire society and the interests of people,"

ovals49's picture

@Roy Blakeley

Smarmy: excessively or unctuously flattering, ingratiating, servile, etc.: the emcee with the smarmy welcome.

Meanwhile back in his home state important issues languish on the back burner, like a festering Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant (GE Fukushima model) somehow remains operating years after its design life has been passed and numerous safety failures and emergency shutdowns.

Markey picks a few identity politics issues for his re-election campaigns but seems to work hardest at ingratiating himself with the Dem big shots cheerleading idiotic impeachment hearings and the bogus Russia! Russia! “they stole the election from Hillary” distraction: Smarmy.

Of course, some people see all that as useful public service. To me it seems a massive waste of time and distraction. We need to do way better than Ed Markey. Whether Joe K. III would be any better remains to be seen.

up
5 users have voted.

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
Albert Einstein

TheOtherMaven's picture

@ovals49

He was once a bold progressive, if you can believe that, who was in favor of doing things to help the "little people". Then he got to join that Really Big Club called the Senate...and he became just another Establishment stooge. Oh, occasionally a bit of the old bold Markey re-emerges, but not often and not for long. He's too comfortable on his feather bed.

up
3 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

gulfgal98's picture

for a General Strike. If those who have been deemed essential workers such as those who work at grocery stores, deliveries, garbage pickup and the like went on strike, if nothing else, it would demonstrate just how much power the people have if they are willing to use it.

Excellent essay, gjohnsit.

up
20 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

gulfgal98's picture

@gulfgal98 I intend to vote for whom I like which means I will be writing my choice for President. I am not sure just who that will be, but it will reflect who I believe to be the best choice at this point in time.

up
10 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

We keep coming back for more under the hope that things will improve and the beatings will stop. How many elections have we had to choose the lesser of two evils? I'm done with that. I will continuously send a message, if you present me with a lousy candidate who is a neoliberal, necon war hawk I will not vote for him/her. The current implementation of the scheme for voting for president as somewhat defined in the constitution is fatally flawed. I will support replacing it with rank choice as a minimum, and guaranteeing voter rights during the process. The Dem party made the point that they can do anything they like to chose a presidential nominee, and screw the voter. Here's my algorithm:

1) Never vote for the favorite of Nancy and Chucky. If a Dem then he/she had better be a Progressive to the bone, principled and unwavering. That excludes you, Bernie.

2) Vote for a third party, like the Green Party, if they have good politics, like Dr. Jill Stein.

3) Vote for the Republican if they are reasonable in their politics. If the Republican and Democrat are similar, then vote Republican. We need to send a strong signal to the Dems that we will not accept establishment candidates. They are supposed to be the Left party.

4) Don't vote. I don't like this one, but it might be necessary.

So now I come to the most difficult part. If you hate Biden and want to punish the Dem party for nominating him and you want the most effective protest, then you vote for Trump. It sends twice as effective signal. As an example. if 2 million people vote for trump and 2,010,00 vote for Biden and 20,000 Progressives vote third party or stay at home then Biden wins. If 10,001 progressives vote for trump then Biden loses. Numerically it's twice as effective to vote for trump. So it entirely depends on your motivation. If it's to punish the Dem party relative to having a dangerous flake for president then vote for Trump (well, actually they are both dangerous flakes, Trump more so). I will probably vote Green again. But you need to know this, and not engage in voter shaming for progressives who make the decision to vote for Trump.

up
11 users have voted.

Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

@The Wizard

If 10,001 progressives vote for trump then Biden loses. Numerically it's twice as effective to vote for trump. So it entirely depends on your motivation. If it's to punish the Dem party relative to having a dangerous flake for president then vote for Trump (well, actually they are both dangerous flakes,

What was the message Bill Clinton and the DP took from the 1992 election?
(D) 43.01% & 370 EV
(R) 37.45% & 168 EV
(I) 18.91% & 0 EV

Complete the GHWB agenda (excluding the flag burning amendment) and then take down major parts of the New Deal that Republicans had yet to advance. That wasn't the message most Democratic and Perot voters sent.

Trump will be far more dangerous in a second term if he surpasses his 2016 popular vote and/or popular vote percentage. On the percentage, the non-voters are a non-factor and therefore, enhance the delusion of the popular vote winner.

There's not a single state where a vote for Trump as a left protest sends a message that could possibly be heard by the DP poobahs as anything other than, gotta move more to the right.

Check out the following:
1996 -- voter turn-out 49%; Bill Clinton - 49.2% & 379 EV
2000 -
turn-out 51.2% - Gore 48.4%, GWB 47.9% & 271 EV (why did the DP roll over for GWB)?
New Hampshire: Gore 46.8%, GWB 48.97, Nader 3.9% (turn-out 569,081).

2004 -
New Hampshire: Kerry 50.24%, GWB 48.87%, Nader 0.66% (turn-out 677,738)

Recall that GWB claimed a mandate after the '04 election -- (compared to the 2000 election results, he did do better; plus the GOP added Senate and House seats to its majority) -- but that's when he overreached and then pulled back (for the good of the party?).

up
10 users have voted.

@Marie
I agree with you except for one point. The Dem party knows by polling exactly how many Bernie supporters voted for trump in 2016, 12%. Their reaction was again to knee cap Bernie, force him to work harder to deliver his supporters and make meaningless concessions to the Left. But they heard the protest. If trump wins in 2020 then next time they might consider offering something substantial to the Progressives who might still be in the party, or could be convinced to re-join the party.
I have been a life long Democrat. When the party nominated HRC I re-registered as unaffiliated in MA. I will never consider myself a Democrat until they begin to act like the party on the Left of center, that is the party of economic and social justice. Without that we are screwed. I consider reforming the neocon, neoliberal war-mongering Democrat party to be my highest priority.
Here's an analogy. Your house is on fire and there are two fire departments in town. The first one believes in rugged individualism and that they might help you put out the fire. The second one believes in public response, but is totally incompetent. Their firetrucks have busted hoses and little water in the tank. Who do you call? If you call the second fire department then by virtue of giving them your business you are encouraging them to continue as is. In either event your house burns down, and all the houses on fire after that burn down until the second fire department reforms itself to actually be able to put out fires.

up
3 users have voted.

Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

@The Wizard @The Wizard and election results or do they just not want to?

They hire plenty of wonks that can grind through the numbers, but interpret (the art of polling) those numbers in odd ways to confirm their biases. For example, Oct/Nov 2015 Q public polls had Carson easily beating Clinton. Not the "Pied Piper" they wanted; not that Carson was ever going to be the GOP nominee, just another AA from central casting for the GOP primary.

iirc more '16 Sanders supporters voted for HRC than '08 HRC supporters voted for Obama in '08. However, those "good, white, faithless HRC voters" get a pass because they turned right instead of left. The DP controllers believe that the battle in all elections is in some mythical center, the home of the swing voters. When a Democrat loses a close election, it's always blamed on the tiny percentage on the left that can't stomach the nominee. Republicans don't do that. They look for ways to entice those voters back and new means (generally emotional) to expand their voter base. The didn't obsess over the rightwing nutjobs that insisted on the Goldwater nomination and the resulting landslide loss; they simply moved on and retained those voters with lip service. They did the same with the conservative Perot voters, but it took them eight years to get them all back, in part because they had a rational basis to their opposition.

The 2000 election was always advantage GOP: 1) WH flip after eight years 2) Clinton was a minority (

up
1 user has voted.

@Marie in recent years/decades so much to expand their base as to suppress the Dem vote, in order to win elections. That has been true ever since Rs saw the demographic number trends and realized that their Party of White People was dwindling in size. Suppress the vote among minorities was the strategy they chose to combat this problem.

But prior to recently, the GOP did seek to expand or change the nature of their base: they did in a way "obsess" over RW nut jobs -- they consciously sought to bring them in with Nixon's Southern Strategy. The racist nut jobs in the South. Phase 2 of this process was to bring in the disaffected, culturally reactionary, low-education WWC that traditionally sided with Ds, as they became Reagan Democrats. This latter poorly-counseled group has largely stayed with the GOP and are now Trumpeters. Bc the DP is so identified with IdPol, which is anathema to this group, there is little hope of getting them back.

up
2 users have voted.
RantingRooster's picture

I think we can no longer vote between two crooked parties, and bite the bullet and vote for anyone not Republican or Democrat. A vote is never "wasted" unless it's not counted.

Drinks

up
13 users have voted.

"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance;" - Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Jen's picture

So the only message that you send by not voting is "I don't care" or "I give up."

But technically, I've never voted so I never had anything to "give up". There's never been a reason to waste my time here in MAGAland where people still believe that if you work hard enough, you too can be a billionaire.

For me to vote now sends the message that I've finally fallen for their bullshit and believe my vote means something. I haven't; it doesn't.

At this point in my life, I think it's safe to say that I will likely die a voting virgin.

I'm actually glad that I don't have to vote for Bernie. Better to find out now that he'd just go along to get along. Now I don't have to be ashamed that I actually fell for his lies.

up
15 users have voted.

Is it great yet?

CS in AZ's picture

@Jen

For some, not voting sends a different message: I do not consent.

That is NOT:
1. Giving up.
2. Not caring.
3. Being “disengaged and apathetic.”

Refusing to get in line with the mainstream and go though a ritual every couple of years to reaffirm and send a message of consent to this government and its actions. This is a meaningful message, for those who choose this this option. The author wants to denigrate any of the options he presents other than his own preferred “more and better democrats” efforts.

up
5 users have voted.

@CS in AZ

Refusing to get in line with the mainstream and go though a ritual every couple of years to reaffirm and send a message of consent to this government and its actions. This is a meaningful message, for those who choose this this option.

This may indeed be how you feel, but that is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not how the message is received.

You want proof?
First of all, how does the government respond to your lack of action? Do they seem concerned? Or would they prefer that even fewer people voted?
You know the answer.

But let's make it personal. When you host an event and someone you know doesn't come, is your first guess that they didn't come because they are angry and protesting your event? Or that they are indifferent?
Be honest. Occam's Razor says to assume that people don't care.

The author wants to denigrate any of the options he presents other than his own preferred “more and better democrats” efforts.

No, Obviously not. You didn't read this essay very closely.
I'll be voting 3rd party myself (with the exception for the guy who is running against Pelosi).

up
7 users have voted.
CS in AZ's picture

@gjohnsit

First of all, I did not say this is how I feel. I said, for SOME people, that is their message. I personally find your disparaging adjectives about their choice as generalized insults, and that is evidently your intention. Why else would you insist that those making the choice to send their own message through their own chosen means are universally “disengaged and apathetic” — when you know very well that it not true. I wish you could advocate your generalized advice on what others should do (despite claiming not to make that choice yourself) without the character insults.

2. Questions are NOT “proof” of anything, so please stop throwing out rhetorical questions and calling them “proof” that your opinion is the only right one.

You want to play that game... ok.

how does the government respond to your lack of action? Do they seem concerned? Or would they prefer that even fewer people voted?
You know the answer.

How does the government respond to ‘better democrats’ winning primaries? Or even winning seats from incumbents? Does anything change? What did AOC do after unseating Joe Crowley? Oh yeah, that’s right, she’s working to get Biden elected. YAY! Do “they” seem concerned? You know the answer.

I don’t think “they” give a f*ck precisely how many people vote or don’t vote. As long as enough people vote to continue the illusion of consent of the governed, “they” are quite happy.

It does not matter one tiny iota how the PTB “receive” whatever message a vote or non-vote sends. They Do Not Care if you vote for another AOC or not. I think the message “they” receive from such a vote (and monetary support of such candidates) is that the system is working just fine, the money is coming in and the peasants are not revolting, so it’s all good and nothing will fundamentally change. (Sure, political professionals will huff and puff and put on a good show of acting like they are “upset” — that is their job. The show must go on to keep the system chugging along.) But the actual Powers that Be who actually make the decisions? They do not give a shit who you vote or don’t vote for or anything else about you.

You want proof? What actual changes for the better have happened because some supposedly progressive candidate won an election?

Heh... this “rhetorical question as proof of my views” thing is kinda fun, isn’t it?

But back in reality, you cannot prove what ‘they’ want. If I personally organized an event and people didn’t come, I would ask them why, rather than making an uninformed assumption. Or I might assume that whatever my event is about didn’t engage their interest enough to get them there. Maybe I needed to adjust my pitch? Or maybe even change my objectives, if I want to interest more people? I would think, why are they not interested? And then try to fix it. I don’t think I’d automatically assume it just means they are a bunch of lazy slackers, and then carry on as if they don’t matter. Except, of course, if they DIDN’T matter to me ...in which case I would call them names like “disengaged and apathetic” and then do nothing to engage them.

Sound familiar, at all?

You do not have proof of what ‘they’ want, or of what it means to other people and the message they want to send with either A vote or a not-vote.

What you have is simply an opinion. And you are entitled to it, of course, right or wrong.

I just wish you would advocate your point of view and your “do-what-I-say-Not-what-I-do” message, without disparaging and brow-beating of those who see things differently. Your need to “prove them wrong” is unnecessary and your advocacy would be better received without it, in my opinion.

That is all.

up
6 users have voted.

@CS in AZ
or if you felt that it was pointless to try sending a message (which is exactly what you just said), then why are you here commenting in my essay?
I am honestly curious.

I personally find your disparaging adjectives about their choice as generalized insults, and that is evidently your intention.

You think that I would go to all this trouble just to insult people?

Why else would you insist that those making the choice to send their own message through their own chosen means are universally “disengaged and apathetic” — when you know very well that it not true. I wish you could advocate your generalized advice on what others should do (despite claiming not to make that choice yourself) without the character insults.

So you think this was an attack on you, huh?
Well, good. Because that's what I intended when I wrote this.
I thought "Gee, I haven't attacked whats-his-face in a long time."
I'm glad the message got through.
You might have noticed that all of my essays are secret attacks on you personally.

I honestly can't take this response seriously.
If you think this extremely mild essay is "disparaging and brow-beating of those who see things differently" then you must feel like you are under siege all the time.

up
5 users have voted.

@Jen

For me to vote now sends the message that I've finally fallen for their bullshit and believe my vote means something.

Then you'll need to go to the voting booth and write F*ck You on the ballot.
(That would be an action I would strongly support)

As for right now, I can assure you that the political establishment thinks that you just don't care, and that pleases them.
They have no ability to read your mind.

up
6 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@gjohnsit

or if they are simply tossed in the wastebasket/bit bucket.

Then check to see if they are counted separately, or lumped under "Other".

If they are counted, and tabulated separately, there's a point in writing in "F*** YOU". Otherwise there isn't, because no one else will ever know.

up
5 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

@TheOtherMaven
I was mostly speaking metaphorically.

up
2 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

Greens are invisible...again. tragic, to my way of thinking.

i'll vote Green again after having done so for the last 3 (4?) presidential cycles, although last time i'd really only voted for socialist Ajamu Baracka, stein's 3rd choice for her VP. ; )

now if there'd been an organized No Voting movement over the last couple years, that might have grown some legs and meant something, depending on the sentiments around which the movement was designed.

but other than that, i do like your request, gjonsit.

up
10 users have voted.

@wendy davis
has seen yearly examples of election boycotts in 3rd world nations (or which we are also one).
The number of times that an election boycott has done anything significant can be counted on one hand.
The ruling party always moved ahead like it didn't matter how many people didn't vote.

up
6 users have voted.
wendy davis's picture

@wendy davis

on no vote movement and the lead-in time required. nor why you've airbrushed Green candidates out of your (otherwise heartfelt) crie de couer.

or are you spellbound by these Very Important USians (and no, i reckon you're not, really)

Jan 24, 2020, An Open Letter to the Green Party for 2020, truthdig, jan 2020

Noam Chomsky, Barbara Ehrenreich, Bill Fletcher, Leslie Cagan, Ron Daniels, Kathy Kelly, Norman Solomon, Cynthia Peters and Michael Albert

"As the 2020 presidential election approaches the Green Party faces the challenge of settling on a platform, choosing a candidate for president, and deciding its campaign strategy. In that context, Howie Hawkins, a contender for Green Party presidential candidate, recently published a clear and cogent essay titled “The Green Party Is Not the Democrats’ Problem.” It represents a precedent Green Party stance which may guide Green campaign policy. We agree with much, but find some ideas very troubling.
.......................
The stance the article presents, which may guide the Green campaign for president, says, “To hold all other factors (contributing to recent Presidential victories) constant and focus on the Green Party as the deciding factor is a hypothetical that is a logical fallacy because it assumes away a factual reality: the Green Party is here to stay.” However, our finding Green policy a factor in Republican victories in no way suggests that the Green Party should disappear. And our focus on factors within our reach to easily correct (for example, the Green Party role in contested states) is in fact sensible.

The stance also says “the Green Party is not why the Democrats lost to Bush and Trump,” but even if true, that wouldn’t demonstrate it won’t be why this time. In any case, let’s take Trump and Clinton, and see how Green Party policy mattered.

If Clinton got Jill Stein’s Green votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, Clinton would have won the election. Thus, the Green Party’s decision to run in those states, saying even that there was little or no difference between Trump and Clinton, seems to us to be a factor worthy of being removed from contested state dynamics, just like the Electoral College is a factor worthy of being removed across all states.

We realize many and perhaps most Greens will respond that if those who voted for Stein in contested states in 2016 hadn’t done so, they would have abstained. We don’t know how anyone could know that, but for the sake of argument we will suppose it is correct."

Fuck.Them.

i will say that those nations who've enacted mandatory voting, and those USians who advocate the same...are nucking futz, inho.

up
5 users have voted.

I think you need to show up to have your discontent measured. Hopefully there will be a few candidates down ballot at least more progressive than the others. If the more progressive candidates get more votes than the most mainstream it lets people know we're out there. Whether to leave the presidential slot blank, vote third party or write someone in depends on your personal preferences and state policy.

Exercising any of the other options doesn't stop us from getting in their faces.

up
7 users have voted.
Not Henry Kissinger's picture

whatever voting strategy helps further progressive policies, which means the option to vote/notvote/vote3rdparty varies based on the local jurisdiction.

Yet if we are going to generalize strategy to a nationwide scale, I'd have to say that after this farce of a primary rigging, whatever brings down establishment Democrats must be priority one, as they have shown themselves time and again to be the more effective evil in stopping our agenda from moving forward.

If that means the Republicans temporarily benefit from the Dem implosion so be it (after all, what is really the difference at this point anyway?), but we will never see any progress unless and until we can first remove the Dem gate keepers from the equation.

up
11 users have voted.

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

And they are still waiting for their miracle to come.

I wanted Bernie (or a few others) this go-round but I didn't get them. (Thanks Obama! Grrr.) I don't like it, but I personally can handle voting for Biden in the general because of a simple rule: always vote for the candidate who does not advocate drinking bleach.

Assuming we win this (because if we don't, our democracy dies, permanently), we don't have the luxury of falling asleep like we did with Obama. And Biden, unlike Obama, lacks the mystique that resulted in automatically labeling anyone who criticized Obama a racist. (You don't like Obama's Citibank cabinet? That's because you're a racist!) I also intend to stay active in groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and to support progressive challengers against dinosaur corporatists. (We will also have the threat of the Never-Trumpers trying to hijack the Democratic party since they lost the Republican party to the Xtian death cultists.)

But hey, y'all do you and I will do me . . .

up
0 users have voted.
Jen's picture

@SancheLlewellyn

I personally can handle voting for Biden in the general because of a simple rule: always vote for the candidate who does not advocate drinking bleach.

That's just because he doesn't remember what bleach is.

Assuming we win this

Who is this "we" you speak of? Because with a choice between dumb and dumber, the only "we" that will win are the PTB. "We" the people have already lost.

up
5 users have voted.

Is it great yet?