this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
7 points (57.1% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7151 readers
1303 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
On the ballot in 19 states totalling 220 electoral college votes.
Who wants to tell them you need 270 to win?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_access_in_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election
In case others need to hear this, please don’t vote third party. Even to start a revolution or whatever. It’s an incredibly privileged position to be able to endanger LGBTQ, immigrants, and women’s rights because you want to send a message. Vote Dem and back ranked choice or you may get the revolution the other way.
I just don't understand why we can't start the exact same revolution these people want during the primaries. It would make much more sense to win over/capture the party and then push that platform in the general. You get real power to get actual shit done without risking fascism by letting the GOP win due to the spoiler effect.
If someone can make the "revolution is necessary" argument, that should be a perfectly acceptable plan. I think they just want complete collapse so they can try and rebuild, which is complete psychopathic nonsense.
If you want to change the system and think you can do it from within, the primaries are the time. If you don’t think you can do it from within, do it from without and have your revolution on the streets—dont spoil the candidate that more closely aligns with your views.
Are you suggesting a revolution is done within the bounds of the electoral system?
You can't "capture" or "win over" parties like that, the electoral system is a filter.
You can't change a party's platform in the general with some grand prayer or anything, they will do what they need to to satisfy their donors.
No, you don't.
You're right, that is nonsense, please read leftist theory and talk to actual leftists. Nobody wants to rebuild from collapse.
Third party candidates and their supporters sure seem to.
There hasn't been large ideological shifts within the 2 major parties? Are you serious? I will provide you an example: look at the GOP. The past several decades right wing radicals have focused on capturing local elections and statehouses, it has been wildly successful for them and has allowed these people to completely capture the party and expel pretty much any opposition. Capturing a party is absolutely in the table, we literally have historical examples with these same parties.
Do you think they are running because they expect to win? Are you familiar at all with the Marxist view of Electoralism?
They aren't going to end capitalism if they don't win.
The best they can hope to do is take votes away from Harris ensuring a Trump win, which is 180° the opposite of their message.
So no, you aren't familiar with the Marxist stance on Electoralism. For reference, they are Marxists.
No, they do not need to win the election to end Capitalism. Participation in bourgeois elections is to delegitimize the system (such as pointing out Dem/Rep collusion to kick them off the balot in Georgia), and advertise their platform.
Marxists believe revolution is necessary and electoralism is a sham.
That sounds like a way to get a lot of people killed and end up worse than how you started.
Historically, Marxist revolutions have dramatically improved conditions.
Happy to hear more info here
You'd have to be a bit silly to think the Tsarist regime was better for Russia, the nationalist Kuomintang for China, the fascist slaver Batista for Cuba, etc.
I went to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution and clicked on the most recent successful entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War
That's not great.
Survivorship bias, after we murdered everyone that was having a bad time everyone was having a great time.
You'll notice that the government did far more of the killing than the Communist revolutionaries. And, like I said, metrics are improving since overthrowing the previous regime.
They do need to win an election to end capitalism, because they have no power unless they win.
They can literally do absolutely nothing to accomplish their goal unless they win, but then since they mathematically can't win either, all they can do is yell impotently into the void.
Which part of "revolution is necessary and electoralism is a sham" was difficult for you?
They aren't running for a revolution, if they were, they wouldn't be on the ballot for an election.
It's all performative nonsense.
I'll just copy and paste my earlier explanation, hope it makes sense for you this time: