There is a hunger for bold, transformative politics in the United States right now. Zohran Mamdani shows how the Left can run on a principled, disciplined message that speaks to voters’ lived concerns — and win.
I mean, I’m not even arguing one way or the other. When people argue against voting for a third party in a presidential election, it’s on the basis that the candidate has absolutely no shot at winning and, at best, will split the vote.
It has nothing to do with liking or not liking hypocrisy; the basis of their argument is entirely about whether a strategy is viable, not whether they felt good about the decision.
I assumed that the OP was actually trying to poke holes in the argument but arguing that the Democratic party has backed a third-party candidate in a local election doesn’t negate any of the actual points regarding dissuading voting for a third-party candidate who is without the same resources and does not have the same kind of outreach (such as appearing in debates, etc.) in a presidential election. That’s why, notably, OP had to specify a presidential election: people don’t, generally, argue against voting for third parties at the local level because the visibility of those candidates winning is entirely different.
Do you get what I mean? It wholly doesn’t engage with the actual reasoning or evidence for the argument so it…wouldn’t mean anything, if you did try to use it as a rebuttal.
It seems I’m not able to break down the core basics of the underlying mechanics well enough so we’ll probably have to end the conversation but, just in case I’m still being avoidably unclear, I’ll try to summarize as barebones as possible:
it’s about resources.
More resources behind a candidate materially changes that candidates viability; unless you can explain how a progressive candidate in this scenario invalidates the resources and reach that’s actually of concern when weighing whether a candidate can succeed, you – likewise – are opting to ignore the details of the reasoning and not actually address them.
P. S.
I’m not someone who prefers centrist or even left-of-center candidates; if I lived in NY, I’d definitely be voting for Mamdani and most certainly not Cuomo.
It’s weird to be like, “His progressivism makes the difference,” as though I’m hoping the party backs Cuomo or Adams and would rapidly vote third party in this case.
It’s weird to be like, “His progressivism makes the difference,” as though I’m hoping the party backs Cuomo or Adams and would rapidly vote third party in this case.
It’s honest. Voting 3rd party is literally voting for the worst candidate, in all cases unless there’s a progressive as the party’s nominee, in which case it doesn’t matter.
I’m sick of the double standards and I don’t buy the excuses for them.
I mean, I’m not even arguing one way or the other. When people argue against voting for a third party in a presidential election, it’s on the basis that the candidate has absolutely no shot at winning and, at best, will split the vote.
It has nothing to do with liking or not liking hypocrisy; the basis of their argument is entirely about whether a strategy is viable, not whether they felt good about the decision.
I assumed that the OP was actually trying to poke holes in the argument but arguing that the Democratic party has backed a third-party candidate in a local election doesn’t negate any of the actual points regarding dissuading voting for a third-party candidate who is without the same resources and does not have the same kind of outreach (such as appearing in debates, etc.) in a presidential election. That’s why, notably, OP had to specify a presidential election: people don’t, generally, argue against voting for third parties at the local level because the visibility of those candidates winning is entirely different.
Do you get what I mean? It wholly doesn’t engage with the actual reasoning or evidence for the argument so it…wouldn’t mean anything, if you did try to use it as a rebuttal.
Yeah. It’s conveniently different in this case because the nominee is a progressive.
It seems I’m not able to break down the core basics of the underlying mechanics well enough so we’ll probably have to end the conversation but, just in case I’m still being avoidably unclear, I’ll try to summarize as barebones as possible:
it’s about resources.
More resources behind a candidate materially changes that candidates viability; unless you can explain how a progressive candidate in this scenario invalidates the resources and reach that’s actually of concern when weighing whether a candidate can succeed, you – likewise – are opting to ignore the details of the reasoning and not actually address them.
P. S.
I’m not someone who prefers centrist or even left-of-center candidates; if I lived in NY, I’d definitely be voting for Mamdani and most certainly not Cuomo.
It’s weird to be like, “His progressivism makes the difference,” as though I’m hoping the party backs Cuomo or Adams and would rapidly vote third party in this case.
It’s honest. Voting 3rd party is literally voting for the worst candidate, in all cases unless there’s a progressive as the party’s nominee, in which case it doesn’t matter.
I’m sick of the double standards and I don’t buy the excuses for them.