The eternal problem with “Better than the alternative” is that it inevitably cuts both ways.
Keir Starmer was better than the alternative of Rishi Sunak.
And now I guess Nigel Farrage is better than the alternative of whatever hack Labour MP (probably Streeting) replaces Starmer.
Trump was the “better than” alternative to Hillary and then Harris just like Biden was forced down folks’ throats as the “better than” of another Trump term. From world leaders to city dog catchers, you’re constantly getting served up two shitty options and told to pick the least-worst one. And if you pick wrong (we somehow always do), the fanatics on the losing end of the spectrum scream at you for being the reason the country is falling apart.
I don’t know about your situation and for whom you’re responsible, but until the binary election system changes – I cannot afford playing chicken with accelerationist rationale of choosing the Greater Poison in lieu of protecting my family and children – even if what some of what you say I agree with.
Trump was never the better alternative to Hillary. If anyone though this, they were fooled by right-wing extremists. I voted Hillary, even though I campaigned for Sanders.
Sanders in fact did the same thing, too, for the very reasons I laid out here.
Now I go to DSA and Democratic meetings alike to advocate for the most progressive candidates possible during these Democratic primaries. That is where I and many others have the most agency to effect change and avoid more Spanbergers and Fettermans, etc.
Trump was never the better alternative to Hillary.
Trump was the stalking horse of the Hilary campaign, via her Pied Piper Strategy.
He would not have even been on the ballot had she not sponsored his run.
Now we’re seeing the same dynamic in the LA mayor race, with the incumbent Karen Bass sending her donors to Spencer Pratt in order to keep a DSA rival off the final ballot.
Right. Because practically everyone at the time thought people would be crazy to vote for him in the first place.
Which absent of the Electoral College, they were right. Hillary won 3 million more votes and both then and now was objectively the better candidate for whom to vote.
Better than the alternative but I knew she was more AIPAC trouble.
The eternal problem with “Better than the alternative” is that it inevitably cuts both ways.
Keir Starmer was better than the alternative of Rishi Sunak.
And now I guess Nigel Farrage is better than the alternative of whatever hack Labour MP (probably Streeting) replaces Starmer.
Trump was the “better than” alternative to Hillary and then Harris just like Biden was forced down folks’ throats as the “better than” of another Trump term. From world leaders to city dog catchers, you’re constantly getting served up two shitty options and told to pick the least-worst one. And if you pick wrong (we somehow always do), the fanatics on the losing end of the spectrum scream at you for being the reason the country is falling apart.
I don’t know about your situation and for whom you’re responsible, but until the binary election system changes – I cannot afford playing chicken with accelerationist rationale of choosing the Greater Poison in lieu of protecting my family and children – even if what some of what you say I agree with.
Trump was never the better alternative to Hillary. If anyone though this, they were fooled by right-wing extremists. I voted Hillary, even though I campaigned for Sanders.
Sanders in fact did the same thing, too, for the very reasons I laid out here.
Now I go to DSA and Democratic meetings alike to advocate for the most progressive candidates possible during these Democratic primaries. That is where I and many others have the most agency to effect change and avoid more Spanbergers and Fettermans, etc.
Trump was the stalking horse of the Hilary campaign, via her Pied Piper Strategy.
He would not have even been on the ballot had she not sponsored his run.
Now we’re seeing the same dynamic in the LA mayor race, with the incumbent Karen Bass sending her donors to Spencer Pratt in order to keep a DSA rival off the final ballot.
Right. Because practically everyone at the time thought people would be crazy to vote for him in the first place.
Which absent of the Electoral College, they were right. Hillary won 3 million more votes and both then and now was objectively the better candidate for whom to vote.