Hesitant progressives are "swapping" their votes with blue states

[conuly]

This all seems a little silly to me. Still, if you know somebody who might benefit from this concept, let them know now!

Also: Without going into Israel, Palestine, etc. - there is no way Trump is better for Palestinians than Harris. Or for Jews, so, like, that's a twofer right there. So all this vote swapping seems even sillier if that was the origin.

Comments

[adrian_turtle]

The purpose of vote swapping is to make sure Harris gets elected while "sending a message" that you are unhappy with her foreign policy.

Personally, I think the best way to accomplish this is to vote for her, then send her email and postcards and phone her office. There's also something to be said for waiting until after she is safely elected, then sending a message in February by standing in front of the White House and yelling. But it's not like Biden listens to me about foreign policy, so who knows?

[sabotabby]

I read a good post about cowards vs. enemies, and why you should vote for the former.

[hudebnik]

Trump is all about power and winning. In any conflict where he needs to pick a side, he'll back the side that has more power and is using it more aggressively. Russia vs. Ukraine? Russia all the way. Israel vs. Gaza? Israel, no question. Where Biden has chided Netanyahu (mostly ineffectively, although he did get a brief ceasefire and some prisoner exchanges) for excessive force, Trump is probably frustrated with Netanyahu for not using enough force: why are there still any Palestinians living in Gaza at all?

[minoanmiss]

... word.

[zesty_pinto]

The Palestine issue has always been about the lack of support the party has shown and while, yes, you can argue reasonably that the GOP will play in Israel's favor (to the point where most Israeli accounts will proudly mention their desire for a Trump presidency), the results from Biden in tandem with Harris' actions that ranged from not willing to allow a Palestinian speaker in to promising more funds to support Israel without a regard to Palestine is not helping. Bill Clinton coming in and pinning everything on October 7 to overlook everything else that has happened only makes it sound like the Dems are not interested in changing things so I can't really defend telling someone that their choice between watching relatives die or relatives die is going to change anything.

[siderea]

This comment demonstrates why the Democrats' decision not to allow a Palestinian speaker at the DNC was absolutely, completely 100% correct. Given a choice between a candidate who openly called for a ceasefire and a candidate who instituted a Muslim immigration ban, moved the US embassy to Jerusalem in support of the Israeli right, and called Netanyahu to encourage him to do his worst, they chose to attack the candidate who was on their side as not doing "enough".

As justified as their rage and pain may be, their complete failure to engage with the American political process in a way which actually prioritizes saving lives in Gaza makes it clear they cannot be trusted with a platform.

It is hard to state how much of an own goal it was that the left called for a ceasefire, Harris came out for a ceasefire, and the left turned on her, declaring that wasn't good enough. When you punish someone for doing what you asked, they stop listening to your requests. The obvious right move was to sing it from the rooftop as a win for the movement that it had successfully converted Harris to their side. At that point, they would have had enormous power to continue to pressure her left. Instead they communicated loud and clear that nothing Harris could do would ever be good enough, and the Harris campaign shrugged and reasonably enough gave up to go spend their efforts on something actually useful.

Nobody ever gives a microphone to someone who hates them.

[zesty_pinto]

I really did not even want to comment on this for this particular reason but I did want to give an idea of what I'm seeing on my end.

Personally, I'm not feeling that way, but that's my opinion. If anything, it feels like the same process that followed instances like the infrastructure bill drama and it's added to the malaise that's been rampant with the left.

The ceasefire deal itself has always been in contention and it's been pointed out several times that Israel wasn't really invested either and kept going with their plans.

Also, for all the angst, most people will still vote Dem in spite of this anger because they understand the stakes, especially when understanding the value of being in a swing state. I'm not going to ask people why they didn't choose otherwise though, especially if the topic is something that affects them personally.

[silveradept]

I could see it being useful for people who know thy're in a place that, because of the Electoral College and the construction of their districts, will make zero difference to the final count of electors, wanting to have someone in a place where it will count vote for a better outcome in exchange.

But that would require both parties to uphold their end of the bargain, and we have gamed out a lot of prisoner's dilemma scenarios.

(Not that it did any good anyway.)