~ maybe i missed smthg but i didnt see raikoulover trying to shame anyone for not voting or planning not to vote or suggest that voter shaming was something anyone should be doing. ofc voter shaming is a phenomenon that happens, but not every person who believes in voting for shitty dems is responsible for or supports that. "just as" none of us are responsible for violence committed by PSL bc we said genocide joe.
~ if you really want to take a "mathematical logic" approach, the 'its simple logic to always vote for the slightly less bad person' argument would only be applicable in a "one-time event" context. it no longer rly holds when you factor in that the choices voters make in this election can affect the choices that each bourgeois party takes afterward / looking ahead to the subsequent election. for example, it is possible that voters j voting dem no matter what could lead the dems to continue moving even further to the right bc they are not concerned about possible changes in voter behavior, while voters having 'red lines' we wont cross could incentivize dems to not cross those lines in the future. this is all very speculative and imprecise, among other things it rests on the assumption that the democratic party actually cares about winning elections (prob likely to be true at lower levels but more questionable for presidential elections), and then u also have the question of to what extent the dem party is even capable of perceiving group voter behavior in order to be incentivized in such a way. nonetheless, there is no 'logical proof' that #bluenomatterwho is a "correct" long term "strategy", and it is very easy to understand why some ppl may view it as an ineffective long term "strategy". (ppl who are into game theory might compare this to prisoners dilemna where if the 'game' is only played once betrayal is always "incentivized", but that it is much more complicated to evaluate in a context of the 'game' being repeated hundreds+ of times.)
personally i dont really value a mathematical-logic or gametheoretic approach and i think its perfectly fine for voting decisions to be emotionally driven. what might or might not effectively incentivize politicians is rly speculative, and one of the few skills bourgeois politicians have is reading emotions so i mean that could cut either wat but maybe emotional voting is more likely to actually be perceived and potentially influence their future choices, idk who knows.
i dont find debates about electoral voting 'strategy' very interesting or significant so its unlikely i will comment anything further but mostly j wanted to note that there are a wide range of potential orientations behind the decision someone comes to (maybe someday we wont take up so much time/space/energy w these convos or expect ppl to have entire reasonings prepared abt whether they will vote and why), and if u j assume that everyone's choices within each group are for the same reasons its going to lead to a lot of misperceptions. 'people are too various to be treated so lightly' or etc
~ ~ ~
additional section so as to not double post: putting all the voting strategy stuff aside, i find many of raikous posts confusing bc at times they present the two bourgeois parties as shitty 'external' actors to respond to strategically, but then they also say things like "RBG is the goat" (pokemon red blue and green are the goat but sadly this is not what the acronym was referring to) and talk about backing the incumbent candidate of "*our* party". i mean ginsburg had awful politics on everything from sovereignty for indigenous nations to mass incarceration to saying BLM is stupid etc theres no shortage of criticisms to make and ofc her right wing politics can be seen throughout her jurisprudence; "but" in the context of the highest Court of the world's #1 imperial terrorist, ofc a lot of her colleagues were way way worse. why does your orientation to her seem to be so different from your talk about democratic party politicians as a whole, bourgeois politicians dont have the "right" to anything, and they certainly do not usually act on anyones interests but their own. and then the comments abt incumbency like i dont understand if you are talking about what the democratic party "should" be doing as far as its own bourgeois interests, which i dont rly get 'where that is going' is the idea that the better we understand why the democratic party makes the decisions it does then we have a better chance to influence them? or are u saying like it is somehow in 'our' interest that the dem party is nominating the incumbent in which case why?
