At the end of the day, she’s still a better choice than Vivek. I’m not happy about how she’s treating trans people but compared to Vivek she’s still a better candidate.
But if she’s buying into right-wing framing on trans people it shows she is at best naive. What’s she going to meet the other side halfway on next? Pro-choice except for an ever expanding list of cases?
I’m glad I don’t live in Ohio anymore and don’t have to choose between these shitty people.
When the choice is someone who is legit insane or someone who only pretends to be progressive, you’re kinda fucked either way. See also: fetterman vs Oz.
I don’t think so, but I don’t live in Ohio and I don’t have to make this choice. But voting for her is playing to lose.
If she’s going to throw transgender people under the bus, she will also do nothing to protect immigrants, or people of color, or parents, or the elderly, or animals, or the climate, or the environment, etc. It’s a vote for status-quo when the status quo is going to kill us in a few generations.
The more I think on it, the only move that plays to win is putting in the effort to organize around a grassroots progressive as a write-in.
It’s a vote for status-quo when the status quo is going to kill us in a few generations.
It’s a vote of “killing us in a few generations” vs “killing us next week”. There’s a reason people refer to it as voting for the lesser of two evils.
But a general election isn’t the place for a protest vote - if you try electing someone actually good in the primaries instead you may have better options in the general.
If she’s going to throw transgender people under the bus, she will also do nothing to protect immigrants, or people of color, or parents, or the elderly, or animals, or the climate, or the environment, etc.
Politics is not two-dimensional. Don’t get me wrong, she’s acting like a piece of utter shit in her treatment of trans people. But to assume all of her other beliefs because of that one is a fallacy. Would I rather the people of Ohio have a viable progressive candidate? 100%. But they don’t, because
The more I think on it, the only move that plays to win is putting in the effort to organize around a grassroots progressive as a write-in.
In a first-past-the-post system, all this move does is guarantee that the more conservative major candidate wins. This is called the spoiler effect. By removing support from the major candidate who is more aligned with your views, you are voting against your own interests, because it effectively improves the position of the major candidate who is less aligned with your views. There is not a vote total a candidate needs to win, they just need more votes than the other candidates.
I absolutely despise our voting system, but despising it doesn’t mean it goes away. Until we move to a ranked choice system or something similar, it is practically always a losing move to abandon the lesser of two evils. In our shitty system, Vote aggressively for progressive candidates in primaries, and then vote defensively for the least regressive major candidate in the general. Until we do that, or until we get rid of our godawful system, the Republicans will keep winning. Because they understand this. You may have heard the phrase, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.”
Thanks for the thoughtful reply; best among ones I got. This analysis doesn’t take into account long-term effects. I think voting Acton is voting to lose because it precludes any chance at better future politics. This is the crux of my thinking. I’m familiar with what you’ve laid out, but often don’t see analysis include future elections.
And we’re at the inflection point of US politics. If people aren’t getting involved, then it’s over anyways, so again, voting Acton is just voting to lose the long-game. We need young people, working class people, everyone talking and organizing IRL.
Business as usual is a losing game. Gotta spend the effort on strong foundations; something new; something for the people.
Thank you for putting it succinctly. I’m not happy about my choices but I know damn well Vivek will be 1000x worse than Acton.
My vote is less a vote for Amy Acton and more a vote against Vivek Ramaswami because Vivek is a complete piece of shit opportunistic grifter who will do absolutely nothing but enrich himself.
Glad you don’t live here because you have zero gd clue. The gop has torched this place for decades and you think some stupid no chance in hell progressive write in is a better option.
Thanks but no thanks. Acton can improve. Vivek will drive the car even faster off the cliff while running over as many LGBT as he can.
At the end of the day, she’s still a better choice than Vivek. I’m not happy about how she’s treating trans people but compared to Vivek she’s still a better candidate.
But if she’s buying into right-wing framing on trans people it shows she is at best naive. What’s she going to meet the other side halfway on next? Pro-choice except for an ever expanding list of cases?
I’m glad I don’t live in Ohio anymore and don’t have to choose between these shitty people.
When the choice is someone who is legit insane or someone who only pretends to be progressive, you’re kinda fucked either way. See also: fetterman vs Oz.
Captain Perfect on his way to fight the forces of Good.
What a dog shit situation for the people of Ohio.
Par for the course, honestly.
I couldn’t make that argument to a trans person
I could. Because I know at the end of the day I will continue to fight for trans rights regardless of this election.
But I’m also not a single issue voter.
If she wins, it will let other Dems know this is acceptable and a winning strategy.
Ultimately it will be worse nationwide for us in the long run.
You will be a ‘single issue’ voter when the issue is your life.
I don’t think so, but I don’t live in Ohio and I don’t have to make this choice. But voting for her is playing to lose.
If she’s going to throw transgender people under the bus, she will also do nothing to protect immigrants, or people of color, or parents, or the elderly, or animals, or the climate, or the environment, etc. It’s a vote for status-quo when the status quo is going to kill us in a few generations.
The more I think on it, the only move that plays to win is putting in the effort to organize around a grassroots progressive as a write-in.
It’s a vote of “killing us in a few generations” vs “killing us next week”. There’s a reason people refer to it as voting for the lesser of two evils.
But a general election isn’t the place for a protest vote - if you try electing someone actually good in the primaries instead you may have better options in the general.
Politics is not two-dimensional. Don’t get me wrong, she’s acting like a piece of utter shit in her treatment of trans people. But to assume all of her other beliefs because of that one is a fallacy. Would I rather the people of Ohio have a viable progressive candidate? 100%. But they don’t, because
In a first-past-the-post system, all this move does is guarantee that the more conservative major candidate wins. This is called the spoiler effect. By removing support from the major candidate who is more aligned with your views, you are voting against your own interests, because it effectively improves the position of the major candidate who is less aligned with your views. There is not a vote total a candidate needs to win, they just need more votes than the other candidates.
I absolutely despise our voting system, but despising it doesn’t mean it goes away. Until we move to a ranked choice system or something similar, it is practically always a losing move to abandon the lesser of two evils. In our shitty system, Vote aggressively for progressive candidates in primaries, and then vote defensively for the least regressive major candidate in the general. Until we do that, or until we get rid of our godawful system, the Republicans will keep winning. Because they understand this. You may have heard the phrase, “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.”
Thanks for the thoughtful reply; best among ones I got. This analysis doesn’t take into account long-term effects. I think voting Acton is voting to lose because it precludes any chance at better future politics. This is the crux of my thinking. I’m familiar with what you’ve laid out, but often don’t see analysis include future elections.
And we’re at the inflection point of US politics. If people aren’t getting involved, then it’s over anyways, so again, voting Acton is just voting to lose the long-game. We need young people, working class people, everyone talking and organizing IRL.
Business as usual is a losing game. Gotta spend the effort on strong foundations; something new; something for the people.
Thank you for putting it succinctly. I’m not happy about my choices but I know damn well Vivek will be 1000x worse than Acton.
My vote is less a vote for Amy Acton and more a vote against Vivek Ramaswami because Vivek is a complete piece of shit opportunistic grifter who will do absolutely nothing but enrich himself.
Glad you don’t live here because you have zero gd clue. The gop has torched this place for decades and you think some stupid no chance in hell progressive write in is a better option.
Thanks but no thanks. Acton can improve. Vivek will drive the car even faster off the cliff while running over as many LGBT as he can.