The Problem with Voting Strategically Is That You Vote against Yourself

Many self-described liberal Democrats say that they plan to vote for someone to the right of them because they want to be strategic, they want to vote for someone who could appeal to moderate or centrist swing voters. But how do they know their strategy makes sense? It never has worked in the past.

8 thoughts on “The Problem with Voting Strategically Is That You Vote against Yourself

  1. So I’m voting for an electable corporate warmonger.

    What does it say about the state of the union when a corporate warmonger is «electable» ? Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose….

    Henri

    • Hi Henri,

      It says that in this union:
      1) there is a rigid two-party system enforced by the two parties themselves, the media, non-media corporations (that find this arrangement very easy for manipulation) and essentially every other institution, all of which have been steeped in pernicious, and effective, anti-democracy propaganda since Bernays, the “PR” whiz, burst onto the scene
      2) only corporate warmongrers can get nominated by the 2 parties
      3) “voting strategically” is the current, dominant propaganda meme that makes potential voters think they have a choice in anything political.

      • Everything just hunky-dory then, falco ; the US Constitution is working as designed….

        Henri

  2. Ted, I question your reasoning on this one. No matter how far to the left I vote, there is probably some other candidate who is further still to the left who I could have voted for. For instance, in 2016 I voted for Jill Stein (who ended up with less than 1% of the vote), but I could have voted for Mimi Soltysik (Socialist Party USA — in one interview he said explicitly that he would like to “overthrow capitalism,” but he also said that he “would not win”).

    I live in a “safe state” (damned electoral college), but my vote still counts in the primary. In the 2016 primary I voted for Bernie, and I’ll do that again in 2020.

  3. The Clintonbots are screaming that a corporate warmonger would be far, far better than Trump, who is the first president since Carter who hasn’t started a new shooting war (of course, he’s started lots of trade wars and sanctions wars, which are killing lots of people, but probably not as many as the Bushes’, Clinton’s, and Obama’s shooting wars). Trump even tried to end one shooting war he inherited, only to discover (and reveal) that the president isn’t really the Commander in Chief: 3 times Trump ordered all US troops out of Syria, but they’re all still there. And the media keep screaming that he pulled all US troops out of Syria abandoning our loyal Kurdish allies (omitting that Turkey is a NATO ally and the Kurds are not, and that all the troops are still in Syria).

    • «And the media keep screaming that he pulled all US troops out of Syria abandoning our loyal Kurdish allies (omitting that Turkey is a NATO ally and the Kurds are not, and that all the troops are still in Syria).» Everybody is a US «ally», Michael – until they are not (think al Qaeda in Afghanistan during the Soviet intervention (requested, nota bene by the then Afghan government))….

      Henri

  4. Two things:
    1. About Trump stopping one of the shooting wars (and the troops still being in Syria). About two months back, I mentioned to a friend that if Donald Trump found the cure for cancer, the media would spin it as how Donald Trump put a whole lot of oncologists out of work. And the friend almost had a stroke. “Don’t you dare make Trump out to be the victim!” Which wasn’t my point in the first place. But did anyone else see that Trump raised the smoking age to 21? If Hillary War Criminal Clinton had done it, we’d still be listening to it 25/8 on the news cycle. Trump does it, and it’s a fart in a high wind. And keep in mind, I don’t like Trump. But I like what the media is doing to itself even less.
    2. Ted introduces an interesting concept to contemplate with this cartoon. The people who vote strategically are hypocrites. So they don’t actually BELIEVE what they claim they support. It’s a whole new way of understanding the people on both sides who vote against their interests.
    And three. Three interesting things …
    3. I hope everyone who celebrates Christmas had a good one. It’s also Hannukah, so that too. And any of the rest of the holidays; I’m not gonna list ’em all.
    And four. Four interesting things …
    I think I figured out what triggers the moderation trigger. A swear word next to shit there it is Donald Trump’s name. If this went to moderation, it’s possible that it’s because WordPress has upgraded its mechanisms behind-the-scenes. You know, part of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

  5. Democrats always run a catch and kill scam.

    First bait the trap with hope, capture the dupes, and then kill the hope.

    It works every time.

    Asperger Syndrome: The ability to pay attention to an issue to the annoyance of the easily distracted.

    Soviets labeled dissent as a psychiatric illness, too.

Leave a Reply