We can’t afford any more George W. Bush’s or Donald Trump’s, who were both brought to us by Democratic-leaning voters thinking they were doing the right thing by voting for third party candidates...
Those who have read my comments, know that I gravitate towards the simplest explanation. I consider myself a realist, a pessimist if you wish. Pessimists are pleasantly disappointed, optimist are heartbreakedly disappointed. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than heartbroken.
So here is my take, Cornell West,RFK jr, are not stupid. they know that their candidacy will take votes away from Biden, and that they don't have a chance in hell of winning against Trump or any right winger, so why are they playing the spoiler.? Compromised? Corrupt? Ego.
Cornell West, especially will split the black community by gender. Male blacks, many have already indicated that they will vote for the racist Trump, to give Biden and the Democrats the finger, because they believe that they have not done enough for them. Well I agree, but being pissed at the kitty is not a reason to take a cougar into your house. Especially one that will kill and eat you, which Trump has proclaimed often.
I believe it was you who, on this forum, called my attention to the Constitution's Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 which gives Congress authority to regulate Federal elections in the states. I had previously been under the mistaken apprehension that getting Ranked Choice Voting could only be achieved through a long and arduous state-by-state process. The First-Past-The Post-plurality system we are currently burdened with gives an advantage to the incumbent candidates of both parties of the duopoly, but I would like to hope that the Democrats would have the integrity, when they control both Houses, to pass a bill mandating the Ranked Choice Ballot henceforth be used in all Federal elections. That, as Thom observed, would destroy the spoiler effect, which is the principle mechanism maintaining the political duopoly.
I think the Dems have a good chance of retaking the government. You won't hear that from the corporate media though, after all they are conservative, owned and controlled by the money powers.
Remember the red wave that media forecasted in 2020, Never happened, how disappointed they were.
Compromised and money. Sinema, if she runs, will take votes away from democrats in AZ. She is currently running an ad all over the papers touting her "help" with the new monument and her picture with Native Americans, who swing the vote in AZ. She has never met with any of her constitutents but flies around the country collecting money from banks, pharma and oil. I just received an email asking for 5$ so I'm assuming she'll run as a spoiler. No Labels or Sinema will throw AZ to the Republicans, even if the Dems spend alot of money on voter education.
Agreed, let's keep our eyes on the DSCC, they should be running a vigorous (expensive) campaign, pointing out the treachery of Sinema. She is no longer a Democrat, hence not even a yellow dog.
Chuck Schumer is not a leader, neither was Harry Reid. Dems have no guts, Republicans have no shame, and that is why Dems lose.
Thank you for your comments. RFKjr at least has the honesty to run against Biden in the primary. I don't understand West. What a bitter disappointment he has turned out to be.
IIRC RFK Jr, has threatened to run as an independent if he doesn't show as winner of the Primary, but is that enough time (and money) to get on the ballots of all states.
Roger on Cornell West, all I can think of is that he is secret Trump Humper, or is so pissed that he doesn't care if America is turned into a racist, misogynist, religious, white nationalist dictatorship. He just wants to stick it to the man, even if it harms himself and his family.
Aug 15, 2023·edited Aug 15, 2023Liked by Thom Hartmann
Perhaps a bit of voter education. . .
Short term we will have to live with voting for candidates in an outdated system of first past the post. Educating about the dangers of fringe candidates is certainly important.
In Germany voters cast two ballots--one for candidates and one for the party of choice. This prevents a "first past the post" immature democracy that led to the Third Reich when there was a fragmentation of parties. We should take some lessons from Germany.
More fundamentally, presidential systems are inherently fragile and subject to a fascist or authoritarian take over. We need to move on to a more modern executive and follow Senator Sander's suggestion in his latest book to re-think the constitution.
What needs to be done is not novel or Earth shattering. The Swiss have been served an executive vested in a seven-member Federal Council since 1848. It worked, works, and has adapted to major changes in the country and economy. The EU has similar processes with European Commission and European Council in shared executive roles.
It really is time to adapt and move beyond the outdated presidential, neo-monarchy system.
So true!! I hate it when I hear the “ I vote for the person, not the party “ argument. They are ignorant about the way the American system gets legislation passed.
You’re statement about Biden ‘having done more damage to the black community than Republicans over the past thirty years’ . I would like to know where that comes from . It seems wrong , especially in light of the Republican Party’s deep roots in Heritage Foundation etc. and their overt Christian White Nationalism push .
They play for the money and power , neither of which the African Community is enjoying.
I wonder too. For sure the Democratic Party has taken Black people for granted for a long, long time, because from the '60s onward, Black voters, especially Black women, had nowhere else to go. Pinning it on Biden in particular seems odd. The "thirty years" reference makes me think it might have something to do with the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, which took place in the fall of 1991 and with Biden as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many USians who weren't politically engaged at the time don't seem all that aware of either the political climate or the makeup of Congress. IIRC the Senate Judiciary Committee was composed entirely of white men. Bush I cleverly nominated a Black man to succeed Thurgood Marshall, the first Black SCOTUS justice, knowing that queasy white male liberals were going to have a hard time opposing a Black man, any Black man, for fear of being called racist.
Biden was about my 6th choice in the 2020 primary (Warren was my #1, but I liked Julián Castro and was OK with Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg), but I worked and voted for him in the general and he's way outperformed my expectations. I can't imagine any of the others pulling off what he's pulled off in the last 2 1/2 years.
Well put! My first election was my one and only idealistic 3rd party candidate election. Now, I vote for the person most likely to win and put in judges that I can live with.
Attorney Cheeseburger (Chesebro) has done much work on understanding the selection and voting for Presidents, including some fine historical analysis that he emailed to a certain Mr. Giuliani on December 13, 2020. After summarizing the details of the process for determining electoral counts under the original constitution, he pointed out:
"Further, during this era there was an emphasis on honorable behavior and circumspection. Leaders were greatly concerned about their reputation, about whether they were perceived as honorable, both during their lives and afterwards. So there was much less concern that someone in a national legislature entrusted with power to count votes would abuse it.."
So what Attorney Cheesebuger is saying in his own analysis is that the framers never expected to see the kinds of abuses of power that he and Guiliani were counselling for.
The basic scheme they devised was to have Pence go against the Electoral Count Act, based in part on a claim of a "conlfiict of interest" by Pense so that someone else could step in as "President of the Senate" or otherwise to count votes based on committee findings that could be made, recognizing alternative electors.
A couple of basic important points I dont think you will see on TV:
1) What is couched as legal strategy and advise is often really a media strategy - Chesebro in numbered point (1) of his strategy talks only in terms of media strategy;
2) Media has a severe conflict of interest - the criminals always see this a s a media game and want all
legal matters to be tried in the court of public opinion, ruled by the media;
3) The big, glaring legal case is not the insurrection, its the conspiracy charged in smith's DC indictment and the GA case, both of which do not really involve the insurrection or related acts. Regardless of the insurrection that took place, there was a pretty detailed strategy laid out by Attorney Cheesebuger, and the vaious co-conspirators were following it and trying to get others to follow it, etc.
First Amendment and free speech WOULD BE a relevant defense (a generally relevant, legitimate defense that could be asserted depending on facts) to charges involving insurrection (inciting violence etc). The whole point that's missing is that those arent the charges, Trump and his media echo are talking about a defense to the wrong charges.
A lot of what you see on Politico, The Hill, even most CNN, is just a way of getting Trump narratives out there with a straight face, or distracting from the seriousness and illegality of the subject matter at hand.
Here it is, see anything about Free Speech, All I see is Congress shall make no laws
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That sentence does not say that you, I, an employer, a university can say any thing we want, especially if it harms or threatens a person or public safety, Nor does it mean that a state can't pass laws that limit speech.
The thought just occurred to me, that the reason that the media makes so much noise about free speech, is because that is how they make a profit, causing division, telling lies, focusing on the liars and thieves, the media loves Trump, the media created Trump, as Les Moonves said: Trump is bad for America but great for CBS. They can justify slanders and lies, (Fox is the master of it) by claiming free speech and no one questions it, iby the same token the media, if it so wished, could make guns totally socially unacceptable and rally the people behind sensible laws, but they make too much money (eyeballs) with breaking news on another mass shooting.
Such BS it's incredible. Several polls and studies have shown that aver 75% of those (in some studies up to 90%) who would vote for candidates like Dr Cornel West or Marianne Williamson would never cast a vote for a Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. That would include me. The problem you have Thom is that like all of corporate media you have perverted the function of government so that it becomes our job to support representatives who are not serving our collective interests. I am not voting for someone who promises no pipeline projects and then approves them left and right. Or someone who fistbumps MBS while promising to make him a pariah. Or who campaigns on criminal justice reform and subsequently adds 100,000 police to a brutalized and militarized police force. No Thom, I do not have to vote for the king of our mass incarceration who has singlehandedly done more damage to the black community than Republicans over the past 30 years. It is not my obligation to support judgment-addled liars like Biden because Democrats have been so ineffectual and politically expedient they helped to usher in the era of Trump. Dr West is a humanist and a truthteller, and hearing his message which is identical to that of Martin Luther King Jr's is the only possible way our country can be rescued from the unproductive tribal war you are waging against Republicans and vice-versa. That might help you sell dog food but it is not the antidote for decades of neoliberal spiritual and moral decay. And Biden is certainly too weak and middling to stand up against any Republican challenger in general and Trump in particular. Dr West could handle him, Biden can't.
So, in other words, you are voting for Trump. This confirms my suspicion that you are Trump-Putin Troll.
Maybe Cornell West has his eyes on Trump;s vice president. The Mo Fo is going to peel votes away from Biden and thus elect Trump. You are intelligent, so you know that.
Unfortunately tribalism leads to a religious way of thinking that is impenetrable. Over 75% of those who would vote for third party candidates would not place a vote for either establishment candidate. In a U of Michigan study it was over 80%. This does not take votes away from neoliberal or fascist candidates. Stop micromanaging votes and macromanage your candidate into doing the right thing.
75%, you pulled that number out of thin air, I was going to say something else, but decorum prevails..
Push comes to shove, Whether we like it or not, a vote for a third party is indeed a vote for Trump. One can find polls and stats that support our claim, and they do, Quinnipiac is well known to be a Republican polling firm.
I don't disagree, rather I fully agree about tribalism, but you are ignoring that Thrid parties, like the Green party are themselves tribal., as are the Cornell West voters, the majority of whom are male ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves), much more reactionary, and short term thinking than female ADOS.
They are, afterall, males and their sympathies definitely lie with the white male fascists. It is all about an attitude towards women, and how a self organized, self validating women is a threat to an insecure and needy male. Oh they love their mommy, just like Italians and Arabs, but they think of women as inferior, not quite human, creatures, whose sole purpose in life it to breed mini me's, be a nanny to those mini me's, and a sexual and domestic servant.
I suppose the point is eventually someone has got to tell the truth or the downward spiral will continue. Biden has treated immigrants just as harshly (or moreso) than Trump. His climate policies are one step forwards and two steps back. We are closer to nuclear confrontation than at any time in our history. I'll stick with the guy who actually believes in the tenets of Martin Luther King Jr, not the racist who wants me to believe he does. You've got your guy, I've got mine. I would never tell you to vote for Dr West and don't you tell me to vote for Joe Biden. You can only give me one theoretical reason not to vote for Dr West--Trump--I can give you pages of real reasons not to vote for Biden.
Stick with Cornell West then, and if enough join your siren call, then suffer the racist, religious, misogynistic, homophobic regime that follows "all hail Caesar" as he turns this nation into a graveyard for those that oppose him..he has already promised that.
Again you sound like a Putin-Trump troll.
As regards the Nuclear threat It is just a scare word, for the weak at knees.
1. If Putin even launches a nuke it is all over for him, He just committed suicide. MAD is still our nuclear doctrine.
2. Nukes take constant maintenance, replenishment, and the Soviet forces (yes, I use the term, because the KGB in the guise of the FSB still controls the populace, and uses the Russian Orthodox priests to keep dossiers on the people, are commanded by Generals and Admirals who have been directing the funds for maintenance to their own accounts, to build Dachas for mistresses and squirrel away funds in foreign real estate and banks.
If I was a tin pot dictator, like Trump or Jong Un, I would wave a nuclear phallus, full well knowing that I was dealing with cowards, who are so spineless that they con't see I am bluffing.
Maybe at the end of a war, they might launch a gottdamerung. Hiitler would have if he had an atom bomb. But that is at the end, when the hand of retribution reaches out and is fatal.
Otherwise Putin, Xi, Jon Ung, can take over the wolrd without firing a gun, simply by waving the nuclear phallus.
If the function of Government is merely to get fraudulent Crypto into all of our private retirement plans, our Democratic Senators are doing great so please give them a break, especially our own Senator Gilli-corporateBrand. She could have done this legislation on a BI-Partisan basis, woo-hoo!
Where are the Democrats responding to ending white privilege and white supremacy? Certainly not at all with Obama. Then who? Then when? Are the Dems pushing for National rank voting? Because? Why are neoliberals in power? Why is the “center” so far right? Why is the concept of “slippery slope “ so death inflicting?
You can't respond to whte privilege without alienating most of white America, you can only change it, and piecemeal at that. The rise of the fascist right is attributable to the changes already made in our culture. Not all Democrats are progressives, and apparently 99% of Republicans are racist, misogynistic, religious nuts.
You have a lot of whys? if you were paying attention to Thom's article and TV program,you would know the answer. Money in poltics, we have the best government, many can buy.
W e need to reform the election process, but as long as one party is benefiting from the graft, in the name of free speech, One vote per dollar of contribution. Nothng will change.
This country can be analogized to a ship (Ship of State) launched in 1789 by a bunch of rich white men who perceived themselves to be the elite. (Truth is the New Englanders were smugglers and the Virginians were would be aristocrats, royalists, who wanted to be bowed and curtsied to and called "your grace"
The government that they established, via the constitution, was designed to keep the elite in power in perpetuity. The House of Reps was to be re elected every two years, and thus be populated by the rabble, where as the Executive was to be semi permanent, and the real power in Congress was the Senate which serves 6 years, and it was selected, not elected, unti May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913, the 17th Amendment modified Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution by allowing voters to cast direct votes for U.S. senators. Prior to its passage, senators were chosen by state legislatures. And state legislatures were controlled by the voters, who in 1789 were rich and powerful white men, as women and slaves could not vote., nor could, at first, white men who did not own property.\ could not vote.
So the ship of state was launched, it was a corporate endeavor and the share holders were elite and rich white men, until after the civil war, the freed slaves and their descendants gained political power, yet until s February 26, 1869, and ratified February 3, 1870, the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote, but still excluded women. Who didn't get the vote until the 19th Amendment. Based on that alone, guess who has more status and privilege in America. men or women. Answer: Men, Even in insurance and health care, insurance will pay for drugs for peyrones disease (also enlargment), but not women's health care.There are no laws regarding ,mens reproductive system, and insurance companies will pay claims related to such, but not women.
Every four years the passengers on the ship of state, vote for a new Captain, but the navigator who is employed by share holderes in America Inc, stays the same (Supreme Court), yet with the change in Captains the ship will change course a tad, to port or starboard, then a new election will bring a new Captain, that corrects the course from port to starboard or vice versa and the ship stays on course to it's destination., which gauging from the acceleration of events, is a 4th Reich of the Rich.
Change, if it happens, will start at the bottom up. One of the lost in history changes that the FDR administration started was the regionalization of America. Some bits of the infrastructure as still with us--TVA and WAPA in the electricity area. We also have a plethora of regional state compacts.
If we are going to change and have a durable democracy, we may want to revisit the regionalization efforts. Hopefully this time they will not be interrupted by a World War.
Sounds agreeable. I do believe in bottom up change, but alas it isn't working, maybe because the Democratic party has never fully been Democratic, I think that the attitude, values and corporate ethos of the pre LBJ Democratic Party linger on, even if the old Dixiecrats have died or retired (Died mostly), they left behind a legacy. Just like parents who raise their child in a religion, or party.
But, and this is important, FDR was a scion of a wealthy "ennobled" ruling class, and he made progressive changes from the Top Down, not the bottom up.
However the DNC has never paid attention to the bottom of the political ladder, where as the Republicans have, they have invested in taking over states from the bottom up, from Animal Control to State legislature.
And the DNC, nothing, they have sat on their asses and let the Republicans take control or have some power in at least 26 states, if not more.
Bottom up only works in the long haul, it is progressive and slow change. That opportunity is now over. Democracy is on it's last gasp. If the Republicans win the 3034 election, I hope you have a passport and the means to bribe a country to take you in Canada and New Zealand won't accept y ou, unless you have $250,000 in cash, and the means to bring jobs and employment into their country. For one thing they don't want foreigners like Americans, coming in and using their socialist health care system, thus placing a borden on their tax payers.
the answer: money in politics is not a why but a stake in the heart. why keep voting for fools compared to dumb fools? nothing is changing at the federal level. the federal level caused the systemic racism and will never change it. roll the dice and see if the military will provide the opportunity to rewrite the Law of the land, without a new start we are past, present, and future going to settle for one group of narcissists compared to another, we have not what we want. we will not get what we and the majority of the people want. the game is over as it is ever being played. as the child said: the king is naked.
All I can say is some fools are more dangerous than others. Take that racist, sexist, treasonous homobphobe, the orange emperor vs. the compromiser in chief.
A vote for anyone other than the compromiser is a vote for the tyrant.
There is a fundamental strategy question of whether the democratic party can be steered toward progressive values or whether a third party strategy is viable - Thom has been for some time on the side of taking over the democratic party and that constitutional changes are need for third parties to succeed, which I am not sure I completely agree with.
Perhaps before any of that is the issue of whether any president with progressive values could even function in the given political and media environment. It seems to me that any democrat or third party must build out some kind of independent media platform to have any chance at all at accomplishing a progressive agenda, and although not emphasized in media coverage, people surely need some better measure of holding corporations directly accountable through organized boycotts, ESG investing, etc.
People are delusional or not paying attention if they think their vote is meaningless enough to make a point. Wanting to "like" the candidate falls in that category as well.
Can you imagine how farther into the climate crisis we are because this country did not elect Vice President Gore? All that money wasted on the Bush/Cheney wars---the deaths and destruction! VP Gore just did a great TED Talk in July; it's on YouTube and well worth it for the good news at the end.
Many might say it's the principle. Well, principle won't save us from Trump and what he has promised to do to this country. Gutting regulations is the one thing I BELIEVE that he has said. He's a psychopath and everyone who chooses not to vote against him will pay just like the rest of us and generations to come.
One would think Thom, as the nation's leading progressive talker, you would be amplifying the message of a humanist and disciple of Martin Luther King Jr rather than talking the cowardly position of establishment political punditry. A progressive talker should be offering reasons why Dr West's candidacy would be therapeutic for a nation darkened by perpetual war, militarized police, record wealth inequality, inaccessible and unaffordable health care and a political expediency that demands support from a fearful and undemanding base. To pretend his aspirations are idealistic while we are on the brink of nuclear confrontation, climate disaster and civil war is doing the job of corporate America in entrenching four more years of misery for the working class, the middle class and the poor. Perhaps you need to examine why you called Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders "practically identical" in 2016, or why you proclaimed Hillary Clinton to be a "brilliant" Secretary of State or Biden to be the next FDR. What we need to heal the nation is not only an anti-Trump but an anti-Biden, but apparently you think selling dog food and nutritional supplements are more important than the survival of humanity and the planet.
A few points. (1) Voting for the person not the party can work at the local level. In my state (MA) local elections are nonpartisan anyway. Even where local media are non-existent, it's not impossible to find out about issues and candidates without relying on ads. It's also not hard to find out what these elected officials and boards actually do, or even attend a meeting once in a while. Thanks to COVID, plenty of municipal meetings moved to Zoom, and many of us are pushing for them to retain hybrid capacity even when they go back to in-person.
(2) In the U.S., the federal structure complicates things. A lot. Most of us live in a nation, a state, a municipality, and maybe a county. Each level has a governing structure. They interact in complex ways. Staying informed, never mind engaged, takes serious effort. Each voter has the maximum influence at the lowest levels, and that influence diminishes as you move up the levels. In a presidential election, you have almost no influence unless you live in a swing state. (See #5 below.)
(3) The Democratic Party -- OMG, where to start, where to start? I would *not* start with the DNC (Democratic National Committee) or any of the national Dem groups: DCCC, DSCC, DLCC, or DGA. (Full names available on request, or just google.) Not unless I already had serious clout, expertise, and/or money. Each state has a Democratic state committee. Don't start there either, unless you're prepared to tear your hair out, as many Democratic activists are already doing in my state (MA) and I doubt we're unique. Most if not all of the state committees have structures that reach down to the municipal level. Start there.
(4) I could go on about why strategies and tactics that worked for the GOP from Reagan onward probably won't work for the Democratic Party, and why we should aim higher than that, but it would take a while and I've got work to do. Over the last 40 years or so, the GOP's popular pitch has coalesced around racism, anti-abortion, and guns (this directly related to hysteria about crime, not unrelated to racism). The Democratic coalition is far more diverse and unwieldy -- and IMO that's our strength in the long run, if we can manage to hold the country together in the short run.
(5) Yes to ranked-choice voting (RCV), but it's going to take it a while to make it up to national elections. It helped the GOP lose a House seat in Alaska and they sure don't want that to happen again. Also I doubt we're getting rid of the Electoral College any time soon, so RCV would have to work within that structure. I think the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is worth pursuing as an intermediate step. Signatories would pledge all of their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the popular vote nationally. At present 17 states (representing 205 electoral votes) have signed on. For more info: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
Sorry for going on so long. I've been down in the trenches for the last few years, and one thing I've learned is that things are more complicated down here than they look from the outside.
A great civics lesson! Ranked voting is the answer, but not now. You've made that point clear and I appreciate it. I'm a Cornel West advocate, so this essay assuages my guilt about not being able to vote for him.
And your attack on third party candidates is off the mark if you ONLY attack them on the left and disregard their similar, far greater impacts to the GOP from the right. All you are doing here is engaging in negative partisanship, Thom. The Libertarian and Constitution candidates received about three times as many votes as did Stein in 2016 in each of those same states.
Our/Your beef is with the Dem leadership that rigged the nomination process and Sec. Clinton who ran an appalling campaign such that the always present ping-pong "independents" could not find a reason to vote for her but heard all sorts of reasons to vote for t-RUMP.
Does anybody understand why Warren and Bernie did not get together last time? Wasn't that the obvious question at the point when everyone else was forced to throw in the towel and support Joe? There was that dumb little audio clip they played on TV trying to show controversy but if the basic reality is that those are the two progressives and together they had what could be a controlling chunk, why wouldnt they get together and support one another?
Did anyone else notice how most of the 2020 Dem primary candidates specifically represented identity groups likely to support progressives like Bernie? And notice that none of those candidates endorsed Bernie when they quit on cue? Dem leadership strikes again by shooting Americans in the neck. While the GOP is FAR worse, don't let the Dems get away with manslaughter while the GOP is busy murdering democracy. The corruption that has always been part of the American political landscape is not limited to the GOP.
Nevertheless, thank you Earl Dunkel and CEO Charles E. Wilson of GE for the raging, indoctrinated puppet that was Ronald Reagan. Nearly every major crisis we are experiencing had its more recent roots in that administration's agencies, from the FCC, the FTC, the SEC, the FEC, the FAA, etc., etc.
They put govt. teeth into the Powell Memo, its third front toward fascism.
Yes, the GOP must be defeated next year. But we need a Democratic Party majority that does not in any significant way mimic, somewhat more softly, the basic techniques of the GOP.
The presidential election can be thought of as a separate calculation and I think should. At state and local level, the working families party has been making progress in ny - active and doing good work for primaries to offer better choices, but leery of challenging dems in the last general elections and decided not to do that if that could split the vote.
I agree with your critique of Hillary. However in our current culture, Third party candidates have only played spoiler for the Fascists. It is not about party, I leave that to the Lemmings, it is about freedom and democracy, which the right in the form of the Republican party, has and is threatening ever since Reagan.
So much for your self coined scare phrase (negative partisanship)
Anything to keep the fascist right out of power. And FYI all partisanship is negative, it is being against someone and the ideology they represent, unfortunately.
Those who have read my comments, know that I gravitate towards the simplest explanation. I consider myself a realist, a pessimist if you wish. Pessimists are pleasantly disappointed, optimist are heartbreakedly disappointed. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised than heartbroken.
So here is my take, Cornell West,RFK jr, are not stupid. they know that their candidacy will take votes away from Biden, and that they don't have a chance in hell of winning against Trump or any right winger, so why are they playing the spoiler.? Compromised? Corrupt? Ego.
Cornell West, especially will split the black community by gender. Male blacks, many have already indicated that they will vote for the racist Trump, to give Biden and the Democrats the finger, because they believe that they have not done enough for them. Well I agree, but being pissed at the kitty is not a reason to take a cougar into your house. Especially one that will kill and eat you, which Trump has proclaimed often.
Talk about stupid, beyond being a Quisling
Bill,
I believe it was you who, on this forum, called my attention to the Constitution's Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 which gives Congress authority to regulate Federal elections in the states. I had previously been under the mistaken apprehension that getting Ranked Choice Voting could only be achieved through a long and arduous state-by-state process. The First-Past-The Post-plurality system we are currently burdened with gives an advantage to the incumbent candidates of both parties of the duopoly, but I would like to hope that the Democrats would have the integrity, when they control both Houses, to pass a bill mandating the Ranked Choice Ballot henceforth be used in all Federal elections. That, as Thom observed, would destroy the spoiler effect, which is the principle mechanism maintaining the political duopoly.
Never thought of that one. Yegads you are correct
I think the Dems have a good chance of retaking the government. You won't hear that from the corporate media though, after all they are conservative, owned and controlled by the money powers.
Remember the red wave that media forecasted in 2020, Never happened, how disappointed they were.
Compromised and money. Sinema, if she runs, will take votes away from democrats in AZ. She is currently running an ad all over the papers touting her "help" with the new monument and her picture with Native Americans, who swing the vote in AZ. She has never met with any of her constitutents but flies around the country collecting money from banks, pharma and oil. I just received an email asking for 5$ so I'm assuming she'll run as a spoiler. No Labels or Sinema will throw AZ to the Republicans, even if the Dems spend alot of money on voter education.
,
Agreed, let's keep our eyes on the DSCC, they should be running a vigorous (expensive) campaign, pointing out the treachery of Sinema. She is no longer a Democrat, hence not even a yellow dog.
Chuck Schumer is not a leader, neither was Harry Reid. Dems have no guts, Republicans have no shame, and that is why Dems lose.
Thank you for your comments. RFKjr at least has the honesty to run against Biden in the primary. I don't understand West. What a bitter disappointment he has turned out to be.
IIRC RFK Jr, has threatened to run as an independent if he doesn't show as winner of the Primary, but is that enough time (and money) to get on the ballots of all states.
Roger on Cornell West, all I can think of is that he is secret Trump Humper, or is so pissed that he doesn't care if America is turned into a racist, misogynist, religious, white nationalist dictatorship. He just wants to stick it to the man, even if it harms himself and his family.
Perhaps a bit of voter education. . .
Short term we will have to live with voting for candidates in an outdated system of first past the post. Educating about the dangers of fringe candidates is certainly important.
In Germany voters cast two ballots--one for candidates and one for the party of choice. This prevents a "first past the post" immature democracy that led to the Third Reich when there was a fragmentation of parties. We should take some lessons from Germany.
More fundamentally, presidential systems are inherently fragile and subject to a fascist or authoritarian take over. We need to move on to a more modern executive and follow Senator Sander's suggestion in his latest book to re-think the constitution.
What needs to be done is not novel or Earth shattering. The Swiss have been served an executive vested in a seven-member Federal Council since 1848. It worked, works, and has adapted to major changes in the country and economy. The EU has similar processes with European Commission and European Council in shared executive roles.
It really is time to adapt and move beyond the outdated presidential, neo-monarchy system.
So true!! I hate it when I hear the “ I vote for the person, not the party “ argument. They are ignorant about the way the American system gets legislation passed.
I've actually only heard that once and it was from a man who could hardly tie his own shoes.
You’re statement about Biden ‘having done more damage to the black community than Republicans over the past thirty years’ . I would like to know where that comes from . It seems wrong , especially in light of the Republican Party’s deep roots in Heritage Foundation etc. and their overt Christian White Nationalism push .
They play for the money and power , neither of which the African Community is enjoying.
I wonder too. For sure the Democratic Party has taken Black people for granted for a long, long time, because from the '60s onward, Black voters, especially Black women, had nowhere else to go. Pinning it on Biden in particular seems odd. The "thirty years" reference makes me think it might have something to do with the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, which took place in the fall of 1991 and with Biden as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many USians who weren't politically engaged at the time don't seem all that aware of either the political climate or the makeup of Congress. IIRC the Senate Judiciary Committee was composed entirely of white men. Bush I cleverly nominated a Black man to succeed Thurgood Marshall, the first Black SCOTUS justice, knowing that queasy white male liberals were going to have a hard time opposing a Black man, any Black man, for fear of being called racist.
Biden was about my 6th choice in the 2020 primary (Warren was my #1, but I liked Julián Castro and was OK with Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg), but I worked and voted for him in the general and he's way outperformed my expectations. I can't imagine any of the others pulling off what he's pulled off in the last 2 1/2 years.
I can't find that statement.
You are absolutely correct Mr. Hartman!
Well put! My first election was my one and only idealistic 3rd party candidate election. Now, I vote for the person most likely to win and put in judges that I can live with.
Attorney Cheeseburger (Chesebro) has done much work on understanding the selection and voting for Presidents, including some fine historical analysis that he emailed to a certain Mr. Giuliani on December 13, 2020. After summarizing the details of the process for determining electoral counts under the original constitution, he pointed out:
"Further, during this era there was an emphasis on honorable behavior and circumspection. Leaders were greatly concerned about their reputation, about whether they were perceived as honorable, both during their lives and afterwards. So there was much less concern that someone in a national legislature entrusted with power to count votes would abuse it.."
So what Attorney Cheesebuger is saying in his own analysis is that the framers never expected to see the kinds of abuses of power that he and Guiliani were counselling for.
The basic scheme they devised was to have Pence go against the Electoral Count Act, based in part on a claim of a "conlfiict of interest" by Pense so that someone else could step in as "President of the Senate" or otherwise to count votes based on committee findings that could be made, recognizing alternative electors.
A couple of basic important points I dont think you will see on TV:
1) What is couched as legal strategy and advise is often really a media strategy - Chesebro in numbered point (1) of his strategy talks only in terms of media strategy;
2) Media has a severe conflict of interest - the criminals always see this a s a media game and want all
legal matters to be tried in the court of public opinion, ruled by the media;
3) The big, glaring legal case is not the insurrection, its the conspiracy charged in smith's DC indictment and the GA case, both of which do not really involve the insurrection or related acts. Regardless of the insurrection that took place, there was a pretty detailed strategy laid out by Attorney Cheesebuger, and the vaious co-conspirators were following it and trying to get others to follow it, etc.
First Amendment and free speech WOULD BE a relevant defense (a generally relevant, legitimate defense that could be asserted depending on facts) to charges involving insurrection (inciting violence etc). The whole point that's missing is that those arent the charges, Trump and his media echo are talking about a defense to the wrong charges.
A lot of what you see on Politico, The Hill, even most CNN, is just a way of getting Trump narratives out there with a straight face, or distracting from the seriousness and illegality of the subject matter at hand.
Free speech, an overworked and fraudulent phrase.
Have you read the 1st amendment?
Here it is, see anything about Free Speech, All I see is Congress shall make no laws
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That sentence does not say that you, I, an employer, a university can say any thing we want, especially if it harms or threatens a person or public safety, Nor does it mean that a state can't pass laws that limit speech.
The thought just occurred to me, that the reason that the media makes so much noise about free speech, is because that is how they make a profit, causing division, telling lies, focusing on the liars and thieves, the media loves Trump, the media created Trump, as Les Moonves said: Trump is bad for America but great for CBS. They can justify slanders and lies, (Fox is the master of it) by claiming free speech and no one questions it, iby the same token the media, if it so wished, could make guns totally socially unacceptable and rally the people behind sensible laws, but they make too much money (eyeballs) with breaking news on another mass shooting.
Such BS it's incredible. Several polls and studies have shown that aver 75% of those (in some studies up to 90%) who would vote for candidates like Dr Cornel West or Marianne Williamson would never cast a vote for a Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. That would include me. The problem you have Thom is that like all of corporate media you have perverted the function of government so that it becomes our job to support representatives who are not serving our collective interests. I am not voting for someone who promises no pipeline projects and then approves them left and right. Or someone who fistbumps MBS while promising to make him a pariah. Or who campaigns on criminal justice reform and subsequently adds 100,000 police to a brutalized and militarized police force. No Thom, I do not have to vote for the king of our mass incarceration who has singlehandedly done more damage to the black community than Republicans over the past 30 years. It is not my obligation to support judgment-addled liars like Biden because Democrats have been so ineffectual and politically expedient they helped to usher in the era of Trump. Dr West is a humanist and a truthteller, and hearing his message which is identical to that of Martin Luther King Jr's is the only possible way our country can be rescued from the unproductive tribal war you are waging against Republicans and vice-versa. That might help you sell dog food but it is not the antidote for decades of neoliberal spiritual and moral decay. And Biden is certainly too weak and middling to stand up against any Republican challenger in general and Trump in particular. Dr West could handle him, Biden can't.
So, in other words, you are voting for Trump. This confirms my suspicion that you are Trump-Putin Troll.
Maybe Cornell West has his eyes on Trump;s vice president. The Mo Fo is going to peel votes away from Biden and thus elect Trump. You are intelligent, so you know that.
Unfortunately tribalism leads to a religious way of thinking that is impenetrable. Over 75% of those who would vote for third party candidates would not place a vote for either establishment candidate. In a U of Michigan study it was over 80%. This does not take votes away from neoliberal or fascist candidates. Stop micromanaging votes and macromanage your candidate into doing the right thing.
75%, you pulled that number out of thin air, I was going to say something else, but decorum prevails..
Push comes to shove, Whether we like it or not, a vote for a third party is indeed a vote for Trump. One can find polls and stats that support our claim, and they do, Quinnipiac is well known to be a Republican polling firm.
I don't disagree, rather I fully agree about tribalism, but you are ignoring that Thrid parties, like the Green party are themselves tribal., as are the Cornell West voters, the majority of whom are male ADOS (American Descendants of Slaves), much more reactionary, and short term thinking than female ADOS.
They are, afterall, males and their sympathies definitely lie with the white male fascists. It is all about an attitude towards women, and how a self organized, self validating women is a threat to an insecure and needy male. Oh they love their mommy, just like Italians and Arabs, but they think of women as inferior, not quite human, creatures, whose sole purpose in life it to breed mini me's, be a nanny to those mini me's, and a sexual and domestic servant.
https://www.elon.edu/u/news/2023/07/05/gendle-publishes-op-ed-discussing-democratic-resistance-to-third-party-candidates/
I suppose the point is eventually someone has got to tell the truth or the downward spiral will continue. Biden has treated immigrants just as harshly (or moreso) than Trump. His climate policies are one step forwards and two steps back. We are closer to nuclear confrontation than at any time in our history. I'll stick with the guy who actually believes in the tenets of Martin Luther King Jr, not the racist who wants me to believe he does. You've got your guy, I've got mine. I would never tell you to vote for Dr West and don't you tell me to vote for Joe Biden. You can only give me one theoretical reason not to vote for Dr West--Trump--I can give you pages of real reasons not to vote for Biden.
Stick with Cornell West then, and if enough join your siren call, then suffer the racist, religious, misogynistic, homophobic regime that follows "all hail Caesar" as he turns this nation into a graveyard for those that oppose him..he has already promised that.
Again you sound like a Putin-Trump troll.
As regards the Nuclear threat It is just a scare word, for the weak at knees.
1. If Putin even launches a nuke it is all over for him, He just committed suicide. MAD is still our nuclear doctrine.
2. Nukes take constant maintenance, replenishment, and the Soviet forces (yes, I use the term, because the KGB in the guise of the FSB still controls the populace, and uses the Russian Orthodox priests to keep dossiers on the people, are commanded by Generals and Admirals who have been directing the funds for maintenance to their own accounts, to build Dachas for mistresses and squirrel away funds in foreign real estate and banks.
If I was a tin pot dictator, like Trump or Jong Un, I would wave a nuclear phallus, full well knowing that I was dealing with cowards, who are so spineless that they con't see I am bluffing.
Maybe at the end of a war, they might launch a gottdamerung. Hiitler would have if he had an atom bomb. But that is at the end, when the hand of retribution reaches out and is fatal.
Otherwise Putin, Xi, Jon Ung, can take over the wolrd without firing a gun, simply by waving the nuclear phallus.
If the function of Government is merely to get fraudulent Crypto into all of our private retirement plans, our Democratic Senators are doing great so please give them a break, especially our own Senator Gilli-corporateBrand. She could have done this legislation on a BI-Partisan basis, woo-hoo!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2022/07/08/lummis-gillibrand-crypto-bill-an-important-step-in-bringing-regulatory-clarity-to-bitcoin-stablecoins--digital-assets/?sh=cf6fd57647d0
Where are the Democrats responding to ending white privilege and white supremacy? Certainly not at all with Obama. Then who? Then when? Are the Dems pushing for National rank voting? Because? Why are neoliberals in power? Why is the “center” so far right? Why is the concept of “slippery slope “ so death inflicting?
You can't respond to whte privilege without alienating most of white America, you can only change it, and piecemeal at that. The rise of the fascist right is attributable to the changes already made in our culture. Not all Democrats are progressives, and apparently 99% of Republicans are racist, misogynistic, religious nuts.
You have a lot of whys? if you were paying attention to Thom's article and TV program,you would know the answer. Money in poltics, we have the best government, many can buy.
W e need to reform the election process, but as long as one party is benefiting from the graft, in the name of free speech, One vote per dollar of contribution. Nothng will change.
This country can be analogized to a ship (Ship of State) launched in 1789 by a bunch of rich white men who perceived themselves to be the elite. (Truth is the New Englanders were smugglers and the Virginians were would be aristocrats, royalists, who wanted to be bowed and curtsied to and called "your grace"
The government that they established, via the constitution, was designed to keep the elite in power in perpetuity. The House of Reps was to be re elected every two years, and thus be populated by the rabble, where as the Executive was to be semi permanent, and the real power in Congress was the Senate which serves 6 years, and it was selected, not elected, unti May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913, the 17th Amendment modified Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution by allowing voters to cast direct votes for U.S. senators. Prior to its passage, senators were chosen by state legislatures. And state legislatures were controlled by the voters, who in 1789 were rich and powerful white men, as women and slaves could not vote., nor could, at first, white men who did not own property.\ could not vote.
So the ship of state was launched, it was a corporate endeavor and the share holders were elite and rich white men, until after the civil war, the freed slaves and their descendants gained political power, yet until s February 26, 1869, and ratified February 3, 1870, the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote, but still excluded women. Who didn't get the vote until the 19th Amendment. Based on that alone, guess who has more status and privilege in America. men or women. Answer: Men, Even in insurance and health care, insurance will pay for drugs for peyrones disease (also enlargment), but not women's health care.There are no laws regarding ,mens reproductive system, and insurance companies will pay claims related to such, but not women.
Every four years the passengers on the ship of state, vote for a new Captain, but the navigator who is employed by share holderes in America Inc, stays the same (Supreme Court), yet with the change in Captains the ship will change course a tad, to port or starboard, then a new election will bring a new Captain, that corrects the course from port to starboard or vice versa and the ship stays on course to it's destination., which gauging from the acceleration of events, is a 4th Reich of the Rich.
Very insightful discussion!
Change, if it happens, will start at the bottom up. One of the lost in history changes that the FDR administration started was the regionalization of America. Some bits of the infrastructure as still with us--TVA and WAPA in the electricity area. We also have a plethora of regional state compacts.
If we are going to change and have a durable democracy, we may want to revisit the regionalization efforts. Hopefully this time they will not be interrupted by a World War.
Sounds agreeable. I do believe in bottom up change, but alas it isn't working, maybe because the Democratic party has never fully been Democratic, I think that the attitude, values and corporate ethos of the pre LBJ Democratic Party linger on, even if the old Dixiecrats have died or retired (Died mostly), they left behind a legacy. Just like parents who raise their child in a religion, or party.
But, and this is important, FDR was a scion of a wealthy "ennobled" ruling class, and he made progressive changes from the Top Down, not the bottom up.
However the DNC has never paid attention to the bottom of the political ladder, where as the Republicans have, they have invested in taking over states from the bottom up, from Animal Control to State legislature.
And the DNC, nothing, they have sat on their asses and let the Republicans take control or have some power in at least 26 states, if not more.
Bottom up only works in the long haul, it is progressive and slow change. That opportunity is now over. Democracy is on it's last gasp. If the Republicans win the 3034 election, I hope you have a passport and the means to bribe a country to take you in Canada and New Zealand won't accept y ou, unless you have $250,000 in cash, and the means to bring jobs and employment into their country. For one thing they don't want foreigners like Americans, coming in and using their socialist health care system, thus placing a borden on their tax payers.
the answer: money in politics is not a why but a stake in the heart. why keep voting for fools compared to dumb fools? nothing is changing at the federal level. the federal level caused the systemic racism and will never change it. roll the dice and see if the military will provide the opportunity to rewrite the Law of the land, without a new start we are past, present, and future going to settle for one group of narcissists compared to another, we have not what we want. we will not get what we and the majority of the people want. the game is over as it is ever being played. as the child said: the king is naked.
All I can say is some fools are more dangerous than others. Take that racist, sexist, treasonous homobphobe, the orange emperor vs. the compromiser in chief.
A vote for anyone other than the compromiser is a vote for the tyrant.
Which would you have?
There is a fundamental strategy question of whether the democratic party can be steered toward progressive values or whether a third party strategy is viable - Thom has been for some time on the side of taking over the democratic party and that constitutional changes are need for third parties to succeed, which I am not sure I completely agree with.
Perhaps before any of that is the issue of whether any president with progressive values could even function in the given political and media environment. It seems to me that any democrat or third party must build out some kind of independent media platform to have any chance at all at accomplishing a progressive agenda, and although not emphasized in media coverage, people surely need some better measure of holding corporations directly accountable through organized boycotts, ESG investing, etc.
People are delusional or not paying attention if they think their vote is meaningless enough to make a point. Wanting to "like" the candidate falls in that category as well.
Can you imagine how farther into the climate crisis we are because this country did not elect Vice President Gore? All that money wasted on the Bush/Cheney wars---the deaths and destruction! VP Gore just did a great TED Talk in July; it's on YouTube and well worth it for the good news at the end.
Many might say it's the principle. Well, principle won't save us from Trump and what he has promised to do to this country. Gutting regulations is the one thing I BELIEVE that he has said. He's a psychopath and everyone who chooses not to vote against him will pay just like the rest of us and generations to come.
Thanks Thom, I think you are absolutely right!
We could vote safely for third party candidates if we had ranked choice voting.
who nationally is pushing hard for state and national rank voting? rather quiet in Illinois.
One would think Thom, as the nation's leading progressive talker, you would be amplifying the message of a humanist and disciple of Martin Luther King Jr rather than talking the cowardly position of establishment political punditry. A progressive talker should be offering reasons why Dr West's candidacy would be therapeutic for a nation darkened by perpetual war, militarized police, record wealth inequality, inaccessible and unaffordable health care and a political expediency that demands support from a fearful and undemanding base. To pretend his aspirations are idealistic while we are on the brink of nuclear confrontation, climate disaster and civil war is doing the job of corporate America in entrenching four more years of misery for the working class, the middle class and the poor. Perhaps you need to examine why you called Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders "practically identical" in 2016, or why you proclaimed Hillary Clinton to be a "brilliant" Secretary of State or Biden to be the next FDR. What we need to heal the nation is not only an anti-Trump but an anti-Biden, but apparently you think selling dog food and nutritional supplements are more important than the survival of humanity and the planet.
.... incidentally
Not mandatory for opinions to contain character assassination😏
A few points. (1) Voting for the person not the party can work at the local level. In my state (MA) local elections are nonpartisan anyway. Even where local media are non-existent, it's not impossible to find out about issues and candidates without relying on ads. It's also not hard to find out what these elected officials and boards actually do, or even attend a meeting once in a while. Thanks to COVID, plenty of municipal meetings moved to Zoom, and many of us are pushing for them to retain hybrid capacity even when they go back to in-person.
(2) In the U.S., the federal structure complicates things. A lot. Most of us live in a nation, a state, a municipality, and maybe a county. Each level has a governing structure. They interact in complex ways. Staying informed, never mind engaged, takes serious effort. Each voter has the maximum influence at the lowest levels, and that influence diminishes as you move up the levels. In a presidential election, you have almost no influence unless you live in a swing state. (See #5 below.)
(3) The Democratic Party -- OMG, where to start, where to start? I would *not* start with the DNC (Democratic National Committee) or any of the national Dem groups: DCCC, DSCC, DLCC, or DGA. (Full names available on request, or just google.) Not unless I already had serious clout, expertise, and/or money. Each state has a Democratic state committee. Don't start there either, unless you're prepared to tear your hair out, as many Democratic activists are already doing in my state (MA) and I doubt we're unique. Most if not all of the state committees have structures that reach down to the municipal level. Start there.
(4) I could go on about why strategies and tactics that worked for the GOP from Reagan onward probably won't work for the Democratic Party, and why we should aim higher than that, but it would take a while and I've got work to do. Over the last 40 years or so, the GOP's popular pitch has coalesced around racism, anti-abortion, and guns (this directly related to hysteria about crime, not unrelated to racism). The Democratic coalition is far more diverse and unwieldy -- and IMO that's our strength in the long run, if we can manage to hold the country together in the short run.
(5) Yes to ranked-choice voting (RCV), but it's going to take it a while to make it up to national elections. It helped the GOP lose a House seat in Alaska and they sure don't want that to happen again. Also I doubt we're getting rid of the Electoral College any time soon, so RCV would have to work within that structure. I think the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is worth pursuing as an intermediate step. Signatories would pledge all of their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the popular vote nationally. At present 17 states (representing 205 electoral votes) have signed on. For more info: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
Sorry for going on so long. I've been down in the trenches for the last few years, and one thing I've learned is that things are more complicated down here than they look from the outside.
A great civics lesson! Ranked voting is the answer, but not now. You've made that point clear and I appreciate it. I'm a Cornel West advocate, so this essay assuages my guilt about not being able to vote for him.
Only one "L" in Cornel.
And your attack on third party candidates is off the mark if you ONLY attack them on the left and disregard their similar, far greater impacts to the GOP from the right. All you are doing here is engaging in negative partisanship, Thom. The Libertarian and Constitution candidates received about three times as many votes as did Stein in 2016 in each of those same states.
Our/Your beef is with the Dem leadership that rigged the nomination process and Sec. Clinton who ran an appalling campaign such that the always present ping-pong "independents" could not find a reason to vote for her but heard all sorts of reasons to vote for t-RUMP.
Does anybody understand why Warren and Bernie did not get together last time? Wasn't that the obvious question at the point when everyone else was forced to throw in the towel and support Joe? There was that dumb little audio clip they played on TV trying to show controversy but if the basic reality is that those are the two progressives and together they had what could be a controlling chunk, why wouldnt they get together and support one another?
Did anyone else notice how most of the 2020 Dem primary candidates specifically represented identity groups likely to support progressives like Bernie? And notice that none of those candidates endorsed Bernie when they quit on cue? Dem leadership strikes again by shooting Americans in the neck. While the GOP is FAR worse, don't let the Dems get away with manslaughter while the GOP is busy murdering democracy. The corruption that has always been part of the American political landscape is not limited to the GOP.
Nevertheless, thank you Earl Dunkel and CEO Charles E. Wilson of GE for the raging, indoctrinated puppet that was Ronald Reagan. Nearly every major crisis we are experiencing had its more recent roots in that administration's agencies, from the FCC, the FTC, the SEC, the FEC, the FAA, etc., etc.
They put govt. teeth into the Powell Memo, its third front toward fascism.
Yes, the GOP must be defeated next year. But we need a Democratic Party majority that does not in any significant way mimic, somewhat more softly, the basic techniques of the GOP.
The presidential election can be thought of as a separate calculation and I think should. At state and local level, the working families party has been making progress in ny - active and doing good work for primaries to offer better choices, but leery of challenging dems in the last general elections and decided not to do that if that could split the vote.
I don't know why, but since Warren was my first choice and Sanders was almost my last, I could come up with some theories. ;-)
I agree with your critique of Hillary. However in our current culture, Third party candidates have only played spoiler for the Fascists. It is not about party, I leave that to the Lemmings, it is about freedom and democracy, which the right in the form of the Republican party, has and is threatening ever since Reagan.
So much for your self coined scare phrase (negative partisanship)
Anything to keep the fascist right out of power. And FYI all partisanship is negative, it is being against someone and the ideology they represent, unfortunately.