Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said policy differences toward Israel between her and President Biden won’t stop her from supporting him in the November general election.
“Of course,” Omar said Tuesday, when asked by CNN’s Abby Phillip on “NewsNight” whether she would vote for Biden if the election were held that day, in a clip highlighted by Mediaite. “Democracy is on the line, we are facing down fascism.”
“And I personally know what my life felt like having Trump as the president of this country, and I know what it felt like for my constituents, and for people around this country and around the world,” Omar continued. “We have to do everything that we can to make sure that does not happen to our country again.”
It’s insane how when someone criticizes anything about Biden, the first move is accusing them of supporting trump, and when they have to clarify trump is obviously worse, everyone then acts like their criticisms of Biden becomes invalid.
Biden is better than trump. But we deserve better than either option.
“Shutting up and voting Biden” doesn’t help anything, and is what we give republicans shit for.
Sure, but “right now” you need to vote for Biden or risk never being able to vote again.
and the general election is eight fucking months away, so it’s 100% justifiable to vote however the fuck I want to in the primary.
Which I did, and I voted uncommitted. And I will vote for not Trump in November. But don’t mistake my enthusiasm for “not living in a fascist theocratic state” for enthusiasm towards Biden, because it’s not and never will be.
Apologies. I wasn’t talking about the primaries. I was talking about the presidential election.
Edit: I didn’t realize they were talking about the primaries. My bad.
Edits aside, that is kinda the issue. I have disliked Biden not because he’s Biden, but largely because I feel he’s a little more conservative of a president than I would like. Will I vote for him still if he’s up against Trump? Unless he genuinely gives me a reason to think he’d be as bad as Trump (pretty damn unlikely), yes. But I very much dislike his handling of the Israeli - Palistinian conflict, so much so that during the primaries I voted uncommitted. But every time I bring up my opinion, the default is not to say that I must be implicitly be a Trump supporter because I’m not 100% behind Biden. I live in the southeastern US, so I absolutely have family that are Trump supporters, and that argument of all or nothing is sounds very similar in my mind to those that support Trump. I’d argue that this rhetoric of total support will most likely be more damaging than not for the democrats, as it has actually made me more wary about voting for Biden than I suspect I would be otherwise.
All I’m seeing here is that you don’t seem to understand how the spoiler effect works in an entrenched two-party political system, which this is. Also, it appears you’re not aware of how absurdly tilted to the right the electoral mechanisms have become in this country - largely due to gerrymandering, and the continued refusal of Congress to reapportion the number of Representatives in the house from the cap imposed in 1929.
We need to be rioting in the streets to change first past the post. The fact that we can only choose from the lesser of two horrible choices is inconceivable.
That said until we have better choices, we still need to consistently choose the better choice.
We need to be rioting in the streets to change first past the post.
Trump’s going to win more than 50% of the vote in my state of Texas. Complaining about FPTP is so 1996 “Ross Perot Could Have Won” energy. In states and districts so heavily weighted that one party will take 60%+ it simply doesn’t matter.
That said, it might be nice if we had real proportional representation - party ballots and larger congressional delegations - such that voting for a Green or Libertarian or Reform party ballot means you might actually be sending someone who shares your views to the assembly, rather than just signaling dissatisfaction with the dominant parties.
Even the California Jungle Primary system would be preferable.
With a proportional representation system the parties hold all of the power and the only thing that matters is the negotiations that happen behind closed doors to form a coalition.
If the party you voted for isn’t part of the ruling coalition then your vote didn’t matter. Sure you got someone sitting in a seat in a legislature that shares your opinions on things but the agenda is already been determined by those who negotiated the coalition.
And while you may thinking that it’s possible that a party that shares your views might get into the ruling coalition, but it’s just as likely that a small far right party could get into a coalition, which is exactly what happened in Israel’s proportional representation system.
Or as we saw in the EU’s proportional representation system, a fringe separatist party can gain notoriety and expand their influence on the population and you end up with a Brexit.
“First past the post” or as I like to call it, a community representation system, has individual representatives control the seat. That individual representative can leave the party and will still hold the seat. Which means the party has to keep the representatives of the communities happy. And those representatives have to keep their communities happy. If a minority group in a community is willing to organize they can influence the representative, and that representative can influence the party. The power dynamics flow from the people upwards.
Proportional representation systems only look good from the perspective of a spreadsheet. From the perspective of power dynamics (which is all important in politics) they’re terrible systems. You get to vote for a party that completely conforms to a checklist, but that party may have zero impact on real policy. Sure you have to make an effort to influence your representative in a community representation system, but shouldn’t the people willing to make the most effort have the most influence?
With a proportional representation system the parties hold all of the power
In a multi-party system, that’s fine. Parties accrue delegates by appealing to a voting base. And candidates get onto the slate by working in and for the parties to bring in new supporters and achieve policy changes.
If the party you voted for isn’t part of the ruling coalition then your vote didn’t matter.
That depends on the parliamentary rules and constitutional provisions. But - generally speaking - if you’ve got a delegate you support in the parliament you’re much better off than if you’re casting a protest vote for an individual or group who will never hold a seat. Even if its a lone Ron Paul / Bernie Sanders esque voice, that’s a foundation around which to build a movement. By contrast, a Ralph Nader outsider who gets seen as a spoiler candidate every four years is going to build more hostility to your movement the more successful it gets.
That individual representative can leave the party and will still hold the seat.
Love my Jim Justice style politician
Why would I want a candidate that can win under a party banner that I support and then turn coat the moment they’re ensconced in a four or six year term of office?
And those representatives have to keep their communities happy.
Not if they’re doing the one-term Senate gambit, like Kristen Sinema. Six years cultivating favors with corporate interests, and then resign before you party can primary you out so you can take a job as a lobbyist.
You get to vote for a party that completely conforms to a checklist, but that party may have zero impact on real policy.
Coalition governments build support by appealing to particular interests of the various party members. That means an “Abolish the National Debt” Party and a “Green New Deal Party” are going to form a different kind of government than a “Green New Deal” and a “Small Business Alliance” party. But if you’re interested in debt-politics and I’m interested in clean energy and third guy is interested in business start-up subsidies, we’re all better off supporting for our issue-centric partisan groups than aligning behind a “Generic Liberal” or “Generic Conservative”.
The fact of the matter is that democrats are betting it all on the least popular president in modern history, who is also an octogenarian. The hope is he will somehow be disliked less than cheetolini.
The problem isn’t that democrats are going to vote for Trump. The problem is that polling indicates that Biden is already losing, so every person that decides NOT to vote for him by staying home or voting third party is just another nail in the coffin.
Biden deciding to run for reelection is the presidential politics equivalent of Ginsburg refusing to retire. And it’s right there in front of us. And we know it’s insane. But now everyone is just knuckling down and buckling up, because here we are.
I don’t understand why people don’t realize that trump is also a Netanyahu ally. They’re old pals.
It’s not like trump winning over Biden would change anything about the US policy on Israel- except probably make it worse, and trump winning over Biden would definitely make things in the US and pretty much everywhere else US policy affects worse.
“I will never vote for (Palestinian) genocide! But I will definitely refuse to vote against (Ukranian) genocide!”
Either they’re wedge-driving russo/right-wing bots, or they’re grandstanding only to shoot themselves in the foot on an issue they claim to care about.
Any rational person understands more people will suffer in both Gaza and Ukraine under Republican leadership. Period. That’s it. End of story. It’s election season, time to fall in line to save Democracy… Again.
Doesn’t sound like much of a democracy if I don’t really have a choice, now does it?
Huh? Did anyone stop you or anyone else from running for President?
I’m not a fan of FPTP and think massive campaign finance and election reform needs to take place, but the choice presented right now is unfortunately a reflection of the broader electorate, and for better or worse that’s democracy.
Yeah actually. We’ve made money political speech and routinely refused to use public campaign financing. That pretty effectively bars 99.9% of people from ever running for president. And 98% from running for any office above local school board.
I wholeheartedly agree with money equating to speech being disastrous as to the healthy function of a democracy, but the complaint here doesn’t strike me as that. While we all know the game is skewed toward money, we should also know the better choice between these candidate couldn’t be more obvious.
That’s not what you asked. Restricting the pool of candidates to elites (money or connections) absolutely has an effect too. If it seems like our politicians are out of touch, that’s why.
