Promoting policies people care about is how you do most of those things. You don’t “win elections” by just wanting it.

Press releases walking back good things she said was kind of the hallmark of her primary campaign in 2020 too.

He was prevented by language in bills he signed, and that was only after the Republicans took control in 2010. The failure to close Gitmo was just the same dithering and cautiousness that doomed or degraded many of his other optimistic goals. The whole reason Gitmo is bad is because it can be governed by unilateral executive decisions. It’s one of those situations where he had real power to decide how things worked, but wanted everything to process through a slow bureaucracy rather than taking a more active role.

It’s basically the same pattern Biden followed. Even when he did fits and starts of good things, it was way too late and only felt like he was doing it for political reasons, not because he had a change of heart.

I’ve already voted for her, but I don’t believe her.

This is a vague plea for peace without any indication of what things she believes (and more importantly, publicly acknowledges) would be “in her power”. Is the limit of her power sternly worded letters, arms embargoes, or intervention? Because I’m pretty sue she’s not opening the door for US peacekeeping troops in Gaza, though that would be in her power (at least for a short term).

But like, with Harris we get to see if she’s willing to do anything meaningful, and maybe as public sentiment continues to turn against Israel she’ll be embarrassed enough to do something. It’s not a hopeful position to shoot for, but it is technically better than the alternative, and there other issues at play where the difference is not so limited.

Oh yes, the second time things happen is truly something described as “historic”. Instead of twisting themselves in knots to find a non-disparaging “historic” feature, just use the obvious and more serious one. First woman vs. first convicted felon.

deleted by creator

Mr. Rodgers says READ POSTS BEFORE YOU REPLY TO THEM. Not spamming people with unrelated responses is the first step in respectful dialogue.

Dude, I live here. I looked them up when I saw them and read the same dumb statements you’re copypasting from Wikipedia. Which, surprise surprise, is not the whole fucking story. You don’t live here and don’t know anything about the politics here, so stop relaying useless wiki text.

Learn to read:

The Green party isn’t a party worth anyone’s heart.

You don’t counter this with “we don’t really care about the Green party”. Go repeat your argument somewhere that makes sense. I don’t care about the 5D chess you think you’re playing.

This whole fucking post is about candidates in deep blue areas running without a viable challenger and you come back to write paragraphs about the spoiler effect? The whole of the post is about places where the spoiler effect does not apply. You didn’t read anything you replied to.

No they don’t. Just having smaller units you take-all in doesn’t make something proportional. Proportionality means that minority vote totals result in a proportional number of seats, but getting 25% everywhere still gets you zero seats. Jill Stein, in her maximum success, will not win a single district.

Why on earth would you feel compelled to educate me about my local politics by pulling up some wiki pages and then refusing to even format your message? And why the fuck would anything in this post indicate RFK might be someone to vote for? The theoretical appeal of the Greens is progressivism, not the unfortunate antivax shit that’s glommed onto it.

And Aloha Aina is the local party I had never heard of before seeing them on the ballot, which may sound good to you because you know nothing about Hawaii, but is something in the vague realm between nutjob sovereign citizen types and conservatives that can’t bear to be Republicans due to history.

From a European perspective the race should be in the final quarter since it would have started two weeks ago.

FPTP means there will be two viable candidates in each race, it doesn’t mean they’ll always be the same two parties. There are lots of races in deep blue areas that don’t have a viable Republican challengers where the Greens (if they were a real party) could mount a challenge. Sort of like the Justice Democrats, but making the play in an unopposed general election instead of the primary. Then they could caucus (or not I suppose) with the Democrats like the independents do.

If Stein is fantastically successful, beyond her wildest dreams, and got 15% of the vote she will win zero electors (the intermediaries that then make the official vote for president). They’re awarded winner take all for each state, and there’s no conceivable way she reaches a plurality anywhere. But if she takes those 15% disproportionately from people who would have otherwise voted for Harris, she could very much make it so Trump wins a plurality and gets all the electors for a state. The structure of the first-past-the-post system always devolves into two parties being viable, and any third parties can only practically influence the outcome in the votes they take away.

The Green party isn’t a party worth anyone’s heart. It’s all a big grift funded by conservatives that only puts any effort into the scammy presidential run. I don’t want more of that, I want progressives that challenge moderate Democrats in safe seats to give people a real option to move left.

I’m in Hawaii, and we’re solid blue but last election the Greens had a whole of 2 candidates across the entire state. Some random party I’d never heard of had more candidates on the ballot. My state rep won with something like 2000 votes, no Green challenger in sight. If the Greens were a real party they’d jump on that opportunity. A little sweat and door knocking can pull off 2000 votes. Hell, we have Ed fucking Case in Congress. I’d kill to vote against him, but my only other option is a MAGA conspiracy theorist.

The GPUSA isn’t a real party.

It’s also just not a meaningful act. The people signing the original letter have the personal power to boycott Israeli cultural institutions. The signers of this letter can only complain. Their writing this doesn’t in any way change the boycott, it’s just writing a response to write a response, and the ham-fisted way they did it doesn’t have much ability to influence anyone who wasn’t already all in on the genocide-denial.

It’s not switched willy-nilly though, it’s strongly correlated with race. The “better headline” is “dangerous black perpetrator prone to crime” and “foolish white boy that looks like you and just made a mistake of youth”. Appealing to the racism is what makes the headline “better” (i.e., more affirming to the majority readership).

It’s not a journalism specific thing, it’s a broad bias to view black children as older than their white peers called “adultification”. But the way you approached this seemingly new concept doesn’t come across as someone looking to learn more about a phenomenon someone referenced but didn’t cite but as someone who thinks most references to prejudices are just made up.