Some thoughts on strategy

Last week I wrote that I think Biden has done a good job, without being perfect. 

Frankly, I think it's strange that we seem to expect candidate to be perfect now. I mean, we are still voting for humans.

I also mentioned how carefully he had to tread to avoid setting off more violence now that some people have become so confident choosing it.

In fact, he seems to be pretty good at negotiating and navigating. You can't always get others to come around, but when successful, a big part of that is often using caution and tact to not exacerbate the situation.

I think that is a big part of why there is not a harder public line against Israel. 

I don't think it's the only reason. I think the United States' own colonialist history and guilt about the Holocaust has led to a historic support of Israel that is hard to throw off, not to mention the years of treaties and congressional approval... I understand why things don't happen quickly, and that there is a limit to how much one government can influence another government. 

All of which is to say that as horrifying as the genocide that Israel is wreaking against Palestinians is, I also understand that there is a limit to how much our government can do to prevent it, and that there might be things being worked on to that we don't see. 

Now, let's look at the people saying they won't ever vote for "Genocide Joe". 

Given the previous points, that phrasing may indicate that they are not really considering political nuance in any depth.

I will also concede that they are not necessarily operating from a point of honesty and sincerity. I recently saw someone who had posted that he would vote for Harris if she chose Walz for her running mate. He changed that after she did. 

I can only assume he was sure that the pick would not be Walz, so the excuse he built in did not work. I am also sure that his tweets were not a strong factor in the final decision. I only mention it because I don't think it pays to assume good faith in all cases.

Let's assume good faith... once you say that a party can never win your vote, you have no bargaining power. There is no point in the party trying to appease you; they need to pursue other votes.

I won't say that it's not frustrating; I am frustrated all the time.

I will say that I am not petulant enough to forget other people in danger.

Let's look at other ways the position can play out: wanting the death to stop, they decide they will vote for Trump. 

That doesn't sound like it will work. 

Okay, believing that neither party is good, they will vote for a third party candidate or a write-in or not vote. 

That may work to demonstrate displeasure, but it will not do anything to stop the death.

Can showing the displeasure be a moral stand?

Well, maybe, but it is a moral stand that sells out women, LGBTQIA+ people, people of color, people with disabilities... it is going to add a lot of suffering and additional death to the death.

I have seen people profess complete comfort with this. Perhaps that makes them single issue voters.

That can be a strategy that works. To the extent that anti-abortion voters have made great strides toward making abortion harder to get. I am not sure how many abortions they have prevented, but they have certainly created a lot of suffering.

Perhaps being a single-issue voter is a better strategy for causing harm. That could explain a lot.

As much as being against genocide should be a good place to draw the line, what about Sudan? and the Central African Republic? Is it that the US does not have as much to do with those?

I am sure that many people who decide to abstain are probably in states where Trump is unlikely to win. Since the electoral college still exists, they may be right, but some of those margins get pretty close.

Also, choosing spite over participation makes me wonder how much they will contribute to the many repairs needed, no matter who wins.