If you chose to eat shit now, you’ll keep on getting served only shit.
This vote is not just a vote on the next president, it’s also a vote for what kind of candidate the DNC will chose for future Presidential Elections.
This is very much a scenario from Game Theory were there are two sides, one side which decides how to approportion something between both (in this case, the DNC choses how much the Democrat candidate represents lefties) whilst the other side can only “accept” or “reject” (i.e. lefties voting of not for a Democrat candidate, leading to a Democrat victory or defeat) and if the second side rejects nobody gets anything (i.e. a Republican President gets elected and the DNC don’t get a guy who mainly represents their interests and the lefties don’t get a guy who represents their interests a tiny bit).
What Game Theory shows us in this kind of scenario is that if it’s a multiple round scenario (in this case, each round is an election, with each time the DNC de facto chosing upfront how much the Democrat candidate represents lefties and lefties chosing to vote or not for him, which often decides the election) if the second side keeps “accepting” no matter how little they get, then the first side will never improve their proposal, and sometimes it will even be worse.
This is actually what you see happen in American politics: only when the lefties refuse to vote Democrat does the DNC, in the subsequent election, chose a slightly more leftie candidate.
The whole idea that lefties should always vote for “better a tiny bit representativeness now than none at all now” and completelly ignore the implications of that for future rounds is an incredibly short-sighted (or maybe self-serving, depending on the real interest of those pushing that idea) ultra-simplification.
Note that this doesn’t mean lefties must “reject” now, it means that they should be considering not just the current round but also subsequent rounds for their accept-vs-reject decision since a “reject” now does mean getting nothing this round (instead of a tiny bit which some will see as too little but others will not) in order to induce the other side to improve their proposals in subsequent rounds, which is a risk.
Let me restate your point to make sure I understand it, as I haven’t seen your point expressed elsewhere.
Scenario 1:
Democratic candidate for president is Biden.
Progressives want a more progressive candidate for the next election, so they refuse to vote for Biden.
As a result, Trump wins the election.
In the 2028 DNC primaries, the democratic candidate for president is more progressive than Biden was.
Progressives vote for the dem candidate, who wins.
The democratic party is permanently shifted leftwards.
In this scenario, having a more progressive president in 2028 (and beyond) outweighs the damage caused by a Trump presidency.
Scenario 2:
Democratic candidate for president is Biden.
Progressives decide to vote for Biden, despite their distaste.
As a result, Biden wins reelection.
In the 2028 DNC primaries, the democratic candidate for president is similar to Biden.
The democratic party stays centrist, to the distaste of progressives.
In this scenario, avoiding a Trump presidency is worth giving up the opportunity to move the democratic party permanently more leftwards.
Do I have this right? If not, please, I’m truly curious, as I find your game theory points compelling.
Assuming I do have your position correct, I think you’re making a couple of inaccurate assumptions:
While the DNC clearly tips the scales in favor of its preferred candidate, the DNC is not the sole decision maker. (For example, in the 2008 primaries, the voters chose Obama despite the clear preference of the DNC for Clinton.)
A Trump presidency would be singularly bad for the nation, both in the short term (e.g., immediate repeal of executive actions on gun control, clean energy, and LGBTQ+ rights; increased support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza) and long term (e.g., more MAGA judges and justices, further emboldening the GOP to be more MAGA). It’s also possible that a Trump presidency effectively ends proper democracy in the US, meaning any potential gains of a future progressive president would be irrelevant.
I agree that the more we push the party leftward, the better for all. But I believe the time to do this is in presidential primaries, state/county/local elections, local and national organizing, and even personal outreach to individuals (admittedly, this last one is very small scale, but it’s also the only way to truly change people’s minds and positions).
Yeah those are basically the Scenarios with two big corrections in scenario #2:
The next will probably be worse than Biden since the DNC, upon seeing that lefties will even vote for a candidate that supports a quasi-Nazi regime activelly commiting a Genocide will likely conclude that they will not rebel not matter what, so expect an even further shift to the right of the Democrat party.
The Democratic Party is not centrist, not even close: it’s pro-Oligarchy, which is an anti-Democratic hard-right position (anti-Democratic because it places Money above The State, which is the Power that voters supposedly control hence gives primacy to Money and those who have most of it, hard-right because defending that those who have most Money get the most Power and choices is in direct opposition to Equality, even just that of Opportunities).
As for the DNC not being able to stop a left of center candidate, just look at what they did against Sanders, even before counting the super-candidates which were going to vote against him anyway and override the popular vote. The idea that Obama is in any way, form or shape left of Obama is hilarious for anybody who, like me, was in Finance at the time of the 2008 Crash and had a front row seat to see how exactly Obama unconditionally saved the wealthiest people and made everybody else pay the price - just because the guy is a true political songbird who makes amazing speeches doesn’t mean “the greatest good for the greatest number” - the core principle of the Left - is even in the tinyiest of ways part of his principles. The Clinton-vs-Obama primary was a fight between two kinds of neoliberals that put in opposition two factions within the American Elites, not a fight between somebody representing the average American and somebody representing the Elites.
We don’t know really how bad a Trump presidency will be, though we know for sure just how far to the right are Biden’s principles, but yeah, you are right that a Trump presidency might (it’s all speculation until it actually happens) be incredibly destructive, which is why I pointed out in my comment (last paragraph) that it’s definitelly a risk and people should consider all things in their voting decision.
Personally I think either of them will lead to the death for good of Democracy in America, though doing it via Biden will probably mean it will happen with more steps, but that’s just my opinion based on the trend so far (and, that I expect that a guy who supports what are basically the modern Nazis whilst they mass murder civilians because of being from another etnicity is either a sociopath or an extreme racist and that means he will just as happilly fuck up the lives of Americans - though, no doubt, unlike Trump he will be telling them that’s not what he’s doing - just as as he is right now happilly helping out murdering en mass Palestinians: good people don’t knowingly help others commit mass murder).
I might be wrong on all of this and even if I’m not, not being American or living in America I’m way more isolated and have no real stake on that choice, so I openly admit that I have the priviledge of being able to hold a Thinking Person’s highly intellectual position on this because either way it impacts me very little personally, so I can just analyse the whole situation and point out the broader implications of the voting decision for a leftie and the profound hypocrisy of the Propaganda which tries to deceive people with the idea that it’s a simple consequences free choice, with no real additional risk either way for my own future.
Part of the issue is the balance between the stakes of the current election vs the value of the potential change for future elections. It’s possible for someone to be willing to stay home or choose a different candidate as a protest vote during one election, and then view those same strategies as monstrously irresponsible in a different election.
And to add another layer of complexity, keep in mind that both parties are fluid and can change radically over time as factions within them rise and fall.
For example, in some alternate timeline where Clinton got the nomination in 2008, a protest vote against Clinton would have risked a McCain presidency, which would have likely been the most moderate Republican president in modern history. This would have been short term loss for Democrats but likely would have been a long term win for progressives. The Democrats would likely have shifted to the left as they sought more candidates that appeal to their base, and the Republicans would have had their more moderate wing exerting greater influence and filling their leadership positions.
The situation we have today involves very high stakes, in that Trump and pals are threatening serious damage to the basic principles of democracy and rule of law, in addition to all of their horrifying policies. And the message that the Republican party will get from the next election is especially critical. Trump won in 2016, but they performed poorly in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Their shift to the right and the purging of anyone not 100% loyal to Trump has lead to a significant brain drain and a shrinking of the party.
A Trump victory would help the worst people keep a stranglehold on the party, while another defeat would send the message that their current path is a dead end. There’s a sizable portion of the Republican party that isn’t particularly happy with the MAGA crowd, but who are willing to go along with them if it means winning, and others who are just trying to keep their heads down because dissent is punished harshly. The power struggle that would occur after another Trump loss would very likely push the party to move back towards something resembling sanity and competence.
Hell, just being rid of the 800 pound orangutan in the room would make it easier for both sides to work together on the things that shouldn’t be partisan. We didn’t have a problem getting Ukraine aid passed until Trump started exerting pressure, which only got worse when he vetoed a speaker candidate that supported Ukraine aid in favor of the current one who is more than willing to open his ass cheeks for Trump’s puppeteering hand.
Yes, that’s why it’s a hard choice rather than a simple choice: there is a significant and genuine “now might be the worst time to do this” factor at play, though if you notice there is a “might” in there because that’s still all in the realm of possibility and there are chains of consequence that might mean that the Trump-vs-Biden now will look like the “good old days” in the next election since it it’s a valid scenario that after the lefties vote for a quasi-Nazis-supporter, the next candidate pushed by the DNC will be even worse and the candidate put forward by the Republicans after a Trump defeat is a competent version of Donald Trump - a full-on highly intelligent sociopath that uses the same tools as Trump rather than an incompetent Narcissist which at times is his own worst enemy - an even worse choice than Biden-vs-Trump.
Also the frequent repetition over the years by the Democrats of that same “now is not the time” argument, almost always followed by next time being even worse, makes people suspicious of all the assumptions put forward to support that argument by thos people, and that they’re complete total bollocks just like the last 4 or 5 times those same people made that same argument.
Further, there are multiple paths to “Stop Trump” and the one where Biden shifts leftwards (especially by stopping unwavering support for quasi-Nazis mass murdering children) seems like a far simpler way to achieve that objective than expecting million of people to swallow their “though shall not kill chidren or support those who do it” principles to vote for a guy who keeps on supporting the mass murder of children.
This is not perfectly that Game Theory scenario: the approportioning of representativeness can be changed by the candidate himself after the candidate selection is done, so Fear of losing the election might be enough to achieve some leftwards shift and still guarante that both the DNC and lefties end up winners. In fact, IMHO, that would be the outcome that maximizes the upside for both as a group and possibly the idea scenario give the few real choices than can still be made: the DNC gets his man elected even if he acts a little bit more leftie and the lefties get a little bit more representation.
Everybody going “You have to vote Biden to stop Trump” is making that ideal scenario less likely because they’re decreasing Biden’s (and the DNC’s, who can pressure Biden) Fear of defeat, whilst it’s the people saying “I won’t vote Biden until he starts supporting the unnacceptable” that are making the ideal scenario more likelly.
If you chose to eat shit now, you’ll keep on getting served only shit.
This vote is not just a vote on the next president, it’s also a vote for what kind of candidate the DNC will chose for future Presidential Elections.
This is very much a scenario from Game Theory were there are two sides, one side which decides how to approportion something between both (in this case, the DNC choses how much the Democrat candidate represents lefties) whilst the other side can only “accept” or “reject” (i.e. lefties voting of not for a Democrat candidate, leading to a Democrat victory or defeat) and if the second side rejects nobody gets anything (i.e. a Republican President gets elected and the DNC don’t get a guy who mainly represents their interests and the lefties don’t get a guy who represents their interests a tiny bit).
What Game Theory shows us in this kind of scenario is that if it’s a multiple round scenario (in this case, each round is an election, with each time the DNC de facto chosing upfront how much the Democrat candidate represents lefties and lefties chosing to vote or not for him, which often decides the election) if the second side keeps “accepting” no matter how little they get, then the first side will never improve their proposal, and sometimes it will even be worse.
This is actually what you see happen in American politics: only when the lefties refuse to vote Democrat does the DNC, in the subsequent election, chose a slightly more leftie candidate.
The whole idea that lefties should always vote for “better a tiny bit representativeness now than none at all now” and completelly ignore the implications of that for future rounds is an incredibly short-sighted (or maybe self-serving, depending on the real interest of those pushing that idea) ultra-simplification.
Note that this doesn’t mean lefties must “reject” now, it means that they should be considering not just the current round but also subsequent rounds for their accept-vs-reject decision since a “reject” now does mean getting nothing this round (instead of a tiny bit which some will see as too little but others will not) in order to induce the other side to improve their proposals in subsequent rounds, which is a risk.
Let me restate your point to make sure I understand it, as I haven’t seen your point expressed elsewhere.
Scenario 1:
In this scenario, having a more progressive president in 2028 (and beyond) outweighs the damage caused by a Trump presidency.
Scenario 2:
In this scenario, avoiding a Trump presidency is worth giving up the opportunity to move the democratic party permanently more leftwards.
Do I have this right? If not, please, I’m truly curious, as I find your game theory points compelling.
Assuming I do have your position correct, I think you’re making a couple of inaccurate assumptions:
I agree that the more we push the party leftward, the better for all. But I believe the time to do this is in presidential primaries, state/county/local elections, local and national organizing, and even personal outreach to individuals (admittedly, this last one is very small scale, but it’s also the only way to truly change people’s minds and positions).
Yeah those are basically the Scenarios with two big corrections in scenario #2:
As for the DNC not being able to stop a left of center candidate, just look at what they did against Sanders, even before counting the super-candidates which were going to vote against him anyway and override the popular vote. The idea that Obama is in any way, form or shape left of Obama is hilarious for anybody who, like me, was in Finance at the time of the 2008 Crash and had a front row seat to see how exactly Obama unconditionally saved the wealthiest people and made everybody else pay the price - just because the guy is a true political songbird who makes amazing speeches doesn’t mean “the greatest good for the greatest number” - the core principle of the Left - is even in the tinyiest of ways part of his principles. The Clinton-vs-Obama primary was a fight between two kinds of neoliberals that put in opposition two factions within the American Elites, not a fight between somebody representing the average American and somebody representing the Elites.
We don’t know really how bad a Trump presidency will be, though we know for sure just how far to the right are Biden’s principles, but yeah, you are right that a Trump presidency might (it’s all speculation until it actually happens) be incredibly destructive, which is why I pointed out in my comment (last paragraph) that it’s definitelly a risk and people should consider all things in their voting decision.
Personally I think either of them will lead to the death for good of Democracy in America, though doing it via Biden will probably mean it will happen with more steps, but that’s just my opinion based on the trend so far (and, that I expect that a guy who supports what are basically the modern Nazis whilst they mass murder civilians because of being from another etnicity is either a sociopath or an extreme racist and that means he will just as happilly fuck up the lives of Americans - though, no doubt, unlike Trump he will be telling them that’s not what he’s doing - just as as he is right now happilly helping out murdering en mass Palestinians: good people don’t knowingly help others commit mass murder).
I might be wrong on all of this and even if I’m not, not being American or living in America I’m way more isolated and have no real stake on that choice, so I openly admit that I have the priviledge of being able to hold a Thinking Person’s highly intellectual position on this because either way it impacts me very little personally, so I can just analyse the whole situation and point out the broader implications of the voting decision for a leftie and the profound hypocrisy of the Propaganda which tries to deceive people with the idea that it’s a simple consequences free choice, with no real additional risk either way for my own future.
Part of the issue is the balance between the stakes of the current election vs the value of the potential change for future elections. It’s possible for someone to be willing to stay home or choose a different candidate as a protest vote during one election, and then view those same strategies as monstrously irresponsible in a different election.
And to add another layer of complexity, keep in mind that both parties are fluid and can change radically over time as factions within them rise and fall.
For example, in some alternate timeline where Clinton got the nomination in 2008, a protest vote against Clinton would have risked a McCain presidency, which would have likely been the most moderate Republican president in modern history. This would have been short term loss for Democrats but likely would have been a long term win for progressives. The Democrats would likely have shifted to the left as they sought more candidates that appeal to their base, and the Republicans would have had their more moderate wing exerting greater influence and filling their leadership positions.
The situation we have today involves very high stakes, in that Trump and pals are threatening serious damage to the basic principles of democracy and rule of law, in addition to all of their horrifying policies. And the message that the Republican party will get from the next election is especially critical. Trump won in 2016, but they performed poorly in 2018, 2020, and 2022. Their shift to the right and the purging of anyone not 100% loyal to Trump has lead to a significant brain drain and a shrinking of the party.
A Trump victory would help the worst people keep a stranglehold on the party, while another defeat would send the message that their current path is a dead end. There’s a sizable portion of the Republican party that isn’t particularly happy with the MAGA crowd, but who are willing to go along with them if it means winning, and others who are just trying to keep their heads down because dissent is punished harshly. The power struggle that would occur after another Trump loss would very likely push the party to move back towards something resembling sanity and competence.
Hell, just being rid of the 800 pound orangutan in the room would make it easier for both sides to work together on the things that shouldn’t be partisan. We didn’t have a problem getting Ukraine aid passed until Trump started exerting pressure, which only got worse when he vetoed a speaker candidate that supported Ukraine aid in favor of the current one who is more than willing to open his ass cheeks for Trump’s puppeteering hand.
Yes, that’s why it’s a hard choice rather than a simple choice: there is a significant and genuine “now might be the worst time to do this” factor at play, though if you notice there is a “might” in there because that’s still all in the realm of possibility and there are chains of consequence that might mean that the Trump-vs-Biden now will look like the “good old days” in the next election since it it’s a valid scenario that after the lefties vote for a quasi-Nazis-supporter, the next candidate pushed by the DNC will be even worse and the candidate put forward by the Republicans after a Trump defeat is a competent version of Donald Trump - a full-on highly intelligent sociopath that uses the same tools as Trump rather than an incompetent Narcissist which at times is his own worst enemy - an even worse choice than Biden-vs-Trump.
Also the frequent repetition over the years by the Democrats of that same “now is not the time” argument, almost always followed by next time being even worse, makes people suspicious of all the assumptions put forward to support that argument by thos people, and that they’re complete total bollocks just like the last 4 or 5 times those same people made that same argument.
Further, there are multiple paths to “Stop Trump” and the one where Biden shifts leftwards (especially by stopping unwavering support for quasi-Nazis mass murdering children) seems like a far simpler way to achieve that objective than expecting million of people to swallow their “though shall not kill chidren or support those who do it” principles to vote for a guy who keeps on supporting the mass murder of children.
This is not perfectly that Game Theory scenario: the approportioning of representativeness can be changed by the candidate himself after the candidate selection is done, so Fear of losing the election might be enough to achieve some leftwards shift and still guarante that both the DNC and lefties end up winners. In fact, IMHO, that would be the outcome that maximizes the upside for both as a group and possibly the idea scenario give the few real choices than can still be made: the DNC gets his man elected even if he acts a little bit more leftie and the lefties get a little bit more representation.
Everybody going “You have to vote Biden to stop Trump” is making that ideal scenario less likely because they’re decreasing Biden’s (and the DNC’s, who can pressure Biden) Fear of defeat, whilst it’s the people saying “I won’t vote Biden until he starts supporting the unnacceptable” that are making the ideal scenario more likelly.