Assembly Bill 2164 authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) would have prohibited California’s governor from recognizing a request for extradition of a person related to their providing a legally protected healthcare activity in the Golden State to transgender individuals, or if they provide reproductive services. It provided certain exemptions, such as an extradition required by federal law.
I’ve never done lesser evil voting and I’m certainly not gonna start of this bastard gets the nom. Been voting for the leftmost candidate running and that includes third parties. Not like it matters anyway since I live in a deep red state.
As you said, it doesn’t matter because you don’t live in anything resembling a swing state, but for those of us who do: please vote strategically. Vote for whomever you like in the primary. (And DO vote in the primary, for fuck’s sake!) Vote for Bernie Sanders. (I did!) Vote for the DSA candidate. (I often do.) Vote for the green party, or libertarians, or write in your cool uncle. Whatever! The primary is your time to vote for who you really want. But when it comes to the general election, please vote for the left-most nominee of the party that has a realistic shot at winning. It doesn’t always feel good, but there are exactly three options in a first past the post general election:
Voting for the party that can win.
Voting for the other party that can win.
Not participating. You might think your write-in or third party is distinct from Option #3. I regret to inform you that it isn’t.
If we were to do this for a decade or so, the GOP would evaporate and the Dems would eventually split into a neoliberal pro-business party and a progressive pro-labor party. Do I want Newsom to be the nominee? Fuck no. I hate that prick. But if he’s the one running against Marco Rubio or whoever? Yeah, I can hold my nose and fill in that bubble.
If we fail to do this, we only empower fascists. Look around.
(And BTW, the party more likely to give us Ranked Choice so we don’t need to do this is, you guessed it, the Democrats…)
No. I will not vote for a fucking candidate who will not do the bare fucking minimum to protect me as a trans person. Absolutely the fuck not.
I understand your frustration, but if you stick to this, you will be abstaining entirely from the electoral process.
Once again, there are only three choices:
Party that can win.
Other party that can win.
Shooting yourself in the dick.
You seem to be a #3 voter. Is feeling good about shooting yourself in the dick really better than effecting real change? Nah.
“You have to vote for what’s best for me!!!”
voting for the status quo doesn’t effect real change
That’s why you vote for change in the primary. When it comes to the general election, if the choices are Status Quo, Literal Fascism, and shooting myself in the dick, I’m going to vote for the Status Quo, even if I’m not a huge fan. You’re happy to let Literal Fascists win, it seems. That’s why our country is in this predicament.
this is bad faith
It’s not. The only way to vote against Trump and fascism was to vote for Harris, because all other votes were the same as simply not participating. If you voted for Trump or failed to participate, rejecting fascism wasn’t as important to you as projecting virtue. Unfortunately, millions of people made that choice. Were you one of them?
it is
voting for harris was also a vote for fascism
any vote not for Trump is a vote against him
the status quo is also literal fascism.
How so? You know words have definitions right?
This perfectly describes MAGA. It does not perfectly or even partially describe whatever boring crap the DNC wants:
The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
“The rejection of modernism”, which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
“The cult of action for action’s sake”, which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
“Disagreement is treason” – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
“Fear of difference”, which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
“Appeal to a frustrated middle class”, fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
“Obsession with a plot” and the inflation of and focus on an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society. Eco also cites Pat Robertson’s book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”, On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
“Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy” because “life is permanent warfare” – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both Nazi Germany under Hitler and fascist Italy under Mussolini, worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use – despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty not to build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
“Contempt for the weak”, which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
“Everybody is educated to become a hero”, which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, “the Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death”.
“Machismo”, which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold “both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality”.
“Selective populism” – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he alone dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of “no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people”.
“Newspeak” – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
See how words have definitions?
words do have definitions, and Umberto provides one definition, but Mussolini, who coined the term, also has a definition
Honestly unless you have ranked choice or similar option, vote and get those you can, for the left most candidates with a chance of winning. Leaping from far right to far left isn’t going to happen but will take steps. Don’t waste your vote, make it and others count and vote out the republicans/crazy right.
Newsome is basically a “moderate” republican at this point, so voting him out in the primary should be everyone’s goal, especially if they want a candidate that isn’t going to alienate significant portions of the voter base.
If you read what I wrote i didn’t say to vote for him, in fact I said for the most left person that can win. Its not worth splitting votes on progressives and letting Republicans and right wing win instead. That’s how we get maga and trump.
Perfection is nice but reality is more important
Look at what happened in CA. The progressives split and now the govt is once again moderate dem or republican
Sure but, newsome isn’t a progressive, the point is that voting for “moderates” in the primary splits the party and looses elections.
If newsome wins the 2028 primary, dems probably won’t take the majorities they need to actually govern.
I doubt democrats will lose in any situation in 2028 because the economy is going to be in the toilet for another 2 years. But 2032 will probably be another republican victory if someone like newsome is in the White House.
Can you please point to where I said to vote for him? Oh I said the opposite again. Thanks for the strawman again
I don’t know anyone in this state, including the people I work with who I only talk to when I have to. We banned RCV last election so I’m just gonna keep doing what I’ve been doing. The Dems lose here by nearly half a million votes even in years where they overall win like 2020 so it’s not like it matters. Kind of freeing to vote my conscience at every single level.