In other news

Wont work if the winner of the primary can then take''our' votes for granted. Too much incentive and advantage for the ones who are most likely to win the general election because they are 'least worst'.

And the fight happens over decades. Not one election

Also the fight has to be at all levels. Nothing is going to be solved by one person even if they are really good. A quality policy platform and body of politicians has to be built for someone to lead and implement.

The funny part is we know what happens when people sit out elections. Reagan, HW Bush and the 2 Bill Clinton elections were the lowest turnout stretch in US history as a function of eligible population. Lower voter turnout was one of the main drivers in transitioning from the FDR era, where even Eisenhower and Nixon governed under the notion that the federal government take an active role in social/economic welfare and ensuring safety nets to the Reagan era where even democrats look for minimal intervention free market solutions. If you like the current post Reagan era of governance, encouraging people not to vote is an excellent way to preserve it.

It would be nice if we could make a deal with the our political opponents to cancel each other's votes by staying home. Then when the winner gives the usual ‘The American people have spoken…’ speech, it would actually mean something.

Did you see that on Curb Your Enthusiasm?

https://youtube.com/shorts/3Q2RuKo6ds8?s...

They take your vote for granted when you don’t show up. They take it for granted that you will not vote for them, which means you have no seat at the table at all.

Yup. If you think that the Democratic Party is to the right of actual democrats the main reason is that people who vote every election and primary midterms off years local no matter who the candidate is tend to be older and wealthier so more conservative than the median Dem. Somehow younger more liberal voters not voting for the last 50+ years has not made the party more liberal.

It's just not true . If votes are there to be won then candidates will emerge and adapt to win them

You know how campaigns determine who to go after and canvas? They have a list of names and addresses of the people who voted for their party in the last 2-3 elections.

Let’s say you’re not even registered to vote. You think people will go after you?

What about primaries? Many candidates wash out in primaries. Let’s say you refuse to register as a Dem so can’t even vote in the primaries. Good luck getting Bernie to a general in that context, let alone Mamdani or whoever else is on the lefty wishlist.

The rhetoric of Democratic candidates during Democratic primaries (as opposed to general elections) suggests that those candidates do not believe that primary voters are more conservative than people who vote Democrat in general elections.

If it's not enough they will look for others. First time voters, swing voters, people who are demanding other polices. And register to vote of course.

The campaign is just part of the cycle that plays out over decades. A part where they should quickly learn they can't take our votes for granted by being least worst. They need to earn our votes - with policies and principles and competence.

I think this is way too passive. I’m not going to gamble on letting conservatives win every time and then rely on a group of people who don’t have the voting muscles. You guys had Corbyn in the UK and he got smoked so hard he was kicked out of the party. Nobody can rely on the unreliable.

Swing voters are sought after because they reliably switch sides if they aren’t sought after. But nonvoters aren’t considered an entity at all.

In any case, you can build movements that utilize as just one of their strategies having the Democratic party be in power. It doesn’t have to be a gamble on the presidency every time. Again by the time you cast your vote there most of the work should have been done at the state and local level. There’s plenty of work to go around other than just waiting for someone competent to vote for.

It's not remotely passive. It's massively more active than people who vote least worst. You have to get involved.

Your confusing people who value their vote with non-voters. You're a falling for a cheap rhetorical trick. We really want to vote, we're going to make every effort to vote. We're here looking for you come and get us.

The idea that it works if your going to vote least worst anyway is unfortunately far too hopeful. There's no pressure and movement generally requires a lot of pressure building up - then change that once was considered impossible suddenly becomes undeniable

Do you do anything other than vote, out of curiosity? Is it just you waiting until election day or are you engaged in some kind of wider political project?

I don't think it matters to the argument but fwiw I support Novara Media and Owen Jones, I go on demos, advocate for left wing politics with people on an obscure forum and a few other bits and pieces.

Nowhere near enough but far more than most.

I do think it matters to the argument, because most people just vote and they don’t have any other advocacy.

But now I guess I want to say that if you are engaged in these sorts of projects that if you ever want to get others to vote for something, you’re always going to deal with people turning the same argument back at you. Like people who don’t want to vote for Mamdani or AOC because they aren’t good enough. You’re training purists, not voters.

I'm not a purist. Nor are those I support That's a strawman

I'd also say as a matter of fact in the UK that we are finally getting very serious traction. People on the left are finally deserting the least worst so called left.

Possibly too late. Democracy across the west is in serious jeopardy and years of least worst has undermined so much of the social structures we used to have

UK man arrested and held in cell overnight for posting a photo of himself holding a shotgun in Florida.

https://metro.co.uk/2025/11/29/british-man-arrested-posing-gun-us-instagram-post-24963842/

Metro

Man arrested in the UK for posing with gun more than 4,000 miles away in the US

A purist is relative to the person’s standards. We all purity test to some extent. The question is, why draw the line where you arbitrarily do and not at some other arbitrary point?

I don’t think the left is gaining much traction to be honest. I think they are just big enough to ruin everything if they go the way you want things to go.

I dont think that's at all correct. It's about not voting for something we really dont want just because it's not bad as something else

We would vote for anything like a half decent labour party in a heartbeat.

and I'm sure we will get the blame from many. The reality is that it's the least worsters that have led us into a shitshow that there's no way of avoiding now.

As for traction. i think the argument is based on the same reasoning as to why ukip (and their former incarnations) were gaining no traction for so long. It's a huge misconception about democratic reality. The reality is that farage & co have been setting much of the agenda for a very long time.

But that’s just wrong, unless you believe that Corbin wasn’t half-decent.

Admittedly I don’t know enough about British politics to speak authoritatively on the matter, but it doesn’t seem like the left was able to muster up enough support with him at the head of the party.

Well what I will say is that we both have an affinity with disagreeing with the more moderate members of our respectively closest political parties in a two party (effective) system. I don’t think people voting more conservative because they are genuinely more conservative than us are “least worsters” though, and as I have clarified before I’m not really a “least worster” but a “closer preference” voter. I’ve voted for genuinely good options whenever they are presented to me and I’m not as bleak on center-left to center-right liberalism as you are.

But when moderates within our party vote for Biden or Starmer you can’t attribute those votes to “least worsters” as that’s an attribution of intent that you haven’t supported. I mean no more can you attribute my vote for Kamala because I thought she would be a temporary solution against Trump with potential upside the same as you would attribute someone that voted for her because they thought she was a great, well-qualified candidate, the same that you would attribute Noam Chomsky who legitimately is a least worster and has been for a few decades now.

Anyway, I don’t at all think that people who have worked within politics have made things worse, I think if anything the possibility of an alternative left movement can purely be attributed to the willingness to work within the party in the US. I’m not sure if it’s different in the UK.

It's an interesting case of people being far too results oriented in a very weird way.

Labour under Corbyn got 40% of the vote the first time when the tories started with a massive poll lead. They got 32% of the vote 2nd time in an election totally dominated by brexit.

Under Starmer they got 34% of the vote in an election where the opposition parties (Tories and SMP) had totally self-destructed

Yet somehow the lesson by some learned is that only least worsters like starmer can win. It makes no sense at all.

.

What do you mean Starmer is a least worster? Do you mean that he sees himself as the least worst option or do you think that the people that voted for him see him that way and not as just a good option for them.

I'm sure he thinks he is brilliant but the only thing he has going for him with the electorate is that he isn't as bad as reform. Very few want him for anything he offers. He is staggering unpopular.

Just quickly from chatgpt

Approval rating isn’t the same as the reasons people voted for him, but it could be similar.