“We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not.”
That’s gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I’ve heard in a while.
If one candidate vowed to stop abortion and the other candidate vowed to end elections, violently suppress dissent and install themselves as a dictator, I sure as hell would vote for the anti-abortion candidate. I would hate it, but I would still do it.
If one candidate vowed to stop abortion and the other candidate vowed to support an increase in the minimum wage, the Democratic Party will support the anti-choice candidate.
I know this because it happened in 2022.
And also stop abortion, and execute anyone who ever had an abortion.
Like, it’s not even a case of “This is justified because they’re better on the issue and I’m a single issue voter.” It’s an issue of “I’m voting for the WORSE candidate on the issue who is also WORSE in every conceivable way and will likely remove my ability to express myself in the civic process because the single issue I’m voting on isn’t supported strongly enough.”
When there are only two viable options, the only rational move is to vote for the one that does the least damage. Otherwise, you might as well not vote. That’s just how it works in a FPTP system. And good luck changing that in America any time soon.
Why do you think USA has abysmal voter turn out… … … … …
The important thing is to spend time asking those questions in 2023 in order to allow Republicans to implement Project 2025.