The animating concept behind the Trump campaign will be chaos. This is what history shows us fascists do when given the chance to participate in democratic political campaigns: They create chaos. They do it because chaos works to their advantage. They revel in it, because they can see how profoundly chaos unnerves democratic-republicans—everyone, that is, whether liberal or conservative, who believes in the basic idea of a representative government that is built around neutral rules. Fascism exists to pulverize neutral rules.

So they campaign with explicit intention to instill a sense of chaos. And then comes the topper: They have the audacity to insist that the only solution to the chaos—that they themselves have either grossly exaggerated or in some cases created!—is to vote for them: “You see, there is nothing but chaos afoot, and only we can restore order!”

  • @UnderpantsWeevil
    link
    0
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Cool. Vote third party. We’ll get Trump

    Isn’t Trump’s victory predicated on an electoral college victory?

    How does voting third party impact whether or not your state’s electors vote for Donald Trump?

    We do not have a system in place where your idealistic protest can do anything other than make things worse.

    Sure we do. Look at the very origins of the Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln emerged as the frontrunner against a Whig Party that was in full collapse. It was only possible thanks to Freemont’s break from the Whigs in 1856, galvenizing abolitionists into a full formal partisan block.

    Or consider the Farmer-Laborer party of North Dakota, which controlled the state for several decades before merging with the Democrats under Roosevelt.

    Or consider the rise of Libertarian, Socialist, and Fascist candidates within the major parties. Primary insurgency candidates will routinely build a base of non-partisan support before joining the major parties as outsiders. Sanders ran as an Indie from Vermont for 14 years, before stepping up to run for President in 2016. Donald Trump himself was a Reform Party candidate in 2000 and was a staunch Democratic mega-donor/bundler in New York well, before defecting the GOP in 2012. Senators like Mike Lee and Rand Paul built their brands outside the party system before winning primaries in their respective branches.

    The split in the Dem Party in '68 gave rise to Nixon and Reagan’s Southern Strategy, which secured the Presidency for the GOP (with the exception of the narrow Carter win in '76) for the next 24 years. Great news for Dixiecrats who cared more about maintaining racial supremacy than New Deal economics and who found a way to profit handsomely from Reagan-Era giveaways to large land owners and shareholders.

    Third Party campaigns have a long and proud history in the US of paving the way for more successful general election runs in subsequent election cycles. They don’t always pay off year-of, but they can have a seismic effect on politics going on decades afterwards.

    • BeautifulMind ♾️
      link
      English
      06 months ago

      Isn’t Trump’s victory predicated on an electoral college victory?

      It doesn’t have to be. If there are enough splits to deny any candidate an outright majority in the EC, the task of choosing a president falls to the congress in the ‘contingent election’ procedure, whereby state congressional delegations each have 1 vote. If 26 states have republican delegations (which seems plausible, given how many states are controlled by the gop) it’s very likely Trump wins if it goes to a contingent election.

      If anything, this supports the argument against voting 3rd party protest votes in any FPTP election

      • @UnderpantsWeevil
        link
        16 months ago

        If there are enough splits to deny any candidate an outright majority in the EC, the task of choosing a president falls to the congress

        Well, double damn then. I’m in a heavily gerrymandered house seat so now my vote extra doesn’t matter.

        it’s very likely Trump wins if it goes to a contingent election.

        That’s heavily predicated on how midwestern states manage their house seats in the next election. Pennsylvania’s forced redrawing of maps in 2018 flipped five or six house seats. Wisconsin and Michigan redistricting fights could cost as many more, each. Dems are within range of the House (barring another landslide swing like in 2010 or 2018) if too many of these break the Dems’ way. And now that Dems appear more focused on winning state SCOTUS elections, that’s not inconceivable.

        If anything, this supports the argument against voting 3rd party protest votes

        I’m guessing you’re not a Lieberman 2008 guy. And who can blame you?

        But folks with sufficiently high name recognition can definitely win third party. Just ask Lisa Murkowski. Or Jesse Ventura, for that matter.