But what if by campaigning for the one I like I undercut support for the other one in the general, and therefore cause the greater of two evils to be elected?
You can switch who you campaign for after the nominee is selected.
Why even have a primary if everyone is going to be too afraid to vote for anyone but the most popular candidate? The primaries also serve to inform the nominees and party leadership what policy positions matter to the members. The votes for less popular candidates represent voters who the nominees have to win over before the general election. That can lead to policy changes. For example, I doubt Biden would have championed student loan forgiveness if Sanders hadn’t gotten so many primary votes. If you don’t vote according to your actual preferences it just reinforces the status quo.
Three months ago all of you said I supported terrorism because I was standing up for the Palestinian civilians, now because I don’t attribute a 70-year-old mutual defense agreement solely to the sitting president of 3 years who’s asking that ally to be less aggressive, all of you say I support genocide.
OP asked who they can vote for. That is a choice. They have a choice who they cast their vote for.
Three months ago all of you said I supported terrorism because I was standing up for the Palestinian civilians
I said no such thing.
OP asked who they can vote for. That is a choice. They have a choice who they cast their vote for.
As long as they don’t want Trump and the fascism he promises, they have to vote for Biden and the genocide he enables. You may think voting for genocide under threat of fascism is a choice, but the threat is what makes it coercion.
As far as I’m concerned, calling it a choice just indicates that you would choose to vote for genocide in the absence of such a threat.
But what if by campaigning for the one I like I undercut support for the other one in the general, and therefore cause the greater of two evils to be elected?
You can switch who you campaign for after the nominee is selected.
Why even have a primary if everyone is going to be too afraid to vote for anyone but the most popular candidate? The primaries also serve to inform the nominees and party leadership what policy positions matter to the members. The votes for less popular candidates represent voters who the nominees have to win over before the general election. That can lead to policy changes. For example, I doubt Biden would have championed student loan forgiveness if Sanders hadn’t gotten so many primary votes. If you don’t vote according to your actual preferences it just reinforces the status quo.
If you’re really worried about this, then vote in the primaries the same way you would in the general, so you don’t have any doubts.
Or any choice.
Voting is a choice. What do you mean?
When you have only one barely acceptable option, there is no choice. Only coercion.
You must live a privileged life to think that the right to vote is coercion.
You must support genocide to consider it a choice.
Nope.
Three months ago all of you said I supported terrorism because I was standing up for the Palestinian civilians, now because I don’t attribute a 70-year-old mutual defense agreement solely to the sitting president of 3 years who’s asking that ally to be less aggressive, all of you say I support genocide.
OP asked who they can vote for. That is a choice. They have a choice who they cast their vote for.
I said no such thing.
As long as they don’t want Trump and the fascism he promises, they have to vote for Biden and the genocide he enables. You may think voting for genocide under threat of fascism is a choice, but the threat is what makes it coercion.
As far as I’m concerned, calling it a choice just indicates that you would choose to vote for genocide in the absence of such a threat.
Removed by mod