alvvayson

I don't think you understand how politics and elections work.

If people on the flanks give their voting power to "Blue (or Red) no matter who", you end up with the Clintons and Bushes of the world. Parties have no incentive to actually do anything for their flanks.

When people on the flanks leverage their voting power effectively, you get MAGA and Justice Democrats.

Anyway, hope you learned something today. Otherwise, hope you have a nice day.

Supporters of Bush and Bowman now face a strange incentive.

If they vote for Latimer and Bell, they will only embolden AIPAC and corporate America to use the same playbook in the districts of other progressive Democrats. And they will have them as incumbents in 2026.

If they do a protest vote (third party, write-in or stay home), that sends a clear message, but also gives the Republicans a +1.

On the face it, it would suck if the Republicans win their district, but also consider that a Republican win will (a) ensure Democrats field a progressive in 2026 and (b) show both Democrats and Republicans that the progressive vote is powerful and can be courted.

So it might actually be a good strategy. Look at 2016. Yeah, four years of Trump sucked, but it also made Democrats realize they had to court their progressive win. Corporate Hilary just couldn't win without them.

Knowing this, there is also a Dark Brandon, scorched earth, move available: Vote directly for the Republican and give them a +2.

This will show progressives know how to yield their voting power and that they should be taken seriously as a group.

You have to look at the bigger picture, not the short term issue.

If progressives want to be taken seriously, and if Americans want AIPAC out of politics, then there have to be consequences.

If Latimer and Bell hold on to the seat, corporate and AIPAC Democrats only learn that they can take progressives for granted.

If they lose their seat, they learn that they need progressive support to win.

Yeah, two years of a republican rep will suck. But it's only two years.

If the Democratic congressional candidate underperforms the Democratic presidential candidate, it definitely sends a signal.

Obviously, it only "sends a signal" if progressives say what they're gonna do.

But it has a double whammy: Dems get a 2 vote difference when you switch.

Agreed, but also: if I were in their district (Bush or Bowman), I might even consider voting Republican out of spite.

Yes, AIPAC is to blame, but Democrats also need to grow a spine against AIPAC. They can't just take progressive voters for granted.