Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in an interview with NBC News that he will encourage progressive voters to still back Democrats on the ticket in November even if moderates are victorious in the primaries.
Yes, and we have seen them radicalize even farther right very recently .
why don’t blue canditates run for red to change it and make it good
Because the voting population of the Republican party would be less likely to choose a progressive candidate. What would motivate a progressive candidate to enroll in a conservative party?
that is not possible" is your assumption
I have backed my assumption with actual evidence… What evidence do you have to support your theory?
voting for lesser evil fascists is a vote for fascists.
Says who? There are candidates that just won there primary as Democrats who have disavowed Israel and are democratic socialist. How is voting for them a vot for fascists?
To me it sound like that’s something you are projecting on others,
Ahh yes, because you are the expert who can’t understand political science taught at a highschool level.
advocating for the lesser evil it’s doing exactly
Which is better than advocating for the greater of the two evil… Which is what you are unwittingly doing.
rest of the world that pay the most for what the US government is doing.
And you seem more than happy to let them do that so long as you can waste your vote on a prospect that has zero chance of winning.
Because the voting population of the Republican party would be less likely to choose a progressive candidate. What would motivate a progressive candidate to enroll in a conservative party?
What would motivate a progressive canditate to enroll in an evil party that support a genocide?
I have backed my assumption with actual evidence… What evidence do you have to support your theory?
A prediction on what people will vote for is no evidence to prove that a third party can’t win. It’s easy to understand why, you cannot predict the outcome of the vote.
Says who? There are candidates that just won there primary as Democrats who have disavowed Israel and are democratic socialist. How is voting for them a vot for fascists?
In the scenario where you are voting for the lesser evil fascist you are voting for fascists, that’s the scenario of people voting for the lesser evil fascist in the latest US presidential elections. A vote for someone who is part of the democratic party is a vote for someone in a party that supports a genocide.
Which is better than advocating for the greater of the two evil… Which is what you are unwittingly doing.
I’ve never advocated for evil, I’ve always advocated to do the correct thing and to not support criminals with blood on their hands, don’t you realize how twisted your logic is?
And you seem more than happy to let them do that
I’ve been here advocating against an ongoing genocide in every post how the hell i’m happy to let them do that?
on a prospect
It sound to me that you are taking for granted a prospect. Instead of trusting prospects made by the government try to think with your mind. If people decide to vote for a third party a third party will win, if you believe people won’t decide to do that instead of advocating for the lesser evil try to change people mind or at last don’t attack people who are trying to do that.
What would motivate a progressive canditate to enroll in an evil party that support a genocide?
Because it is the most progressive party that has a chance at winning elections and they want to change it to become even more progressive.
Again, a party’s stance on any given policy is dictated by the members of the party. Which means that the voters can force the party to adopt a new position if they vote for candidates who want change.
prediction on what people will vote for is no evidence to prove that a third party can’t win.
That’s literally what the theory and paper supporting it is about… Just because you refuse to accept what it claims does not mean it’s not supporting evidence.
It’s easy to understand why, you cannot predict the outcome of the vote.
That’s not what the theory or paper is claiming to do… I think you might have issues with your reading comprehension.
the scenario where you are voting for the lesser evil fascist you are voting for fascists
Voting for people who run on an anti fascist platform is fascist…sure.
A vote for someone who is part of the democratic party is a vote for someone in a party that supports a genocide.
Again, that’s a hasty generalization made with the intent to avoid context and any iota of nuance. Especially considering that the vast majority of voters have no independent or third party voters on their ballots.
In a hypothetical situation where the only options for a candidate is a person like Abdul El-Sayed (dnc) or a person like Mike Rogers (rnc). Your claim would suggest that both candidates are just as bad because the leaders of their respective parties have both endorsed Israel? Even though Israel spent 60 million dollars in against Abdul’s primary election?
I’ve never advocated for evil, I’ve always advocated to do the correct thing
Which is why I said I unwittingly…
not support criminals with blood on their hands, don’t you realize how twisted your logic is?
So they are guilty by association? By that logic why are you supporting the genocide of Palestinians?
You are tax paying citizen of a western nation supporting the genocide of Palestinians. Why would you associate yourself with a country that bombs children? Why not just move to a nation that has nothing to do with genocide?
I’ve been here advocating against an ongoing genocide in every post how the hell i’m happy to let them do that?
Yeah, but according to your own argument advocating against genocide doesn’t mean anything. Your decisions still aid a party and a country that supports genocide.
Instead of trusting prospects made by the government try to think with your mind.
My mind is telling me that out of the 535 seats that make up the house and Senate there are currently three 3rd party members.
1 representative in the house, who was a Republican until his district was redrawn in 2026 so he chose to switch to independent. He still caucuses with the Republican party.
2 representatives in the Senate both of which cuacus with the Democratic party.
So even if you ignore the fact that these independent representative are Republican or Democrat in everyway except name… That’s a .56% success rate for third party candidates.
don’t attack people who are trying to do that.
If you see education as a personal attack …it might explain some of your difficulties with comprehension.
Again, a party’s stance on any given policy is dictated by the members of the party. Which means that the voters can force the party to adopt a new position if they vote for candidates who want change.
It also means that if most of members of the party are criminals who support a genocide that becomes the party’s stance.
That’s literally what the theory and paper supporting it is about… Just because you refuse to accept what it claims does not mean it’s not supporting evidence.
If the theory claims that you can predict people vote then it’s a wrong theory because you cannot do that. People vote is a variable that can change according to a number so high of parameters that makes it “impossible” to predict.
Voting for people who run on an anti fascist platform is fascist…sure.
The democratic party is an anti fascist platform? The same platform supporting corporations, mass surveillance, authoritarian regimes and a genocide where kids are being murdered?
In a hypothetical situation where the only options for a candidate is a person like Abdul El-Sayed (dnc) or a person like Mike Rogers (rnc). Your claim would suggest that both candidates are just as bad because the leaders of their respective parties have both endorsed Israel? Even though Israel spent 60 million dollars in against Abdul’s primary election?
If you decide to affiliate with and to be under a leader who support a genocide because it gives you more popularity and votes you are not a good person. If a candidate was actually bad for israel government they would spend 60 millions to assasinate them.
So they are guilty by association? By that logic why are you supporting the genocide of Palestinians? You are tax paying citizen of a western nation supporting the genocide of Palestinians. Why would you associate yourself with a country that bombs children? Why not just move to a nation that has nothing to do with genocide?
You could indeed argue that anyone who pay taxes in a first world country is supporting the genocide, we are all guilty of enabling a corrupted system the same way germans were in nazi germany. Not paying taxes has direct repercussions such as going to jail, there aren’t any of such repercussions in choosing a different party to run with.
Your decisions still aid a party and a country that supports genocide.
That’s your assumption based on the propaganda that if you don’t vote for THE party you are doing something bad.
also means that if most of members of the party are criminals who support a genocide that becomes the party’s stance.
Which is a great reason why as many of those members who hold those beliefs should be voted out of office. The fastest and most likely way to achieve that is to primary them.
the theory claims that you can predict people vote then it’s a wrong theory because you cannot do that
You can build models to predict the way populations vote with varying degrees of accuracy. The more data you have to plug into those models, the more accurate it will be. For something like the likelihood of the average American voter choosing a third party candidate… We have a lot of data.
People vote is a variable that can change according to a number so high of parameters that makes it “impossible” to predict.
According to who?
The democratic party is an anti fascist platform?
It includes people who won primaries running on an anti fascist platform…
The same platform supporting corporations, mass surveillance, authoritarian regimes and a genocide where kids are being murdered?
Again, you are falsely conflating an entire party with an individual candidate.
you decide to affiliate with and to be under a leader who support a genocide because it gives you more popularity and votes you are not a good person. If a candidate was actually bad for israel government they would spend 60 millions to assasinate them.
Lol, can’t answer the question.
Not paying taxes has direct repercussions such as going to jail,
Ahh, so it’s cool for you to support genocide because you don’t want to face any repercussions? Sounds like you really care about the children of Palestine.
there aren’t any of such repercussions in choosing a different party to run with.
It would allow the democratic candidate who wins to be an actual genocide supporter.
That’s your assumption based on the propaganda
It’s just a reality… If there was even a slim chance don’t you think out of the 535 representatives there would be at least one person who didn’t caucus with Democrats or Republicans?
Which is a great reason why as many of those members who hold those beliefs should be voted out of office. The fastest and most likely way to achieve that is to primary them.
The same way “the voting population of the Republican party would be less likely to choose a progressive candidate” i expect the voting population of the Democrat party to less likely choose a candidate that isn’t aligned with the party capitalistic and authoritarian policies.
In the case where a good democrat lose against a bad democrat in primaries all the party resources gets redirected to the latest, which is what keeps happening over and over.
You can build models to predict the way populations vote with varying degrees of accuracy. The more data you have to plug into those models, the more accurate it will be.
With the tools established by red and blue administrations it’s indeed quite easy to collect and gather data about every person in the world and know exactly what they are up to at any given time…
For something like the likelihood of the average American voter choosing a third party candidate… We have a lot of data.
We indeed have a lot of data on people voting out and fighting government and that’s why authorities are spending billions and trillions to keep their grip on power and control the public.
People vote is a variable that can change according to a number so high of parameters that makes it “impossible” to predict.
According to who?
According to logic
Again, you are falsely conflating an entire party with an individual candidate.
If you affiliate with, endorse, support and run for a party you are doing major work for it
Even though Israel spent 60 million dollars in against Abdul’s primary election?
Lol, can’t answer the question.
Israel government is spending a billion in propaganda, they put money on whatever gives them an advantage and good press, if trump was running against someone even more evil they would put money on the latest to get away with even more evil actions. If they put money against Abdul it means they didn’t want him to win and that they could fight him off putting the money where they did.
Ahh, so it’s cool for you to support genocide because you don’t want to face any repercussions? Sounds like you really care about the children of Palestine.
Yes i do care about innocent children getting murdered with the help of the government, what about you?
It would allow the democratic candidate who wins to be an actual genocide supporter.
Wrong, again that’s your assumption rooted in propaganda that if you don’t vote for “the party” the enemy win.
It’s just a reality… If there was even a slim chance
Governments are spending billions in propaganda and mass surveillance because the chances they get vote out and replaced are realistic
expect the voting population of the Democrat party to less likely choose a candidate that isn’t aligned with the party capitalistic and authoritarian policies
Less likely compared to the Republicans?
case where a good democrat lose against a bad democrat in primaries all the party resources gets redirected to the latest, which is what keeps happening over and over.
Have you been following the latest primaries…?
With the tools established by red and blue administrations
Ahh yes, the numbers are biased against reality… Sure bud.
We indeed have a lot of data on people voting out and fighting government and that’s why authorities are spending billions and trillions to keep their grip on power and control the public.
Lol, we’ve spent trillions of dollars fighting …the green party?
According to logic
The thing you don’t understand?
If you affiliate with, endorse, support and run for a party you are doing major work for it
You affiliate with your country, pay taxes for its wars, choose to live within its borders, so that means you like genocide? Why don’t you move to a country that doesn’t support genocide? Because it’s difficult? People immigrate with less resources than you every day. Why choose to support genocide? Why choose to stay and try and change an evil country instead of just moving to a country that doesn’t slaughter children?
Abdul it means they didn’t want him to win and that they could fight him off putting the money where they did
So… Why did they not want Abdul to win? Come on you are so close to making a logical deduction.
Yes i do care about innocent children getting murdered with the help of the government, what about you?
Again, according to your logic it doesn’t seem like you do. Why continue to support a government that does genocide when you could simply choose to move to a different country?
My claims do not support guilt by association, I think voting for candidates who have an actual chance at winning and are anti Israel is how we stop the genocide.
again that’s your assumption rooted in propaganda that if you don’t vote for “the party” the enemy win.
Math is propaganda… Something tells me you didn’t do very well in school.
Governments are spending billions in propaganda and mass surveillance because the chances they get vote out and replaced are realistic
What evidence do you have to support the claim that it is realistic that a third party is likely to elect enough representatives to Congress to have an influence on a genocide happening right now? None… You have no evidence.
Lol, we’ve spent trillions of dollars fighting …the green party?
Yes, governments spend billions and trillions in consolidating their power and fighting any potential threat to their stability which include any party that could ruin their authoritarian plans.
You affiliate with your country, pay taxes for its wars, choose to live within its borders, so that means you like genocide? Why don’t you move to a country that doesn’t support genocide? Because it’s difficult? People immigrate with less resources than you every day. Why choose to support genocide? Why choose to stay and try and change an evil country instead of just moving to a country that doesn’t slaughter children?
You are comparing living in a country and being forced to pay taxes to voluntarily choosing to be part of a party that support and endorse a genocide
So… Why did they not want Abdul to win? Come on you are so close to making a logical deduction.
For the same reason they don’t want a third party to win over red and blue, they increase their odds to get away with a genocide by supporting scum.
Again, according to your logic it doesn’t seem like you do. Why continue to support a government that does genocide when you could simply choose to move to a different country?
As you are making these stupid arguments there are kids being murdered in gaza in a genocide perpetrated by the israel government with the full support of the red and blue party.
Math is propaganda… Something tells me you didn’t do very well in school.
Arguing that not voting for a party is doing evil it’s propaganda at it’s finest.
What evidence do you have to support the claim that it is realistic that a third party is likely to elect enough representatives to Congress to have an influence on a genocide happening right now? None… You have no evidence.
In elections you are not supposed to vote for the party more likely to win, you are supposed to vote for the party you agree with.
Operation gladio was against an entirely different nation state, not two political parties competing against a third. This is a ridiculous comparison.
You are comparing living in a country and being forced to pay taxes to voluntarily choosing to be part of a party that support and endorse a genocide
I’m comparing a choice of affiliation. Progressive candidates could leave the democratic party for a third party, but it would prevent their ability to win office. You could choose to immigrate to a new country, it would just be difficult.
For the same reason they don’t want a third party to win over red and blue
Lol, so you are admitting that Abdul is an anti Israel anti fascist candidate of the Democratic party? You do realize he won the primary as a Democrat, right?
are making these stupid arguments there are kids being murdered in gaza in a genocide perpetrated by the israel government with the full support of the red and blue party.
Again… Dodging the question. Why not simply choose to end your affiliations with the countries doing that genocide?
Also, it’s not the full support. There are over 20 house Democrats that have cospinsored a genocide resolution bill and over 100 Democrats that have voted to restrict weapon sales and military aid.
Even if a third party candidate beat the odds and one a seat, they would still be working with those Democrats to stop the genocide.
not voting for a party is doing evil it’s propaganda at it’s finest.
Splitting the vot in a close election between a progressive Democrat and a fascist is supporting evil.
In elections you are not supposed to vote for the party more likely to win, you are supposed to vote for the party you agree with.
According to who? You have the naivety of a middle schooler.
Yes, and we have seen them radicalize even farther right very recently .
Because the voting population of the Republican party would be less likely to choose a progressive candidate. What would motivate a progressive candidate to enroll in a conservative party?
I have backed my assumption with actual evidence… What evidence do you have to support your theory?
Says who? There are candidates that just won there primary as Democrats who have disavowed Israel and are democratic socialist. How is voting for them a vot for fascists?
Ahh yes, because you are the expert who can’t understand political science taught at a highschool level.
Which is better than advocating for the greater of the two evil… Which is what you are unwittingly doing.
And you seem more than happy to let them do that so long as you can waste your vote on a prospect that has zero chance of winning.
What would motivate a progressive canditate to enroll in an evil party that support a genocide?
A prediction on what people will vote for is no evidence to prove that a third party can’t win. It’s easy to understand why, you cannot predict the outcome of the vote.
In the scenario where you are voting for the lesser evil fascist you are voting for fascists, that’s the scenario of people voting for the lesser evil fascist in the latest US presidential elections. A vote for someone who is part of the democratic party is a vote for someone in a party that supports a genocide.
I’ve never advocated for evil, I’ve always advocated to do the correct thing and to not support criminals with blood on their hands, don’t you realize how twisted your logic is?
I’ve been here advocating against an ongoing genocide in every post how the hell i’m happy to let them do that?
It sound to me that you are taking for granted a prospect. Instead of trusting prospects made by the government try to think with your mind. If people decide to vote for a third party a third party will win, if you believe people won’t decide to do that instead of advocating for the lesser evil try to change people mind or at last don’t attack people who are trying to do that.
Because it is the most progressive party that has a chance at winning elections and they want to change it to become even more progressive.
Again, a party’s stance on any given policy is dictated by the members of the party. Which means that the voters can force the party to adopt a new position if they vote for candidates who want change.
That’s literally what the theory and paper supporting it is about… Just because you refuse to accept what it claims does not mean it’s not supporting evidence.
That’s not what the theory or paper is claiming to do… I think you might have issues with your reading comprehension.
Voting for people who run on an anti fascist platform is fascist…sure.
Again, that’s a hasty generalization made with the intent to avoid context and any iota of nuance. Especially considering that the vast majority of voters have no independent or third party voters on their ballots.
In a hypothetical situation where the only options for a candidate is a person like Abdul El-Sayed (dnc) or a person like Mike Rogers (rnc). Your claim would suggest that both candidates are just as bad because the leaders of their respective parties have both endorsed Israel? Even though Israel spent 60 million dollars in against Abdul’s primary election?
Which is why I said I unwittingly…
So they are guilty by association? By that logic why are you supporting the genocide of Palestinians?
You are tax paying citizen of a western nation supporting the genocide of Palestinians. Why would you associate yourself with a country that bombs children? Why not just move to a nation that has nothing to do with genocide?
Yeah, but according to your own argument advocating against genocide doesn’t mean anything. Your decisions still aid a party and a country that supports genocide.
My mind is telling me that out of the 535 seats that make up the house and Senate there are currently three 3rd party members.
1 representative in the house, who was a Republican until his district was redrawn in 2026 so he chose to switch to independent. He still caucuses with the Republican party.
2 representatives in the Senate both of which cuacus with the Democratic party.
So even if you ignore the fact that these independent representative are Republican or Democrat in everyway except name… That’s a .56% success rate for third party candidates.
If you see education as a personal attack …it might explain some of your difficulties with comprehension.
It also means that if most of members of the party are criminals who support a genocide that becomes the party’s stance.
If the theory claims that you can predict people vote then it’s a wrong theory because you cannot do that. People vote is a variable that can change according to a number so high of parameters that makes it “impossible” to predict.
The democratic party is an anti fascist platform? The same platform supporting corporations, mass surveillance, authoritarian regimes and a genocide where kids are being murdered?
If you decide to affiliate with and to be under a leader who support a genocide because it gives you more popularity and votes you are not a good person. If a candidate was actually bad for israel government they would spend 60 millions to assasinate them.
You could indeed argue that anyone who pay taxes in a first world country is supporting the genocide, we are all guilty of enabling a corrupted system the same way germans were in nazi germany. Not paying taxes has direct repercussions such as going to jail, there aren’t any of such repercussions in choosing a different party to run with.
That’s your assumption based on the propaganda that if you don’t vote for THE party you are doing something bad.
Which is a great reason why as many of those members who hold those beliefs should be voted out of office. The fastest and most likely way to achieve that is to primary them.
You can build models to predict the way populations vote with varying degrees of accuracy. The more data you have to plug into those models, the more accurate it will be. For something like the likelihood of the average American voter choosing a third party candidate… We have a lot of data.
According to who?
It includes people who won primaries running on an anti fascist platform…
Again, you are falsely conflating an entire party with an individual candidate.
Lol, can’t answer the question.
Ahh, so it’s cool for you to support genocide because you don’t want to face any repercussions? Sounds like you really care about the children of Palestine.
It would allow the democratic candidate who wins to be an actual genocide supporter.
It’s just a reality… If there was even a slim chance don’t you think out of the 535 representatives there would be at least one person who didn’t caucus with Democrats or Republicans?
The same way “the voting population of the Republican party would be less likely to choose a progressive candidate” i expect the voting population of the Democrat party to less likely choose a candidate that isn’t aligned with the party capitalistic and authoritarian policies.
In the case where a good democrat lose against a bad democrat in primaries all the party resources gets redirected to the latest, which is what keeps happening over and over.
With the tools established by red and blue administrations it’s indeed quite easy to collect and gather data about every person in the world and know exactly what they are up to at any given time…
We indeed have a lot of data on people voting out and fighting government and that’s why authorities are spending billions and trillions to keep their grip on power and control the public.
According to logic
If you affiliate with, endorse, support and run for a party you are doing major work for it
Israel government is spending a billion in propaganda, they put money on whatever gives them an advantage and good press, if trump was running against someone even more evil they would put money on the latest to get away with even more evil actions. If they put money against Abdul it means they didn’t want him to win and that they could fight him off putting the money where they did.
Yes i do care about innocent children getting murdered with the help of the government, what about you?
Wrong, again that’s your assumption rooted in propaganda that if you don’t vote for “the party” the enemy win.
Governments are spending billions in propaganda and mass surveillance because the chances they get vote out and replaced are realistic
Less likely compared to the Republicans?
Have you been following the latest primaries…?
Ahh yes, the numbers are biased against reality… Sure bud.
Lol, we’ve spent trillions of dollars fighting …the green party?
The thing you don’t understand?
You affiliate with your country, pay taxes for its wars, choose to live within its borders, so that means you like genocide? Why don’t you move to a country that doesn’t support genocide? Because it’s difficult? People immigrate with less resources than you every day. Why choose to support genocide? Why choose to stay and try and change an evil country instead of just moving to a country that doesn’t slaughter children?
So… Why did they not want Abdul to win? Come on you are so close to making a logical deduction.
Again, according to your logic it doesn’t seem like you do. Why continue to support a government that does genocide when you could simply choose to move to a different country?
My claims do not support guilt by association, I think voting for candidates who have an actual chance at winning and are anti Israel is how we stop the genocide.
Math is propaganda… Something tells me you didn’t do very well in school.
What evidence do you have to support the claim that it is realistic that a third party is likely to elect enough representatives to Congress to have an influence on a genocide happening right now? None… You have no evidence.
Yes, governments spend billions and trillions in consolidating their power and fighting any potential threat to their stability which include any party that could ruin their authoritarian plans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
You are comparing living in a country and being forced to pay taxes to voluntarily choosing to be part of a party that support and endorse a genocide
For the same reason they don’t want a third party to win over red and blue, they increase their odds to get away with a genocide by supporting scum.
As you are making these stupid arguments there are kids being murdered in gaza in a genocide perpetrated by the israel government with the full support of the red and blue party.
Arguing that not voting for a party is doing evil it’s propaganda at it’s finest.
In elections you are not supposed to vote for the party more likely to win, you are supposed to vote for the party you agree with.
Operation gladio was against an entirely different nation state, not two political parties competing against a third. This is a ridiculous comparison.
I’m comparing a choice of affiliation. Progressive candidates could leave the democratic party for a third party, but it would prevent their ability to win office. You could choose to immigrate to a new country, it would just be difficult.
Lol, so you are admitting that Abdul is an anti Israel anti fascist candidate of the Democratic party? You do realize he won the primary as a Democrat, right?
Again… Dodging the question. Why not simply choose to end your affiliations with the countries doing that genocide?
Also, it’s not the full support. There are over 20 house Democrats that have cospinsored a genocide resolution bill and over 100 Democrats that have voted to restrict weapon sales and military aid.
Even if a third party candidate beat the odds and one a seat, they would still be working with those Democrats to stop the genocide.
Splitting the vot in a close election between a progressive Democrat and a fascist is supporting evil.
According to who? You have the naivety of a middle schooler.