• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 29th, 2024

help-circle

  • I’ve given more details elsewhere, but the short version:

    We can classify US presidential votes into three categories:

    1. Vote for the Democrat
    2. Vote for the Republican
    3. Vote third-party/independent or don’t vote

    The most effective vote to make on an anti-genocide platform is #1.

    Voting for a Republican is voting for a party that appears to be profoundly okay with the genocide in Gaza AND wants to start some genocides of their own (e.g. against trans folks, immigrants and racial minorities). This is the most pro-genocide vote.

    Voting for a Democrat is voting for a party that has a fairly significant group that opposes the genocide, and which appears to be movable on the topic.

    Any other vote is roughly equivalent to not voting. On the presidental front, there is no chance in this election that anyone other than a candidate from one of the main two parties is elected, and that’s also true for most senate or house races. (Possibly all, but I don’t want to make that strong claim since I haven’t actually researched all the races.) Voting for a candidate who you know won’t win is explicitly choosing not to have a say between the tho feasible candidates.

    I do have one caveat though…

    If you live in West Virginia for example, it’s a bit more complex. There your choice is essentially “the Republican or not the Republican,” so third-party/independent moves into category 1. However, then I’d argue that voting for the Democrat for president may still be the preferable response because if the Republican wins the electoral college but, (as has happened in every presidential election since 1990 except 2004) the Democrat still wins the popular vote, it further delegitimises the Republican’s presidency and the electoral college.









  • FWIW, the Biden administration is doing a decent amount of behind the scenes work on housing costs, both directly (funding low income housing) and indirectly (incentivising cities to change laws that decrease supply and prop up the local landlords). Some of the reasons (IMO) he doesn’t talk much about this are:

    1. Small-scale landlords are a decent chunk of the Democrats’ donor base. So although this isn’t going to significantly negatively affect small-scale landlords (not that I’d care if it did - it just isn’t), too much messaging on that front could have a negative effect on donations.
    2. Some of the least reliable voters that the Democrats are depending on this year are sufficiently leftist to dislike any attempt that isn’t fully public housing. And none of what the Biden administration is doing will result in massive swathes of public housing. Some places might get some at the margins, but mostly what’s happening is that local governments are working with non-profits to provide more affordable housing, using the influx of federal cash to make it happen. Messaging here needs to be very careful not to give these folks an excuse not to vote.
    3. Many of the voters who are (somehow…) on the fence between Biden and Trump are also very NIMBY. So if someone from the Biden administration were to come to their town and say “Joe did this!” that could actually dissuade some undecided voters.

    Is it stupid? Absolutely!

    Is Biden doing enough on housing? Definitely not!

    But a big chunk of what he is doing is flying under the radar, partially because they’re not advertising it and partially because it takes longer than just one presidential term for these kinds of projects to make it to fruition. The first development in my city that took advantage of Biden administration policies finally broke ground in September. The first actual affordable unit to come out of it will be available in 2025.