Ohh
Ohh
You're viewing part of a thread.
Oh, no. I mean, if that were true, that one outcome is decidedly worse than the other, how would it even be a contest? In any case, I don't understand how any of this is strategic.
how would it even be a contest
Because there are swaths of selfish people out there.
Sounds like you might be one of them.
The strategy is pretty obviously to vote and advocate against the worse option.
The strategy is pretty obviously to vote and advocate against the worse option.
That is just voting and having an opinion, not really a strategy. What is the incumbent campaign's strategy for reelection? Are they just hoping that enough voters will see it your way (I presume), in spite of supporting the genocide as well as the policies that more or less haven't changed since the previous administration?
That is just voting and having an opinion
Anyone whose "opinion" is that Trump would be fine, is to be shamed. Plain and simple.
So then the strategy is to shame anyone who isn't fervently anti-Trump into changing their mind? How is that supposed to work given the Trump era policies that are still in place or the incumbent administration's material and rhetorical support for the Israeli's genocidal persecution of the Palestinians? If people want to avoid shame, then not voting for either of the contenders, or at all, seems like the best move for them.
If you're not already fervently anti-trump, you're a lost cause.
So, the Biden campaign is only relying on fervently anti-Trump voters? That's a terrible strategy.
You've got it twisted. You aren't voting strategically. That has nothing to do with campaign strategy.
Keep up.
What on Earth is "voting strategically" supposed to mean individual voters in US Presidential elections? Arriving at polling places early? Voting by mail? Or do you mean something illicit like voting early and often?
It means you don't vote for what you "want", it means you vote for the best possible outcome. Again, of which there are 2 and of which 1 is worse.
You cannot seriously be this dense.
For the reasons I mentioned previously, it's not at all clear which outcome would be worse. So, your premise is flawed. Regardless, you haven't explained how voting for the alleged lesser of two evils is strategic. What kind of message does it send to both the DNC and RNC that a candidate can actively support a genocide and still get reelected? What message does it send to the world for us to keep a president like Biden in office? What is the goal of that kind of strategy?