> It's this passivity on electoral politics that has always seemed so odd on
> these debates. I understand the "worse the better" third party advocates
> and I understand the "don't vote, it just encourages them" anarchists like
> Chuck, but this larger swath of anti-Democratic advocates who actually
> want the Democrats to win has always been bizarre to me.
>
> I kind of understand the theory-- they think the masses will be confused
> by "critical support" statements that identify leftists with "capitalist
> parties", so they want a strong rhetorical position even as they hope the
> masses ignore them on election day. The cynicism is large but I just
> think it tactically sells most people short.
I'm not sure there must be any kind of "theory" to understand such a decision. The last time I held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils was to vote for John Street as mayor of Philadelphia, since the idea of a Republican mayor of Philadelphia was just too awful. Next thing I know Street was welcoming the Republicans to town for their convention and ranting about conspiracies by convention protesters using cell phones as criminal weapons. It really leaves a bad taste in the mouth when considering voting Democratic again.
I expect I'll vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is for pres, but I can also understand people refusing to. Especially when they'll probably blow it again anyway.
Seth