Thank you for this clear breakdown Sharon! I would love to have more options beyond our two party system, but this article clearly shows how that battle can’t be won per se during a presidential election. It seems that we need to advocate and work for election reforms at the local levels if we want to see change on a national level!
You said it perfectly Emily. Now that I understand how it works from Sharon’s beautiful explanation, I’m even more undecided about who to vote for. I’ve voted the independent candidate in the past because I aligned more with their platform and values. Now my more educated question is “do I vote my conscience” at the expense of inadvertently helping to elect rotten fish or better yet beets? It is so very sad that we basically have the option of voting for “the lesser of two evils”. Somehow, with Sharon at the helm, this country needs to implement the proposals she made in her previous article. Are we governerds the only ones that can see this????? Only God can help us now. PRAY!!!! and work work work for change, (of course). And never never give up HOPE!!!!
No, I won’t be voting for chocolate cake. I won’t be indirectly supporting Trump. I want my kids to be able to vote in their future. I want them to have rights as full fledged citizens. I want to live the rest of my life which is more than likely another 60-70 years ahead of me with the same freedoms I have enjoyed for the last 34 years. Until we reform our constitution to allow more parties, potentially get rid of the electoral college I won’t be voting for chocolate cake. I will only be voting for the candidates that have a record of supporting democracy.
This is a real concern for me. Trump literally said that if he wins the election, in 4 years the people who support him will never have to vote again because they'll have "fixed" everything. I didn't know exactly what that means, but I'm going to go with being safe over being sorry.
In 2016 I voted for chocolate cake, knowing it wouldn’t win, because the Republican and Democratic candidates BOTH looked like beets to me. In 2020 it became very clear to me that the two major parties were offering beets and rotten fish, so I chose beets to directly impact the election in my swing state. I’m so grateful that I did so! 🇺🇸 Going forward, I will always vote in a manner that will directly impact elections and defend democracy, while hoping for election reforms in the future. ❤️🤍💙
Given the realities of our two-party system I admittedly haven't looked into RFK's politics at all - my only familiarity is his anti-vax stance, family ties, and marriage to a notable actress. As Sharon has created one of the only safe-spaces on the internet to admit ignorance, I am very interested to hear from Governerds more educated on his platform why they either support or reject his policies. I can confidently say I won't vote third-party in 2024, but I'd still like a better understanding of the non-binary political views out there.
He isn't anti vax for the most part- it's a huge misconception. Hes fully vaccinated, as well has his 6 kids, minus the covid shot- he's just pro having accountability to the vaccine manufacturers for when people become injured by them, which there isn't any now.
He significantly misrepresents vaccine science and makes unfounded claims, like insisting that no modern vaccine has undergone a safety trial. Dr. Andrea Love (who writes 'ImmunoLogic' here on Substack) has done some great work debunking his claims about vaccine safety and efficacy. FactCheck.org also has some good information on his anti-vaccine claims and attempts to walk them back. What I find particularly interesting is that his default defense seems to be denying that he said the things he's said. He doesn't claim that he's changed his mind, or that he has information now that he didn't have at the time, he just claims to have never said it at all...even when it's on record.
Nor would they, because they are the updated versions of existing vaccines that were already tested against the placebos for both safety and efficacy.
If the placebo is A and the vaccine is B, then B is tested against A to ensure that it's safe. So when B.1 is released, it's then tested against B (which already has proven safety and efficacy data, and was already tested against a placebo). The process you're suggesting - testing every single new update against a placebo - would be incredibly onerous and I've not personally seen the argument that it would produce higher quality or more meaningful data. In fact, the argument is often made that placebo trials are *unethical* when a currently effective vaccine already exists and is merely being tested to see if the new version can improve upon it. In 1954, over a dozen children in the placebo control group of a polio vaccine trial died and dozens more were paralyzed because they were completely unprotected during the trial and caught polio.
Yes, turtles all the way down. Version 3 was tested against version 2, which was tested against version 1, which was tested against?
For example, look at the current DTP vaccines, Pediarix and Kinrix. The control group in the Pediarix trial received the Infanrix vaccine (some also received hepatitis B, Hib, and polio vaccines). The control group in the Kinrix trial received the Infanrix and polio vaccines. So our baseline for safety is the Infanrix vaccine. And the control group in the Infanrix trial received the original DTP vaccine which has never been tested against a placebo in a control trial. So where does the safety profile come from?
Some version of this applies to most of the vaccines on the schedule. There are some exceptions like the Rotavirus vaccines. The control group in the Rotarix trial received the vaccine sans the live virus. We don't know what the control group in the RotaTeq study received because the information was deleted from the FDA licensing documents.
The argument that true placebo trials are unethical is largely a cop out, especially since we don't know that the vaccines given to control groups are actually safe. The real ethical issue is continuing to give millions of kids vaccines that haven't gone through the type of safety testing that is required for every other medication.
Respectfully I am going to bow out of this discussion at this point, because I really don't think that Sharon's post is - or was meant to be - the place for an in the weeds blow-by-blow of vaccine version rollouts. While I don't agree with your conclusions, I do wish you well.
(For anyone who wants to dig in more outside of this space: Pediarix and Kinrix are DTaP vaccines, and you can check yourself to see that the DTaP vaccine has indeed been placebo tested. The FDA's website also shows that RotaTeq did control groups with both a placebo and the existing DTaP vaccine.)
I can also tell you as someone currently volunteering in a trial for a new vaccine, that one is being tested against a placebo because it's NEW. I won't even know which shots I received until the trial is over sometime next year.
Yes, they told me both verbally and in the extensive documentation that I received as a part of my consenting to the trial (and was able to reference just now to be sure): it's a saline solution.
There actually is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) funded at least in part by vaccine proceeds. People can file claims and get compensation, but a lot of the time their cases are settled with the vaccine manufacturer. He also continues to mislead people about mercury in vaccines. There has not been mercury in vaccines since 2001. Even when mercury was being used as an antibacterial it was ethylmercury, which is not harmful, as opposed to methylmercury , which is harmful. We hear about it all the time because it's in fish. Also, I find it interesting that he blames mercury poisoning for some of his memory issues after eating tuna sandwiches everyday. We've been told for years not to eat tuna regularly and you'd think that as an environmental activist he'd be well aware of that.
I also don’t know a ton about him but most (all?) of his many siblings have come out against his run. They had publicly supported Biden and now I assume are supporting Harris. It says a lot when those closest to him would so publicly speak against him.
I am really appreciating all of the civil discourse in sharing different perspectives so far - thank you! I'm still more interested in his policies on other topics than I am on his vaccination stance - does anyone have greater insight on where he stands on international relations, fed/state delineation, policing, childcare, etc?
I am definitely not voting third party this time around, but I have before as a means of “voting my conscience,” knowing my choice would not win. Sharon, what would it take to have rank choice voting implemented on a national level? Do you see any path forward for that, and do you think the pros of that system outweigh the cons?
I actively canvass for RCV in my state, and I too would love to see RCV nation-wide! Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the constitution would have to be amended to take elections away from the states. Looking forward to hearing Sharon's perspective on this!
RFK Jr could be the beets, but the media is against him. This article and the way she publicly answers questions related to RFK make it feel like Sharon is also, because this article could've had a format that didn't only have negatives about the guy. No candidate is perfect. Certainly not Trump. Kamala was tasked with the border as sitting VP and.... has nothing to show for her work there; all the contrary.
If voters pay attention to all the *long-form interview* material that RFK has got across all his platforms, they'll hear his perspectives & stands on the many issues that are important to our Country right now. He comes across as an intelligent, (oh, so refreshing) eloquent politician. He's physically fit, politically experienced, cares about improving the quality of food for America & more importantly, is a candidate that has a true shot at uniting us. He could be the beets if America votes their conscious. 🇺🇸
"Kamala was tasked with the border as sitting VP and.... has nothing to show for her work there"
This actually isn't true: VP Harris was never put in charge of the US border. Instead, she was tasked with addressing "root cause" issues for migrants coming up through Mexico and into the US from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala (we don't share a border with any of those countries). According to the US Border Patrol, the percentage of migrants from those three countries dropped from 41% in 2021 to 22% in 2023. I'd say that does show something about the work she was actually assigned to do.
I had considered voting 3rd party for the first time in 50 years of voting. Which was HUGE as I have been a “party line” gal all of those years. However, realizing that it was more of an emotional decision than a well thought-out one, decided against it.
I hope we all learn from this weird and wild election cycle and in 2028 have better and more candidates in the primary elections. I am not excited about any of the candidates but will vote the “lesser of two evils.” I live in a state where my vote for president is largely irrelevant as it’s not one of the swing states. I’ll focus my energy on learning more about the down ballot elections although many of those are already decided as well. For someone who is very tuned into politics, this is very frustrating for me. Actually considering getting residency in another state where we have a second home. It’s a swing state so at least I’d feel like my vote could make a difference. Hoping election reform happens in my lifetime (I’m 60) so more people feel their vote counts.
For me it also has to do with what state I’m voting in. If I’m in a swing state where it’s usually close, I would tend not to vote third party. If I’m in a state that’s solidly blue or red, I will focus more on local elections and more consider a third party vote as a protest vote.
I don’t like RFK Jr personally but I find it interesting that the main reasons he can’t gain broad national appeal are things Trump has also done. Trump has had so many allegations of sexual assault. Yet he gained huge support. He’s a convicted felon, doesn’t remember things he’s said, and blatantly lies all the time. I think it’s really about money and party power. That’s it. If he had those, it wouldn’t matter what he’s done in the past or what he says on the campaign trail. We’ve proven that most people will look past red flags.
Indeed I am aware of that. I didn't say anything to excuse Joe Biden's potential treatment of women. I just question the idea that RFK Jr can't have broad appeal because of the issues mentioned in the article. Biden didn't seem to actually have broad appeal. Basically every single person I know who would vote for him wasn't happy with him being the candidate. So I used Trump as the example because he maintains very high favorability amongst his base. His supporters have said on camera that he could murder someone on the white house lawn and they would still support him. I haven't heard the same from Biden supporters. So my point is that I think it's about money and the influence that gets you, not about character or past actions. At least not for a lot of people.
The thing I find fascinating about RFK Jr is how he- a pretty far-left progressive in many ways- can also cozy up to the far right. Is this an indicator of shifting political allegiances to come? What do you think, Sharon?
I’ve read theories that describe our “political spectrum” as something more like a political horseshoe. Instead of a line, where the two sides are opposite, they are actually very close to each other when considering attitudes and behaviors, if not policies. It’s what has made the most sense to me when thinking about how the far left and far right often seem to have more in common with each other than with everyone else.
I would also love to know Sharon's perspective on this. IMO, I think a candidacy like Kennedy's (which doesn't really fit neatly into a Left or Right box) just shows the failings of trying to divide every issue into a binary choice: if L is for it then R must be against it, and vice versa.
Hi I like to think of myself as a progressive/leftist and RFK Jr is not a even a passing thought in any circles I am in! It's safe to say we don't claim him!
I do agree that the left is not "claiming" him, but he is (for instance) a union supporter who wants universal childcare and champions causes like environmental regulation and 'Justice for Black Farmers', which is what I think Liz was getting at: his policies don't fully align with the right either.
Thanks! I didn't know that. I think it depends if his supporters are diehard or not and if R or D parties think it's worth trying to bring them into the fold. It'll be interesting to see.
I would also argue that voting for a third party candidate is actually casting a vote for the election to be thrown to the House of Representatives. Realistically, the only hope that a third party candidate has is to garner 'some' electoral votes. And, if they did--this would increase the chances that no candidate receives the required 270 to win. Knowing that the House (or the Senate, if it goes that far) would never elect a third party candidate--I would encourage anyone considering casting a 'protest' vote to first consider who the House of Reps would choose. In essence--that's the candidate their vote would ultimately support.
Thank you, Sharon, for the LIFT explanation of how our vote can directly or indirectly affect an election. Since I personally do not agree completely with any single candidate’s stance on all of the current issues, I am strongly considering a write in or a non-vote. I will use my vote to make a statement although admittedly the statement may be lost as I am not sure if there are enough voters who are willing to indirectly affect the election. Doing this would be my hope that someone might realize just how many people are still unhappy with what we are being offered.
I don't think it is realistic to expect to agree with one candidate on all the current issues but I choose to vote for the candidate thd aligns with the issues that are most important to me.
“Voting isn't marriage, it’s public transport. You’re not waiting for 'the one' who’s absolutely perfect: you’re getting the bus, and if there isn't one to your destination, you don’t not travel- you take the one going closest.”
(I can't verify 100% but this appears to be attributed to Paul Tambyah, a Singaporean doctor, politician, and writer)
I think everyone knows how unhappy we are with our very limited choices offered. The problem is that Congress doesn’t care because it benefits them. I respect that you want to stand your ground on making that point! I’m just sort of keeping my fingers crossed that we can all live with whatever happens after Election Day. 😬
It’s extremely rare that a “perfect” candidate that I’m truly excited about is ever on the presidential ballot, so I’m doing my best to find something to appreciate in today’s candidates - particularly in down ballot races.
Thank you for this clear breakdown Sharon! I would love to have more options beyond our two party system, but this article clearly shows how that battle can’t be won per se during a presidential election. It seems that we need to advocate and work for election reforms at the local levels if we want to see change on a national level!
You said it perfectly Emily. Now that I understand how it works from Sharon’s beautiful explanation, I’m even more undecided about who to vote for. I’ve voted the independent candidate in the past because I aligned more with their platform and values. Now my more educated question is “do I vote my conscience” at the expense of inadvertently helping to elect rotten fish or better yet beets? It is so very sad that we basically have the option of voting for “the lesser of two evils”. Somehow, with Sharon at the helm, this country needs to implement the proposals she made in her previous article. Are we governerds the only ones that can see this????? Only God can help us now. PRAY!!!! and work work work for change, (of course). And never never give up HOPE!!!!
No, I won’t be voting for chocolate cake. I won’t be indirectly supporting Trump. I want my kids to be able to vote in their future. I want them to have rights as full fledged citizens. I want to live the rest of my life which is more than likely another 60-70 years ahead of me with the same freedoms I have enjoyed for the last 34 years. Until we reform our constitution to allow more parties, potentially get rid of the electoral college I won’t be voting for chocolate cake. I will only be voting for the candidates that have a record of supporting democracy.
This is a real concern for me. Trump literally said that if he wins the election, in 4 years the people who support him will never have to vote again because they'll have "fixed" everything. I didn't know exactly what that means, but I'm going to go with being safe over being sorry.
In 2016 I voted for chocolate cake, knowing it wouldn’t win, because the Republican and Democratic candidates BOTH looked like beets to me. In 2020 it became very clear to me that the two major parties were offering beets and rotten fish, so I chose beets to directly impact the election in my swing state. I’m so grateful that I did so! 🇺🇸 Going forward, I will always vote in a manner that will directly impact elections and defend democracy, while hoping for election reforms in the future. ❤️🤍💙
Same here!
Given the realities of our two-party system I admittedly haven't looked into RFK's politics at all - my only familiarity is his anti-vax stance, family ties, and marriage to a notable actress. As Sharon has created one of the only safe-spaces on the internet to admit ignorance, I am very interested to hear from Governerds more educated on his platform why they either support or reject his policies. I can confidently say I won't vote third-party in 2024, but I'd still like a better understanding of the non-binary political views out there.
He isn't anti vax for the most part- it's a huge misconception. Hes fully vaccinated, as well has his 6 kids, minus the covid shot- he's just pro having accountability to the vaccine manufacturers for when people become injured by them, which there isn't any now.
He significantly misrepresents vaccine science and makes unfounded claims, like insisting that no modern vaccine has undergone a safety trial. Dr. Andrea Love (who writes 'ImmunoLogic' here on Substack) has done some great work debunking his claims about vaccine safety and efficacy. FactCheck.org also has some good information on his anti-vaccine claims and attempts to walk them back. What I find particularly interesting is that his default defense seems to be denying that he said the things he's said. He doesn't claim that he's changed his mind, or that he has information now that he didn't have at the time, he just claims to have never said it at all...even when it's on record.
Saying he is not antivax is false. Facts matter. https://apnews.com/article/rfk-kennedy-election-2024-president-campaign-621c9e9641381a1b2677df9de5a09731
None of the vaccines on the current childhood schedule have gone through a safety trial against a true placebo.
https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/no-placebo-101823.pdf
Nor would they, because they are the updated versions of existing vaccines that were already tested against the placebos for both safety and efficacy.
If the placebo is A and the vaccine is B, then B is tested against A to ensure that it's safe. So when B.1 is released, it's then tested against B (which already has proven safety and efficacy data, and was already tested against a placebo). The process you're suggesting - testing every single new update against a placebo - would be incredibly onerous and I've not personally seen the argument that it would produce higher quality or more meaningful data. In fact, the argument is often made that placebo trials are *unethical* when a currently effective vaccine already exists and is merely being tested to see if the new version can improve upon it. In 1954, over a dozen children in the placebo control group of a polio vaccine trial died and dozens more were paralyzed because they were completely unprotected during the trial and caught polio.
Yes, turtles all the way down. Version 3 was tested against version 2, which was tested against version 1, which was tested against?
For example, look at the current DTP vaccines, Pediarix and Kinrix. The control group in the Pediarix trial received the Infanrix vaccine (some also received hepatitis B, Hib, and polio vaccines). The control group in the Kinrix trial received the Infanrix and polio vaccines. So our baseline for safety is the Infanrix vaccine. And the control group in the Infanrix trial received the original DTP vaccine which has never been tested against a placebo in a control trial. So where does the safety profile come from?
Some version of this applies to most of the vaccines on the schedule. There are some exceptions like the Rotavirus vaccines. The control group in the Rotarix trial received the vaccine sans the live virus. We don't know what the control group in the RotaTeq study received because the information was deleted from the FDA licensing documents.
The argument that true placebo trials are unethical is largely a cop out, especially since we don't know that the vaccines given to control groups are actually safe. The real ethical issue is continuing to give millions of kids vaccines that haven't gone through the type of safety testing that is required for every other medication.
Respectfully I am going to bow out of this discussion at this point, because I really don't think that Sharon's post is - or was meant to be - the place for an in the weeds blow-by-blow of vaccine version rollouts. While I don't agree with your conclusions, I do wish you well.
(For anyone who wants to dig in more outside of this space: Pediarix and Kinrix are DTaP vaccines, and you can check yourself to see that the DTaP vaccine has indeed been placebo tested. The FDA's website also shows that RotaTeq did control groups with both a placebo and the existing DTaP vaccine.)
I can also tell you as someone currently volunteering in a trial for a new vaccine, that one is being tested against a placebo because it's NEW. I won't even know which shots I received until the trial is over sometime next year.
Did they tell you what's in the placebo?
Yes, they told me both verbally and in the extensive documentation that I received as a part of my consenting to the trial (and was able to reference just now to be sure): it's a saline solution.
There actually is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) funded at least in part by vaccine proceeds. People can file claims and get compensation, but a lot of the time their cases are settled with the vaccine manufacturer. He also continues to mislead people about mercury in vaccines. There has not been mercury in vaccines since 2001. Even when mercury was being used as an antibacterial it was ethylmercury, which is not harmful, as opposed to methylmercury , which is harmful. We hear about it all the time because it's in fish. Also, I find it interesting that he blames mercury poisoning for some of his memory issues after eating tuna sandwiches everyday. We've been told for years not to eat tuna regularly and you'd think that as an environmental activist he'd be well aware of that.
I also don’t know a ton about him but most (all?) of his many siblings have come out against his run. They had publicly supported Biden and now I assume are supporting Harris. It says a lot when those closest to him would so publicly speak against him.
I had read this was bc a couple of them actually work for the Biden admin. Idk!
I am really appreciating all of the civil discourse in sharing different perspectives so far - thank you! I'm still more interested in his policies on other topics than I am on his vaccination stance - does anyone have greater insight on where he stands on international relations, fed/state delineation, policing, childcare, etc?
He shares all of that information on his Instagram account and his website.
I am definitely not voting third party this time around, but I have before as a means of “voting my conscience,” knowing my choice would not win. Sharon, what would it take to have rank choice voting implemented on a national level? Do you see any path forward for that, and do you think the pros of that system outweigh the cons?
I actively canvass for RCV in my state, and I too would love to see RCV nation-wide! Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the constitution would have to be amended to take elections away from the states. Looking forward to hearing Sharon's perspective on this!
So glad you wrote this. I have a big regret still that I voted for Ralph Nader 2000 which turned out to be the Bush v Gore debacle.... never again...
RFK Jr could be the beets, but the media is against him. This article and the way she publicly answers questions related to RFK make it feel like Sharon is also, because this article could've had a format that didn't only have negatives about the guy. No candidate is perfect. Certainly not Trump. Kamala was tasked with the border as sitting VP and.... has nothing to show for her work there; all the contrary.
If voters pay attention to all the *long-form interview* material that RFK has got across all his platforms, they'll hear his perspectives & stands on the many issues that are important to our Country right now. He comes across as an intelligent, (oh, so refreshing) eloquent politician. He's physically fit, politically experienced, cares about improving the quality of food for America & more importantly, is a candidate that has a true shot at uniting us. He could be the beets if America votes their conscious. 🇺🇸
"Kamala was tasked with the border as sitting VP and.... has nothing to show for her work there"
This actually isn't true: VP Harris was never put in charge of the US border. Instead, she was tasked with addressing "root cause" issues for migrants coming up through Mexico and into the US from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala (we don't share a border with any of those countries). According to the US Border Patrol, the percentage of migrants from those three countries dropped from 41% in 2021 to 22% in 2023. I'd say that does show something about the work she was actually assigned to do.
He actually couldn’t. As explained by Sharon, he’s not on the ballot in enough states to win the electoral college.
I had considered voting 3rd party for the first time in 50 years of voting. Which was HUGE as I have been a “party line” gal all of those years. However, realizing that it was more of an emotional decision than a well thought-out one, decided against it.
I hope we all learn from this weird and wild election cycle and in 2028 have better and more candidates in the primary elections. I am not excited about any of the candidates but will vote the “lesser of two evils.” I live in a state where my vote for president is largely irrelevant as it’s not one of the swing states. I’ll focus my energy on learning more about the down ballot elections although many of those are already decided as well. For someone who is very tuned into politics, this is very frustrating for me. Actually considering getting residency in another state where we have a second home. It’s a swing state so at least I’d feel like my vote could make a difference. Hoping election reform happens in my lifetime (I’m 60) so more people feel their vote counts.
Thanks for this. I prefer my vote having a Direct impact.
For me it also has to do with what state I’m voting in. If I’m in a swing state where it’s usually close, I would tend not to vote third party. If I’m in a state that’s solidly blue or red, I will focus more on local elections and more consider a third party vote as a protest vote.
I don’t like RFK Jr personally but I find it interesting that the main reasons he can’t gain broad national appeal are things Trump has also done. Trump has had so many allegations of sexual assault. Yet he gained huge support. He’s a convicted felon, doesn’t remember things he’s said, and blatantly lies all the time. I think it’s really about money and party power. That’s it. If he had those, it wouldn’t matter what he’s done in the past or what he says on the campaign trail. We’ve proven that most people will look past red flags.
You know Joe Biden has been accused of sexual assault too?
Which goes to Stephanie's point: "It's really about money and party power...We've proven that most people will look past red flags."
It's a shame that, until just over a week ago, voting for any of the top candidates would mean having to overlook the ways they've all treated women.
Indeed I am aware of that. I didn't say anything to excuse Joe Biden's potential treatment of women. I just question the idea that RFK Jr can't have broad appeal because of the issues mentioned in the article. Biden didn't seem to actually have broad appeal. Basically every single person I know who would vote for him wasn't happy with him being the candidate. So I used Trump as the example because he maintains very high favorability amongst his base. His supporters have said on camera that he could murder someone on the white house lawn and they would still support him. I haven't heard the same from Biden supporters. So my point is that I think it's about money and the influence that gets you, not about character or past actions. At least not for a lot of people.
The thing I find fascinating about RFK Jr is how he- a pretty far-left progressive in many ways- can also cozy up to the far right. Is this an indicator of shifting political allegiances to come? What do you think, Sharon?
I’ve read theories that describe our “political spectrum” as something more like a political horseshoe. Instead of a line, where the two sides are opposite, they are actually very close to each other when considering attitudes and behaviors, if not policies. It’s what has made the most sense to me when thinking about how the far left and far right often seem to have more in common with each other than with everyone else.
Yep exactly! I think we’re also seeing the parties shift and am curious where we’ll be in 10+ years
I would also love to know Sharon's perspective on this. IMO, I think a candidacy like Kennedy's (which doesn't really fit neatly into a Left or Right box) just shows the failings of trying to divide every issue into a binary choice: if L is for it then R must be against it, and vice versa.
Hi I like to think of myself as a progressive/leftist and RFK Jr is not a even a passing thought in any circles I am in! It's safe to say we don't claim him!
I do agree that the left is not "claiming" him, but he is (for instance) a union supporter who wants universal childcare and champions causes like environmental regulation and 'Justice for Black Farmers', which is what I think Liz was getting at: his policies don't fully align with the right either.
Yep, this exactly.
Thanks! I didn't know that. I think it depends if his supporters are diehard or not and if R or D parties think it's worth trying to bring them into the fold. It'll be interesting to see.
I would also argue that voting for a third party candidate is actually casting a vote for the election to be thrown to the House of Representatives. Realistically, the only hope that a third party candidate has is to garner 'some' electoral votes. And, if they did--this would increase the chances that no candidate receives the required 270 to win. Knowing that the House (or the Senate, if it goes that far) would never elect a third party candidate--I would encourage anyone considering casting a 'protest' vote to first consider who the House of Reps would choose. In essence--that's the candidate their vote would ultimately support.
Excellent point. And it is the same strategy that was relied on to try to subvert the 2020 election.
Thanks for sharing. I am a long time supporter of RFK Jr. It is a shame that an Independent candidate doesn’t really stand a chance.
Thank you, Sharon, for the LIFT explanation of how our vote can directly or indirectly affect an election. Since I personally do not agree completely with any single candidate’s stance on all of the current issues, I am strongly considering a write in or a non-vote. I will use my vote to make a statement although admittedly the statement may be lost as I am not sure if there are enough voters who are willing to indirectly affect the election. Doing this would be my hope that someone might realize just how many people are still unhappy with what we are being offered.
I don't think it is realistic to expect to agree with one candidate on all the current issues but I choose to vote for the candidate thd aligns with the issues that are most important to me.
“Voting isn't marriage, it’s public transport. You’re not waiting for 'the one' who’s absolutely perfect: you’re getting the bus, and if there isn't one to your destination, you don’t not travel- you take the one going closest.”
(I can't verify 100% but this appears to be attributed to Paul Tambyah, a Singaporean doctor, politician, and writer)
I didn’t make it clear enough that I meant it is the most important issues that cause so much consideration and reconsideration.
I think everyone knows how unhappy we are with our very limited choices offered. The problem is that Congress doesn’t care because it benefits them. I respect that you want to stand your ground on making that point! I’m just sort of keeping my fingers crossed that we can all live with whatever happens after Election Day. 😬
We will have to power through until 2028!
It’s extremely rare that a “perfect” candidate that I’m truly excited about is ever on the presidential ballot, so I’m doing my best to find something to appreciate in today’s candidates - particularly in down ballot races.