If you were born in Latin America or into a Latin American family then I’m pretty sure that makes you Latino even if that’s not really your identity. You’re also Moroccan-Mexican. You might also be white, but that’s always a question of being white enough, which varies depending on the people around you. On many forms in the US you can identify as both white and Latin American because those are different questions.

Maybe it will be some consolation to remember that the Biden-Harris administration didn’t do much to reverse the things done by the first Trump administration and kept on going with a bunch of them. Things didn’t change much when he left and they probably won’t change much now that he’s coming back.

Okay, but what’s the space version of the Boo Box?

we could have taken this election, but people didn’t show up.

Why do you blame millions of regular Americans instead of the extremely well funded campaign and the party behind it that failed to motivate these people to vote? How is it not the campaign that raised a billion dollars that’s responsible for this tremendous loss?

Yes those were for president, but there were at least half a dozen across other races. I asked you “Can the Democrats perform poorly enough that you would decide that you might as well vote third party (or abstain)?” If you’re trying to imply an answer, I’m not following.

Not sure what you mean. There were about four or so third parties on my ballot. There are also of course options to write-in a candidate or abstain.

So you will always vote a straight Democratic ticket as long as there are Senate and House candidates with a good chance of winning? What if they have no chance of winning the White House? I think that that would be apparent if the people who ran Hillary, Biden, and Harris’s campaigns are still involved and the strategy is still to court Republicans. Can the Democrats perform poorly enough that you would decide that you might as well vote third party (or abstain)?

The link in the body text of the OP is not for an x.com page. If you don’t want to follow the link in the header, it is just for a tweet by @jon_bois asking the same question that I am asking, referencing the revelation that Biden kept running despite his team knowing that Trump was going to win with something like 400 electoral votes.

🤝

Why? 100,000 people over the course of a few months isn’t enough of a problem for you?

I did a quick search and the most recent statistic I found was that at least 7.36 million people were arrested for all offenses in the US in 2022. That is about half of the peak annual rate in the nineties. The sad reality is that 100,000 more arrests spread out over a year just isn’t that much. If you are clarifying the scenario as “100,000 people getting deportation or prison time for things that are currently absolutely clearly legal, such as being Hispanic or attending a protest”, then that is specific enough for me to agree to a six month window.

I agree on the terms for the second scenario, that there’s new legislation or policy under Trump that leads to social media users or operators getting criminally charged merely for social media posts that are critical of the Republican party.

I’ll bet $50 against each scenario. I’m fine with not paying each other. The loser can pay that much to the organization of the winner’s choice. If I am successful I will probably choose a smaller group that provides legal assistance to immigrants and asylum seekers or maybe a strike fund. I don’t know. The point is I won’t expect you to give money to something bad.

So then no amount of failure or lack of corrective action on behalf of the Democratic party would get you to cast a vote for a third party presidential candidate?

Edit: I mean if you didn’t have RCV.

Okay, that’s fair. If staunch necessarily means believing in the platform then I used the wrong word.

100,000 people hauled away by the cops when they haven’t done anything or committed what we would now consider a crime.

So, 100,000 people arrested or otherwise taken from their homes under a new or previously unimplemented legal pretext? I think we need to add a narrow timeframe over which these detentions would occur, like a single week. Is this number separate or inclusive of people who get deported on some immigration basis?

Mass deportations of currently legal immigrants,

1.1 million people were officially “returned” to Mexico in one year of Operation Wetback. So, let’s say Trump suddenly revokes the legal status of and deports at least that many people, times some factor to account for population increase, in the first year of his term.

serious charges for people who participated in a protest but nothing else, is the obvious possibility.

A lot of people have been arrested at peaceful protests under Biden, so it seems like we’re already at a grim baseline condition. Not sure what the bet is here.

That and laws or federally enforced law-facsimiles of some kind that mean you get punished just for a certain viewpoint that would be fine now. It could be a crime for a social media company or a private citizen to debunk election fraud claims from 2020, or something similar to that.

Maybe there are some bills or amendment text floating around you can point to that if passed and successfully enforced would meet this expectation? That includes beating first amendment challenges, right?

Are you guaranteeing all of these scenarios or just any of them? Or should each one be a separate bet?

Is there a betting community on Lemmy where we could post our bet?

If you think the Democrat’s offer the best of all platforms, then then of course you should keep voting for them. However, this question isn’t really for you in that case.

I can guarantee you that people in large numbers will get their doors kicked in by the police and hauled away, and laws will get passed that make it a crime to be anti-Republican. How wide a scale and how bad that all will get isn’t certain, but I think it will be pretty bad.

If you can better define and quantify your expectations, I might be willing to take the other side of that bet.

In a FPTP race with a large electorate, it’s a pretty safe bet that your individual vote will not matter to the outcome. That’s not even considering the effect of the Electoral College.

If left-wing values can’t win in 2028 it will be because the Democratic candidate runs as a knock-off Republican again, which isn’t going to win either.

The viability and practicality of third party presidential candidates isn’t relevant to the question. If the Democratic party doesn’t change and keeps losing, what good does it do for Democratic progressives to keep compromising for it when third party candidates with better platforms are available?

Yup. In the context of the election, survivorship bias would be Democratic strategists looking at the Trump campaign and saying “we gotta get more racist”. Considering at their position on immigration, that’s apparently what they did.

If you’re trying to argue that any candidate other than Harris had a chance of beating Trump in this recent election, you’re kidding yourself.

I’m not trying to argue that. I’m saying that it’s becoming apparent that the Democratic party is in such bad shape that they had no chance to beat Trump either. If they fail to make significant changes, to their personnel and their platform, they are going to keep failing in subsequent elections. If they’re going to lose anyway, then there’s got to be a point where progressive Democrats start voting with some dignity for third party candidates.