Sure, but one side is currently on a zealous charge trying to extend it far harder than the other.

They're the same side. You could do with improving your reading comprehension.

Would be a fine idea if

Handwaving bullshit excuses. Not the time. Most important election of our lifetimes. Unique threat. Blah blah blah Already addressed elsewhere.

By the time the Dems had reorganised and rebuilt there would be little left for them to govern.

No one here is advocating for reforming the Democrats. Again, zero reading comprehension, zero understanding.

hese are all good methods for getting noticed, yes. The question is,

Ahistorical nonesense. Change has almost never been made by electoral majority but by the threat of the alternative being less palatable to the ruling class / party than changing their position. As stated elsewhere there are countless examples throughout history both recent and ancient. Go and read something, anything really. You haven't provided a single example of success for your proposed method dispite me asking numerous times for some. Because you're full of shit.

I think I've been unclear somewhere, as withholding votes is what I've been saying everywhere, but do it in a coordinated and widespread way, not ad-hoc as people seem to be suggesting here.

No, your original premise was that you cannot withhold your vote for Biden because Trump would be worse. You've moved the goalposts when people have taken apart that circular logic. Now you say you can withhold your vote, but only if you're guarunteed a certain victory within a set of arbitrary paramaters set by you that make it impossible, while hand-waving away or outright opposing and even supportive non-electoral strategy - just like you did with the point above. Almost as if you're totally full of shit.

The vast majority here think electoralism is worthless and have made this point to you. You've then proposed and even more limited and worthless version of it. Plus showing almost total ignorance of the very basics of how it even works.

And then you copy and paste, repeat, copy and paste, repeat... we're done here, I'm bored now.

the one that minimises the damage over the next term

Your original premise, that you've repeated, is that not doing this is unacceptable. You also never addressed why you draw the line there when I asked elsewhere.

It certainly doesn't make organising or growing numbers impossible, just difficult

Then why would one do something that you acknowledge makes the task much more difficult? And then add all the other myriad restrictions you've dictated (and haven't address when I've pointed them out)? Unless of course, you're full of shit and are doing piss-weak concern trolling.

no one is making a clear and compelling case for a different approach

Literally hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of people throughout history have done this to great success, as I have pointed out elsewhere. Once again, you don't engage on those points. I wonder why.

People in this thread have articulated everything from broad marxist philosphies on developing proletarian power, to specific use of strikes, to even electoral strategies that fit within your deliberately impossibly narrow 'acceptable' electoral frame. You've ignored or handwaved all of them away.

If you don't engage in good faith, you don't get further effort and discussion. And you haven't, even when you've been offered it.

But if you really want to look deeper into the issue I'd suggest starting here.

Agreed. But he's not. Even driving a car in shades he just talked about how cool his dad was when he drove a car in shades.

Man, my dad was so good at spraying the supreme court with Tommy Gun fire. That was the generation that knew how to get things done, am I right jack?

I've stated these, noting their historical successes and failures, elesewhere in response to you, before you made this comment. You didn't engage, because you're not looking for an answer or to discuss anything tangible. Just to repeat your tired, concern-troll imaginary hypotheticals again and again and again...

Nope. You've retreated into you endless loop of electoral hypothetical again, where only two things are ever possible and you have to do one of them anyway. Without addressing the contradication at the core of it, which is why I asked you how you rationalised it.

The president is a bit of a special case, in that there's one of them, and of the two candidates

No it's not. There's more than two presidential candidates. And all elected positions are filled only by one eventual winner from the crop of candidates, just like literally every election. For someone preaching that the only possibility is electoralism in the narrowest term, you don't seem very knowledgable on, you know, actual elections, including the specific ones you're referencing.

anything that increases the risk of trump getting in, especially with a republican majority in one or both houses, is surely a bad idea.

And you can (and in some cases do) argue that anything short of voting for, capmapigning for, donating to, and never ever showing any disatisfaction with the Democrats qualifies as this. Why stop at withholding your vote? Or campaigning for change 'at the wrong time'? Have you been door knocking and phone banking for Biden? If not, why not? If you have, why aren't you doing it now, and in every spare moment, or quitting your job to do it full time? Have you donated every cent you own to the Democratic party? What about selling any property or other assets you have? Aren't you part of the problem?

(And that's just within your myopic electoral view, never mind non-electoral strategies from the common to the extreme)

Ah yes, retreat to a jokey cartoon straw man instead of addressing the point.

In reality there are myriad options that do not include waving a fucking banner supporting detonating a nuke. The only way you can begin to rationalise your arguement is by creating a hypothetical thought experiment in which there are only two possibilities and you can actually only pick one of them. And even within those completely silly parameters it's still contradictory, with no mechanism to change the hypothetical, hence 'the endless cyclical logic of the electoral hypothetical.'

Whilst it's an amusing thought, I really don't think that advocating assassinating your judicial opponents is a good idea. Remember that once it starts, it wont stop, so even if you get someone who aligns with your views, they'll likely be eliminated in short order.

The US omniparty already murders its political opponents. It murdered sitting politicians, it murdered political candidates, it murders the leaders of political parties, it murders non-electoral political pressure groups, it murders loose-knit groups of single-issue activists, it murders outspoken critics of its policies, it murders union leaders, it murders union members, it murders foreign heads of state, it murders foreign political figures, it murders members of NGOs that counter its interests.

This is the factual, repeated, and continued to this day, history of the United States of America.

And, admittedly depending on what you believe, its possibly murdered a sitting president.

I did say 'claims'.

So your arguement is that to change an undemocratic system you must only work within the boundries of the facade of that system (electorialism), whilst also not doing that (you must still vote for the party).

First of all, almost every single poll in history, across most of the planet, has had a majority favouring at least some policy that the bourgeois parties can not and will not accept.

Honest question... how do you possibly rationalise this circular logic to yourself that you absolutely have to vote for a particular party no matter what, whilst also saying that political parties have to chase votes and you can make them change their policies by 'showing them' you want something different (but not withdrawing you vote)? You do realise how totally contradictory and incompatible those two things are right?

Ah, here we go... the endless cyclical logic of the electoral hypothetical...

Don't make me tap the sign again:

For real. 4Chan edgelord turned dodgy multi-millionaire. Here he is wearing an SS helmet on the Gumball 3000 rally for the 1% where they drive fancy cars fast on public roads until innocent people die in the crashes. He also makes some of the worst techno ever created.