Back

Hey, all. So, I am somewhat agree.

I realize if you are not directly affected by the War in Gaza and Lebanon, this may seem extremely high risk and a little precious.

But perhaps put yourself in the shoes of an Arab American who has asked for common-sense conditions to reduce some portion of the misery in Gaza and Lebanon and have been rebuffed time and again by a candidate who is ashamed of being supported by you.

And then being threatened that if you don't vote for the candidate anyway, more people will die, and you yourself will be in danger domestically.

Not, let's all fight this together, but, unless you comply, you are fucked, and we will not help you, and you will be to blame for your own misery and that of people overseas.

And finally, that you have some tiny sliver of power to possibly swing the election, but everyone is betting that you will not use it. That you must remain disempowered for everyone else's benefit.

Maybe you can imagine that this is not actually as easy a choice as everyone seems to suggest.

I think, anyway, that dividing up between battleground and safe states gives a permission structure for people in those battleground states to vote strategically for Harris. Knowing that others are going to send the signal in places where it is low risk makes it possible to vote for someone who you really don't like, in order to keep out someone you really, REALLY don't like.

There are two big problems with this strategy, however.

First, it's hard to know which states are safe. If enough people in near-swing states vote third party, that "safe" state becomes unsafe.

Second, which has been pointed out in the comments, it's actually hard to send a message in the voting booth.

I think if you're trying to send a message that an anti-war vote exists, voting for Trump or abstaining from voting does not show that signal. It gets lost in the noise of MAGA or apathy.

So it has to be for one of the anti-war third party candidates, like Jill Stein, Cornell West, or Claudia de la Cruz.

I think if some single-digit percentage of voters go for these candidates in California (say), it will give a little pause in post election analysis. Ah, the anti-war protest vote, they will say. There it is, 6% in California. And then they'll move on.

But maybe the signal isn't for the Democratic Party, or for analysts at MSNBC, or for strategists already thinking about the 2026 mid-terms.

Maybe it's a signal for other average Americans, and for people overseas, maybe in Europe and New Zealand, maybe in Namibia and South Africa, maybe in Gaza and Egypt and Lebanon and Israel.

That anti-war Americans exist, that we are still fighting, and that we haven't given up. And if you are against the war, we stand with you.