“Out of democratic and republican administrations alike, have come Jim Crowism, mobbing, segregation, lynching, southern disfranchisement, and general terrorism." - -Grace Campbell, 1928
This country needs not only for Kamala to win, but to win by the largest popular vote margin possible, in swing states AND in California. Because a close vote will be contested and litigated ad nauseam, and protested violently once again. And that is also unthinkable. Lofty goals aside, that is the reality we unfortunately face.
Mike, as usual you have given me a lot to digest so it took some time before I could reply. I think you have seriously overthought this one. If you check out of the system you have to completely check out, like the mistake I made in 1980, going fringe because Reagan was unthinkable and Carter was ineffectual. To throw away your vote in California because you can, and then work in Arizona because the stakes there don't allow thrown-away votes puts you on ground you've always been careful to avoid: white male privilege. You are essentially saying: Do as I say, not as I do. That doesn't sound like you at all.
It's pure white male privilege for him not to vote for Kamala. It's appalling to read this from someone I've had so much respect for. (p.s. thank you for voting Democratic. I live in a solidly blue state and I'm voting Democratic all up and down the ticket -- as I've always done -- to keep it that way.)
Mike, I know you put a lot of thought and heart into your positions, but this one is a big miss. As others have said already, it is white male privilege to cast a performative vote because you believe you can. Your words hit my gut exactly that way. As a queer person and a woman. I felt unsafe reading the course you took to get to that place. But overall, I think this attitude that we can cast protest votes in this presidential election frustrate me. The Right has played the long game going back at least to Reagan, creating thinktanks, training politicians and lawyers in a specific ideology, making alliances that at first seemed unlikely when they saw the power of the evangelical Christian contingent, getting ideologically aligned judges appointed, taking over school boards, etc etc etc. They achieved their goal with the supreme court takeover. It took 3-4 generations to do that. Building a base with an electable progressive candidate takes YEARS. Two weeks before a presidential election is not the time to cast a protest vote. The ship has sailed. We are a progressive movement have no long game. And without it, we have put ourselves in this situation. I have read your follow-up essay and appreciate that you are open to movement on your position. Relieved, actually. You have a big platform.
I don't think that it is a showing of "white male privilege" but more of a "dark blue state" one. I wish that I wouldn’t need to vote out of fear, and could vote for who I would like to see lead the country, but as an Arizonan I cannot. I have never voted all one party until this election because I look for the best person to do the job. I see.it as being informed and not privileged.
Mike doesn't need anyone to defend him, but what he is doing IS consistent with who he is.
I tend to not comment on other people’s substack essays. However, your comments here are similar in kind to comments I often receive regarding my own advocacy for strategic, 3rd-party support in blue states (all of those words: strategic, 3rd party, blue states).
To our liberal brothers and sisters, the idea of not voting blue-no-matter-who and offering even the softest of critiques of Team Blue is so very triggering they, I find, stop listening to the nuisances of the position and only hear things like “throwing vote away” and “vote for 3rd party is a vote for Trump”. Even when I am willing to talk for sometimes hours with Liberals, they still just don’t get it.
If you are one of these commenters, please reread Mike’s very balanced, bold, and thoughtful strategy here. There is fascinating, dissonance between what he is expressing, and what you all seem to hear him express.
As a socialist with strong Left anarchist leanings, I am very much in support of PSL. However, I’ve not yet decided if we should work to build the green party—who has overwhelming ballot access— into the party we all wish it was, or starts to build PSL . My wife and I may split our vote between Green and PSL. That’s where our decision-making is. But we will absolutely not be voting for Kamala Harris for president.
This post performs a valuable service by demonstrating that the stereotype that with age comes wisdom does not apply to Mike Kinman. This post is nothing but an endorsement of Donald Trump and like all endorsements of that Cheeto in human form, it is not only wrong it is pernicious. As a time traveler from the years 2000 and 2016, let me give you a warning, people like voted third party are responsible for bush and trump, bush and trump needed Nader and Stein to win the electoral college and your (overly long, do you realize sub stack does not pay you by the word) post advocates the exact same "strategy" that gave us bush and trump (and might give us trump again). I wish All Saints Church could fire you again.
The grace of the Holy Spirit supports our final choices beyond our fractured and intense emotions that can push us to view only important aspects of the greater question
Please vote for Kamala. The alternative is unthinkable.
This country needs not only for Kamala to win, but to win by the largest popular vote margin possible, in swing states AND in California. Because a close vote will be contested and litigated ad nauseam, and protested violently once again. And that is also unthinkable. Lofty goals aside, that is the reality we unfortunately face.
Mike, as usual you have given me a lot to digest so it took some time before I could reply. I think you have seriously overthought this one. If you check out of the system you have to completely check out, like the mistake I made in 1980, going fringe because Reagan was unthinkable and Carter was ineffectual. To throw away your vote in California because you can, and then work in Arizona because the stakes there don't allow thrown-away votes puts you on ground you've always been careful to avoid: white male privilege. You are essentially saying: Do as I say, not as I do. That doesn't sound like you at all.
I live in Idaho now, and no way can I vote outside of the Democratic ticket.
It's pure white male privilege for him not to vote for Kamala. It's appalling to read this from someone I've had so much respect for. (p.s. thank you for voting Democratic. I live in a solidly blue state and I'm voting Democratic all up and down the ticket -- as I've always done -- to keep it that way.)
Mike, I know you put a lot of thought and heart into your positions, but this one is a big miss. As others have said already, it is white male privilege to cast a performative vote because you believe you can. Your words hit my gut exactly that way. As a queer person and a woman. I felt unsafe reading the course you took to get to that place. But overall, I think this attitude that we can cast protest votes in this presidential election frustrate me. The Right has played the long game going back at least to Reagan, creating thinktanks, training politicians and lawyers in a specific ideology, making alliances that at first seemed unlikely when they saw the power of the evangelical Christian contingent, getting ideologically aligned judges appointed, taking over school boards, etc etc etc. They achieved their goal with the supreme court takeover. It took 3-4 generations to do that. Building a base with an electable progressive candidate takes YEARS. Two weeks before a presidential election is not the time to cast a protest vote. The ship has sailed. We are a progressive movement have no long game. And without it, we have put ourselves in this situation. I have read your follow-up essay and appreciate that you are open to movement on your position. Relieved, actually. You have a big platform.
I don't think that it is a showing of "white male privilege" but more of a "dark blue state" one. I wish that I wouldn’t need to vote out of fear, and could vote for who I would like to see lead the country, but as an Arizonan I cannot. I have never voted all one party until this election because I look for the best person to do the job. I see.it as being informed and not privileged.
Mike doesn't need anyone to defend him, but what he is doing IS consistent with who he is.
I tend to not comment on other people’s substack essays. However, your comments here are similar in kind to comments I often receive regarding my own advocacy for strategic, 3rd-party support in blue states (all of those words: strategic, 3rd party, blue states).
To our liberal brothers and sisters, the idea of not voting blue-no-matter-who and offering even the softest of critiques of Team Blue is so very triggering they, I find, stop listening to the nuisances of the position and only hear things like “throwing vote away” and “vote for 3rd party is a vote for Trump”. Even when I am willing to talk for sometimes hours with Liberals, they still just don’t get it.
If you are one of these commenters, please reread Mike’s very balanced, bold, and thoughtful strategy here. There is fascinating, dissonance between what he is expressing, and what you all seem to hear him express.
As a socialist with strong Left anarchist leanings, I am very much in support of PSL. However, I’ve not yet decided if we should work to build the green party—who has overwhelming ballot access— into the party we all wish it was, or starts to build PSL . My wife and I may split our vote between Green and PSL. That’s where our decision-making is. But we will absolutely not be voting for Kamala Harris for president.
This post performs a valuable service by demonstrating that the stereotype that with age comes wisdom does not apply to Mike Kinman. This post is nothing but an endorsement of Donald Trump and like all endorsements of that Cheeto in human form, it is not only wrong it is pernicious. As a time traveler from the years 2000 and 2016, let me give you a warning, people like voted third party are responsible for bush and trump, bush and trump needed Nader and Stein to win the electoral college and your (overly long, do you realize sub stack does not pay you by the word) post advocates the exact same "strategy" that gave us bush and trump (and might give us trump again). I wish All Saints Church could fire you again.
The grace of the Holy Spirit supports our final choices beyond our fractured and intense emotions that can push us to view only important aspects of the greater question