I increasingly think that there is a strong strategic (and ethical) case for all voters to vote for Biden, not just those living in swing states.
Some of you are like, "OBVIOUSLY!"
But many people who live in deep red or deep blue states feel the valuelessness of their vote in the Electoral College and the potential value as protest votes or to build a third party. I understand that thinking.
My initial strategic thinking on campaigning and strategic voting was that...
First, we all - nationwide - should campaign vigorously for Biden and not be so critical so as to dissuade voters away from Biden.
This was because Trump is such an awful threat and because we all have power across state lines (through volunteering, through our public comments).
And second, that it'd be strategic/ethical for progressive/left voters in deep blue or red states to quietly on Election Day (after months of promoting Biden in public) vote Green, write in Sanders, etc., to "safely" signal dissatisfaction with the party coalescing around Biden.
But now I increasingly feel that the second is too dangerous, given the benefits of a large popular vote margin in delegitimizing Trump, especially in scenarios of a"Red Mirage" or Trump contesting the results or instances of many people having their votes suppressed.
I still don't think it's good or effective to engage people (especially strangers and especially online) with shaming language regarding their stated voting preferences.
But I do think it is worthwhile to make the positive case for this.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"Protecting the vulnerable"
"Protecting hospital capacity"
"Preventing variants"
Are good rhetoric, but do the policies make sense for these goals? Are these goals enough?
No. A mini-🧵.
The policies don't live up to the words once we consider the realities of:
– US healthcare inaccessibility
– pre-/asymptomatic spread
– people living with others
– chains of transmission
– exponential growth
– levels of immunity
This doesn't even include the issues with the continued shifting of responsibility to states, municipalities, and individuals, and the delay in implementation and effects of implementation once supposed policy/behavior triggers are met by indicators.
1) Hospitalizations lag test positive cases which lag actual cases
2) Guidance based more on hospitalizations means willfully abandoning critical windows to act
3) So this guidance is less about new science or better public health, and more about…
... both justifying the relaxation of public health protections now and about justifying too little, too late policy responses in the future when surges re-emerge.
This is – in contrast to "evidence-based policymaking" – policy-based guidancemaking.
It is irresponsible and inappropriate for health experts and public health authorities to create this or champion it in their messaging work.
War is bad for everyone except the wealthy and powerful.
It's pathetic and tragic that most of humanity has little it can offer except condemnation.
We deserve democratic global institutions capable of preventing and dealing with conflict. 1/
Borders and nations are artificial.
Powerful nations and the powerful within all nations use to these constructs to their advantage.
But there are other constructs that show how ridiculous this is. 2/
To me this invasion is as preposterous as Florida invading Georgia.
Just as one US state invading another is essentially inconceivable and impossible in 2022, we need democratic and representative global institutions empowered to prevent and deal with international conflict. 3/
Let's highlight how "civility politics" operates in pandemic discourse. 🧵
1) Highly platformed health "experts" drive policy negligence with their incorrect, harmful messaging. They get bylines, journalist interviews, TV appearances, book deals, and wide rightwing celebration.
2) The health "experts" face a backlash. Some of it is admittedly unkind and personal, but most was civil, valid criticism or very fair sharing of real and raw emotion from people who have endured awful policy violence these experts have fostered.
3) These health "experts" have a choice. They can respond to substantive criticisms, they can show up for debates, they can reflect on if their prior predictions were accurate or prior prescriptions worked out well. Or they can seek to deflect the backlash.
Spoiler: incoherence, obfuscation, and omission that feeds pandemic inaction + promoting a data reporting approach that destroys opportunities to save lives and prevent suffering.
First off, why is the NYTimes continuing to platform voices that have consistently been incorrect?
Premature optimism, essentially calling the pandemic over, has driven real harm by degrading policy protections and public behavior.
Who was the editor here?
How's this essay start?
Highlighting Omicron, and what isn't known about.
What's neglected? Omitted? Ignored?
The current surge in *Delta* cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, with 1,000+ deaths most days for months, and projections of another 100,000+ dead in coming months.