Link: "Vote Uncommitted’s plan to push Biden on Gaza ceasefire"

For your consideration, here is a discussion on the campaign to vote uncommitted in the Democratic primary:

1 Like

I am just confused as why we do that instead of support a candidate with a progressive platform?

For me you send a stronger message with Stein / West support and seems to be the move here.

As for some general election problems with spoilers first off I think Biden is the spoiler. If he stepped down or stopped his recalcitrance in foreign policy we wouldn’t be here.

Also progressives are smart enough to make decisions by state. If your vote doesn’t help Biden and your upset with his choices why not give a protest vote.

The Stockholm syndrome hysteria between caused by this two party dominance is a bit much for me at times.

You should be able vote however in a primary this uncommitted stuff seems misplaced.


Respectfully, I’m not following the points of your comment, so maybe you could clarify your points for me; and I should similarly clarify this point (of how I’m not following)…


This seems to imply that those options are mutually exclusive. Does my reading understand that quote? (Assuming so,) following that reading, however, I would clarify that I think supporting Stein in the general isn’t mutually exclusive with voting uncommitted in the democratic primary, (and also that both could pressure Biden, and perhaps that they would reinforce each other).


Here, I’m not quite sure where spoiler problems are discussed, and so I don’t know why (nor how) we’re making a point about it, (the query “spoil” searching in the video transcript didn’t return anything for me to refer to). To my reading of that quote, it sounds like it could be your response to a portion from the linked video (despite that I couldn’t find it); or perhaps it is your response to how you assume others might respond to your previous point about your preference for pressuring Biden with a third party campaign. And beyond that part, most of your reply is similarly unclear to me, as in how it seems as if you could be responding to how you think others respond to your points, but without actually clarifying how you think others respond to your points, (which I think inhibits discussion).


Those clarifications of my own confusion aside, it also sounds to me as if your points might read into this thread my own support for this uncommitted plan; however, in fact, I’m uncertain about my support for this plan. My posting of this thread is intended to foster discussion, which ideally would better inform our opinions together, (and thus empower our movement with better coordinated and more effective organizing).

And, to be so constructive, I suppose I would indeed ask: how might our support for the uncommitted plan, together with support for Stein, be reinforcing or counter-productive, in regards to pressuring Biden / the state to move towards a ceasefire?

1 Like

Why would you not try to drum up early support by a write in with a antiwar candidate?

My other point is that approach wouldn’t hinder Biden if we help inform the public. We could make it clear supporting a 3rd party may make the difference in theoretical Biden V Trump (zero sum) for any given state during the general.

This spoiler accusation is common accusation levied in a suite of accusations. I am not sure if your training data has covered that yet.

I find your response to have to many algorithmic orphans to continue to engage with in a frame work we have been.

Please disclose organizational entanglements before I can engage with you in good faith.

Well, honestly I’m more confused now than I was prior to your reply. Though, I think I kind of followed some portions of your reply, despite that it seems even less coherent to me than your earlier comment did. Regardless, I don’t know how to phrase any clarifying questions better than I already had, if I were to continue to attempt to understand further.

Please let me know if you’d want me to continue trying to understand, otherwise I think I would rather simply let this go as is.


I am not sure there is any amount of clarifying that would help here.

I haven’t come to the conclusion recently, I cannot condone pilot(s) or an agent without transparency.

1 Like

Enduser’s comment is simple. Noting “Uncommitted” on a vote applies NO pressure on Biden whatsoever. And in case you haven’t been following, the fact he is still running after being pushed at by so many not to, just confirms that.
REAL pressure by having someone who shows up at the convention with a block of delegates with which to request changes to policy, is a stronger backing to support what you want. Otherwise, it is just a scream into the dark.


Politicians think the children are the future?

I often think what if the DNC took their Carlyle Group budget and spent it on investing in progressives instead of attempting to subvert and assimilate them?

As for Joe at the convention, I think there is a false framing here. At the rate Joe is going now he maybe so politically toxic he would have to complete his first term without resigning, before the second one would be a consideration.

Thanks for helping clarify that for me (I can assume your interpretation is correct); that underlying assumption is indeed simply clarified. Previously I had not really considered the opinion that voting uncommitted might actually apply no pressure whatsoever. So, I think I tripped over my bias as I sought clarification for such unstated assumptions.

(In my defense, there remains much other than that still unclarified, which I don’t understand. And more significantly, @enduser’s comment read as written actually contradicts your interpretation: …

… because “stronger” here reads as if they argue there is indeed at least an amount of pressure via uncommitted, if relatively weaker pressure, and maybe insignificant pressure. Regardless, getting back on topic…)

Your argument about how the establishment is still running Biden despite such “pressures” is persuasive to me. But, I don’t know if I actually fully agree yet. Probably my hesitation is only my own emotional bias overacting against what smells like cynicism; maybe I just want to hope uncommitted could apply even marginal pressure, (even if only from outside my area of confidence). Still, even if I accept that assumption as correct, (that uncommitted does not apply pressure), there seems to me still other potentially beneficial political reasons (other than electoral pressure) to vote uncommitted in the primary, at least for some cases. For instance, it can seed and organize political solidarity, which could then even be led to support a third party campaign (among other benefits of organizing solidarity).

On the other hand, I recall some analysis of how uncommitted could be a good tactic to apply pressure because it publicly demonstrates how a (growing and potentially) significant sized voting bloc could actually be earned by Biden for the general election, and how Biden is at fault for neglecting this bloc. Now though, after considering your clarification, I wonder if that narrative which relies on electoral change is actually just a fig leaf to enable organizing political solidarity. That narrative, if adopted into a third party campaign, seems to me to support negating the typical false narratives of third party campaigns as spoilers, (preempting typical establishment entitlement).

All my rambles aside, of course I also agree with your point about how “REAL pressure” does indeed apply pressure. I suppose I still suspect and feel as if both tactics are better together than either would be alone (an uncommitted primary vote, with a 3rd party general vote), probably even especially if you are correct about how uncommitted does not actually apply any pressure by itself.


What do you think about that, @BilboMD?; specifically, would you think the uncommitted vote may lead to support the pressure from a 3rd party candidate? Other than that, would you have any other insights which we could consider?

My final note on ‘uncommitted’. While it can send a message - and it has to which the administration is making some token measures - it does not have any real force to change policy behind it. Having put all of those votes behind Cenk or Marianne would have allowed them to negotiate for something significant - if the numbers were large enough. Right now, they only show that some might not show up for the general, which in a close match is specific states, that could mean the difference.
But it will be hard to persuade the party to change its ways and desires. In 2016 Hilary was the ‘successor’ and they drove that ship aground. In 2018, the party had already picked it ‘successor’ - Kamala. But she had not failed so miserably in the polls and was not able to compete against more charismatic personalities. (Even Pete…) But they still instilled that desire on us by pushing her as VP. The party will always move towards what THEY want.
Ah… The dream of the third party. Not gonna happen. I have been on that train since Ross Perot. His money and alternate ideas I had hoped would allow for the initiation of a break in the 2-party structure and allow for the easier access of additional parties to thrive in this country. But, even with his money and temporary influence, that attempt failed. I then examined what was needed to make a third party run and survive, and the facts are that the other 2 parties have made things very, VERY hard to do that - to keep their own existence safe. You have to capture so much of the general vote to collect federal dollars and keep that amount from year to year. You need to meet an even higher bar to be able to debate with the other 2 parties - and nowadays, if they don’t want to debate, they won’t. It was a dream I had, Bernie reignited that for a brief time. But the basics for the political system in this country won’t allow for that. It is easier (and I say that with a bit of sarcasm) to warp a party from the inside to change it. Both sides do it from the progressive faction to the tea party. They bend each side in different directions. The Tea party does tend to move their side farther than progressives do as we see both parties moving farther right every year. Money in politics has sped that up - as well as it is the last dart in the side of a third party bid. The money goes to the groups that will keep the status quo so they can keep their money, not to groups with the better platforms for everyone.
No, a third party won’t work in this country. It has to be a revolution from within one of the 2 major parties. (And honestly, we would be better off if the greens joined in with us to help overthrow the Dems rather than splitting off that fraction of the left.) But I know that isn’t how everyone sees it, so I don’t argue that to them. They fight their fight. I will continue to fight mine.


Joe is merely the ‘delivery system’ to get Kamala into office with running her directly. It is what they have been looking for since 2018.
And the Carlyle Group funds the power that keep THEM in power. That’s how they warped the party in the first place.


Yeah I know their master stroke, if only they didn’t telegraph it 4 years ago with the whole 1 term run promise.

I find their educations to be whiffle at best. The problem with many of these institutions is you can learn more while spending time exploring with a computational intelligence.

Kamala Harris is a prosecutor that has some skeletons in her closet. That isn’t a bug that is a feature and indeed why they like her.

As far as your story and analysis we have a similar political history.

I would say I dislike your frame around the Tea Party. If you looked into that party it was an extension of the ivy league frat boys set attempt to virtually spread their Brooks Brothers riot.

That would mean those ass hats are ostensibly the Tea Party and the heads of both the GOP the “beloved” Democrats.

The rest of if about how they are radicalizing the edges of the party and funding the end of Democracy seems to be on point though.

1 Like

Everything you said seems spot on as far as I can tell. I would like add something though.

You see Cenk, Williamson, and Phillips made Biden false start and telegraph his moves by rallying the Michigan DNC to push this uncommitted issue as a way to railroad the progressives.

This then left no way for him to use it in the general as effectively.

What it has allowed to happen now is we can all get under the undecided campaign and it can be place holder for supporting any candidate we all build consensus under.

This may not be Joe and I think this is why they are running around with their hair on fire.

Not only did they hand us a huge advantage they may have also handed us the highest office in the land through their own greed and short sightedness.

Life has a funny way of gravitating toward perfection.


Joe Biden needs a doctor! …Dr. West 2024! #ReplaceKamala
I agree. Choosing a candidate who can then take the delegates and be a proponent of policies on the platform is much better.

I would rather a vote for commitment to vote for anyone who can negotiate a permanent ceasefire ASAP.

Shit, I’d vote for Dennis Rodman if he’d get Kim to threaten nuclear war unless Nazi Israel stops killing babies! Maybe that would get peace?