I’d say about half as bloodthirsty.

A good leader can whip the votes. Hakeem Jeffries is… not… a good leader.

I can weigh the platforms of each party, see that one (GOP) is significantly worse than the other, and have reasonable expectation of shaping the platform of the superior party (Democratic) for the better. Calling that blindness is to make yourself morally irrelevant.

The better way to look at it is that people collectively ceded control of the Democrats to corrupt special interests (this was James Carville’s big innovation), and that you’re currently being shown, right now, that you can take it back. On party absolutely revels in helping genocide and supporting fascists around the world, and the other got roped into a tight relationship with Israel and got frog-boiled into not backing off fast enough (that is still underway; it won’t fully succeed if folks abandon the party instead of reforming it with participation).

Again, this is just justifying your moral blindness when you can’t distinguish between kind of evil and really evil. It is not morally good or even neutral to stand back and pretend you have no responsibility for the society you’re in as a result of your participation. Take your sanctimony and have a wank over yourself, but all it does is ensure the worst party is helped.

A proper take, if you’re interested in actually improving the moral state of society, is to, say, celebrate the victories of guys like El-Sayed and Mamdani, who are Democrats, and to do your most to have the party succeed, so that next time around, you can vote for more far left Democrats, so that eventually the party looks a lot more like Mamdani than it does Schumer or Clinton. That doesn’t happen when privileged puritans sabotage elections because they’re pouty they haven’t already won yet.

The GOP has been building their full-on fascism machine since Reagan. To beat them, the Dems have to do engage in that same long game, and that’s actually happening now. It’s actually happening, but performative moralists like you act as obstacles to any incremental improvement.

No, not voting for them is how the GOP is as strong and fascist as it is.

1. There is a material difference between the Democrats and Republicans that’s worth observing. Dems are merely corrupt politicians: the Republicans are Xtian extremist white-nationalist fascists.
2. It is vanishingly unlikely that a 3rd party candidate can win in 99% of the elections. Most successful independent politicians became independent after they were first elected, and win as incumbents.
3. Not voting for the viable candidate running against the fascist GOP, because that candidate is not as $SOMETHING as you want them to be, is simply demonstrating privilege, that you are insulated enough from the effects of the fascist regime that you’re not personally harmed by the fascists winning. Vote like defeating the fascists is the only objective.

You can influence the Dems to move to the left, or you can help the fascists. Those are the real choices.

It’s impossible for a third party candidate to win. Vote 3rd party in the primary if you like, but get on the anti-fascism bus in November. There’s a lot to hate about the Dems, but they’re the only game in town in November. Abstaining from voting for a candidate that can win is only exercising privilege that says it doesn’t matter to you if the fascists do win.

That’s only correct if the reasons for not voting are similarly distributed across the political spectrum.

They are not: GOP constituencies tend to have easier access to time and resources to vote. Dem constituencies often have less access to polling stations, less ability to vote on election day due to work or life circumstance, and are disproportionately affected by moves for stricter voting requirements like proof of citizenship.

It is almost universally true, when turnout is high it benefits the Left. When it is low, it benefits the Right.

“It’s not progress if I don’t win” is a terrible way to go through life.