Recent election cycles have quickly become a recycled source of frustration for progressives around the country. Many progressives find that Democratic nominees are not the candidate they would have chosen and feel forced to settle for the next best thing.
“Bernie Bros” certainly felt this frustration when Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic ticket to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and former President Joe Biden in 2020. Many then naturally had an instinct to withhold support for the other candidate as a result.
But in a political system of tight majorities, high-stakes legislation and the continued influence of Trumpism, voting becomes less about finding the perfect candidate and more about controlling the immediate balance of power.
It’s a fairly simple matter. Push for the candidates you want, vote in the primaries and show your support in whatever ways you can. But if your choice loses, vote for the person most in line with your beliefs.
The “lesser of two evils” concept is an ugly and uninspiring framework that speaks to the poor state of our politics — but it is often a necessary notion.
I think it’s dangerous to claim that Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. Not only are there clear ideological differences and approaches to government, but with a right-wing president in power, these differences have become all the more apparent.
Then again, it’s dangerous to claim the two are incredibly different. Both parties have a lot of overlap regarding campaign finance and immigration reform. Most of our elected officials, whether red or blue, uphold the interests of the wealthiest class.
Recognizing both the overlap and the divergence clarifies a broader point: Sweeping generalizations obscure the structural realities of party politics.
It’s important to look at the Democratic Party for what it is: A diverse and wide coalition. It is a party that belongs to both Democratic Socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the more conservative Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman.
It’s a party that consists of a number of ethnicities, genders and beliefs — something the Republican Party largely fails to achieve.
This diversity is a strength and something leftists are particularly proud of. Voting blue means supporting women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, social welfare and more. But when a moderate wins over a progressive, some voters are inevitably disappointed.
Still, the broad coalition ensures that even imperfect candidates advance parts of the Democratic agenda, making strategic voting in general elections a necessity.
Let’s look at Kamala Harris’ presidential run, for example. Due to President Biden’s poor debate performance and health concerns, the party scrambled to pick a replacement and hastily settled on the former vice president. This left some voters upset that she was chosen without a primary.
Although the Democratic National Committee’s autopsy report release was scrapped, many believe Harris lost out on votes due to her rigid, unflagging support of Israel and her acceptance of funds from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Some liberal voters and supporters of the free Palestine movement consequently voted for a third-party candidate or withheld their vote entirely.
In other words, they wasted their ballot.
I fully support a multi-party system, and I recognize that two factions are unable to adequately account for the nation’s political spectrum. But until we break bipartisan entrenchment, any vote for a third party candidate, especially in a presidential election, is a throwaway.
Casting a vote for another candidate does not send a message to party leadership. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have clearly not changed positions, and the DNC has done nothing to address their shortcomings from 2024.
Maybe voting for Green Party nominee Jill Stein or another third party candidate can be seen as an act of protest — but how successful is that protest if it contributed to Trump’s reelection? In doing so, you end up working against your other core beliefs — considering his foreign policy, he aligns with the same positions you opposed.
Former Sen. Joe Manchin is a prime example of necessary strategic voting. West Virginia, a state Trump won in every county in both elections, had the Democratic senator for 14 years before Manchin declined to run for reelection in 2024.
He was arguably one of the Senate’s most conservative Democrats, supporting and rejecting legislation from both the Biden and Trump administrations. On one hand, Democrats might be upset that Manchin is under their wing and votes across the aisle. On the other, the fact that a senator from deep-red West Virginia is willing to vote for any portion of the Democratic agenda is significant.
Not every state and congressional district is built for a progressive. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear would not lose a Democratic primary to a Democratic Socialist simply because he is more attuned to the state’s electorate.
It’s time to recognize that the Democratic Party is bad at winning. They push the wrong candidates, they take performative stances and they have failed to make serious reform.
But until our system changes — until ranked-choice voting is widespread, third parties are viable nationally and progressive candidates can win in every district — we must operate within the system we have and vote blue down the ballot.
Advocacy and electoral pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. We can continue pushing for systemic reform while using the ballot box to safeguard fundamental rights in the present.
