OK I'm depressed and anxious so let's talk about some game theory: under no circumstances should *ANYONE* in 2026 admit that they would vote for Gavin Newsom for president.

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@aud @xgranade you absolutely do not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to him

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@aud @xgranade after the Mamdani endorsement fiasco I am increasingly hostile to "blue no matter who" fair-weather friends who mean "blue no matter who as long as my candidate wins the primary, otherwise vote your conscience and being an independent is also valid".

[xgranade@wandering.shop]

@glyph Making the implicit analogy explicit, the Pareto optima of Split/Split corresponds to getting anyone other than fucking Newsom and that person then winning the general, the two Split/Steal options are the bad case of getting Newsom, and the Steal/Steal Nash equilibrium worst case is somehow getting Trump yet again.

[dave@alvarado.social]

@aud @glyph @xgranade yep, this.

In the US, your vote endorses everything that candidate does, whether you like it or not. If Gavin is publicly being a bootlicker, the best thing you can do is let him know he doesn't get your vote.

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@xgranade somebody smarter than me needs to draw the diagram for this where you have not just the reward matrix but the signaling matrix

[aud@fire.asta.lgbt]

@glyph@mastodon.social @xgranade@wandering.shop who knew that "blue no matter who" turned out to be "so long as they're a neoliberal who will support a 'soft' white supremacist position that is oligarch friendly", huh*

* well, lots of people did, but they really did make it super obvious with their "you should vote for governor grab ass over the actual DNC candidate who won the nomination", didn't they.

[aud@fire.asta.lgbt]

@dave@alvarado.social @glyph@mastodon.social @xgranade@wandering.shop right? And at the very least, don't swear fucking fealty to the dude, because all you're saying is "nothing you can do will cause you to lose my support". We can, and SHOULD, do a lot fucking better than Newsom who has already given up on a lot of groups of people.

[xgranade@wandering.shop]

@glyph Someone smarter than me as well. Anyway, I'll stay home before I vote for Newsom, and I'll mail you a check after the election.

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@aud @xgranade the thing that fucking pisses me off is that the progressive faction *has* been a reliable coalition partner, and the moderates have defected over and over again. yet we keep hearing about all these "bernie bro" defectors, representing literally 2% of that faction

[dave@alvarado.social]

@aud @glyph @xgranade yeah, "blue no matter who" is written on the side of a foot gun. It lets the fascists and the racists know they can be fascists and racists and still win the blue vote.

[dave@alvarado.social]

@aud @glyph @xgranade also, unwavering support is what MAGA does. I realize Democrats are also a cult of personality who get tingles in their nethers every time the idea of a dynasty comes up (Michelle Obama should run? Wut?), but we can at least *try* to stop that.

[aud@fire.asta.lgbt]

@glyph@mastodon.social @xgranade@wandering.shop Newsom is a guaranteed loss. The guy has the charisma and moral integrity of beige wallpaper that's been infested with mold. If they push him as the nominee, they're totally fucked, and I'm pretty sure the only way they're going to figure that out is if we make it REALLY CLEAR if we're not going to vote for Newsom under any circumstances. Or, at the very least, not openly proclaim he'll get our vote.

[xgranade@wandering.shop]

@dave @aud I mean, to @glyph's characterization of Type A and Type B voters, it depends a little on whether we're talking about primaries or the general — in the primaries, blue no matter who is downright incoherent, while in the general, it's wrong but defensible?

[aud@fire.asta.lgbt]

@dave@alvarado.social @glyph@mastodon.social @xgranade@wandering.shop right? I don't get the impression there's as many reliable personality cult true believer types in the dem base as there are for ol trumpety dumpety, either, so it's hardly a reliable base to pull from.

[aud@fire.asta.lgbt]

@xgranade@wandering.shop @glyph@mastodon.social @dave@alvarado.social I feel like the "vote blue no matter who" card is one you can only logically play after the primaries. But of course, with Mamdani, suddenly no one played that card after the primaries...

[xgranade@wandering.shop]

@aud @glyph @dave Yeah, it's downright *curious* to look at when that card is and isn't played, isn't it?

[7leaguebootdisk@mindly.social]

@glyph Until a year and a half ago, I'd have grudgingly voted for him. But not now, his fascist turn has destroyed any tolerance I had for my former mayor.

[dave@alvarado.social]

@xgranade @aud @glyph ngl, I'm very strongly on the fence at this point. "Blue no matter who" got us Genocide Joe, then we got Trump again anyway. I'm not at all convinced it's a valid strategy in the general anymore either. It seems to be rewarding Winter Palette Fascism.

[ohmu@social.seattle.wa.us]

@glyph
I'm basically Type A and this reasoning is sound.

So here it is:
I will not vote for Gavin Newsome.

[xgranade@wandering.shop]

@dave @aud @glyph I don't think it's a valid strategy, no. Like I said, I think it's wrong but defensible. That is, wrong to a degree that I'm still willing to have a conversation about it, rather than "we don't share a reality" wrong or "not even wrong" wrong.