Read on Twitter
Lukewarm take: Vote shaming is so ineffective as a persuasion technique that anyone who sincerely cares about Trump losing should consider it, at best, a waste of time with a huge opportunity cost.
If you learn anything about organizing, you will learn to not waste your time on hard-no people except to identify them so others don't waste their time.
Another useful technique you will learn is to handle objections by validating the motivations for why people have them before giving them something else to think about.
I do understand the frustration that leads people to vote shame when they're really concerned about Trump winning. I don't think there's anything worthwhile to do with a vote besides keep the worst fuckers out, most of the time. However...
...there's just no case, from an organizing standpoint, to go with "If you don't vote the way I think you should it's your fault if Trump wins and you suck!" This just doesn't work and that's why actual campaigns for candidates don't do it in their outreach!
The only organizing case I can see for it is internal organizing. That is, for stigmatizing and marginalizing an opposing faction by making them a scapegoat. But I am assuming people who vote shame are sincerely worried about Trump winning, so I'm sure that's not what's going on.
Some might say there is no such thing as "vote shaming," people simply feel shame when made to understand the consequences of their decisions. This is false, for a subtle reason that also goes to organizing technique.
Telling someone what's at stake in a campaign (e.g. "If Trump wins, X bad things will happen!") is the basic agitational technique of building a sense of urgency. If someone feels shame as a result of doing this, that's not on you. "Shaming" refers to something else.
"To shame" is to do something calculated and designed in order to make someone feel shame. The subtle difference is that this is not just talking about outcomes and what's at stake, it's a personal attack. And when attacked, the natural inclination is to defend oneself.
At that point the dynamic is no longer about winning someone over, it's a fight or a debate, and is counterproductive to the goal of persuading someone to take the action you want. Simply talking about what's at stake won't necessarily have this counterproductive result.
You don't have to take my word for it. Just consider whether there's any successful electoral campaign that tells its canvassers, phonebankers, etc., to make non-supporters feel bad about their decision to not support the candidate. I'd be surprised to say the least if there is.
