Believing that withholding a vote from Biden will accomplish some sort of left praxis requires believing that several things will happen, each of dubious morality and probability. Thread, I guess.

1) in order for it to be effective at all, it requires Biden losing in order to compel the Democratic Party to seek a different direction. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, that's an immoral choice.

2) it requires an electoral outcome where the left dissident vote was substantial enough to be the deciding factor, and convincing the "Democratic Establishment" that left dissenters were responsible for the loss.

3) it requires believing that the Democratic base will respond by acquiescing, rather than being really pissed off at the people who made a conscious choice to allow, and even push for, a second Trump term. Highly unlikely.

4) it requires being willing to keep on empowering Republicans indefinitely because that's somehow viewed as preferable to an insufficiently progressive Democrat until one of the two factions concedes.

5) how anyone can conclude that this theory of change is a) more moral.or b) has better odds of accomplishing progressive goals than being part of Biden's coalition and then pushing him left, is just mindboggling to me.

6) the only people I can see this appealing to are the ones who gleefully expected Bernie to run roughshod over the field, are pissed it didn't happen, and are placing revenge above shared goals.

7) because working toward another Trump victory won't help poor people for the next four years, and it won't help get leftists elected after that. So people who are advocating for this can't even say they're advocating for the downtrodden.

8) and now it's time for bed because I have another five figures of voter contacts to do in the morning. I believe that immediate harm reduction is far more important than punishing the Democratic electorate for not nominating my primary candidate.