This is the same logic Dore uses. Voting third party or staying home, no matter what it resulted in, would be better for the Democratic party in the long run. And, it’s a terrible argument.
The most important thing Joseph and Jimmy need to look at is this: What happens to the immigrant, the Muslim, the LGBTQ person, the welfare recipient, the Medicaid and ACA user, the environment, the public lands, the advancement of science..and on and on? Republicans have two of three branches (and soon the third), two-thirds of the state legislatures and governorships and could conceivably have more of lower courts in the next few years. All because people didn’t like Clinton (although more liked her than trump) and wanted to teach the Dems a lesson. Wow, great lesson the Democratic party learned. It’s easy to talk about teaching the party a lesson when you’re a sys-gendered, straight, white male. You’re less likely to be affected by the policies of the administration, the laws passed by Congress and the rulings of the Supreme Court.
When people talk about how bad Clinton was – they should remember that if only 35,000 (.00025%) votes in threes states are cast the other way, she’s the president now.

Joseph, regarding voting strategy: you seem to be suffering under the delusion that power in politics is wielded by teaching politicians lessons and expressing the will of voters so that the parties will interpret that will and respond accordingly. For someone who, presumably, understands how broken our system is, it’s surprising that you would have so much faith in Democratic party leaders to think that they would take heed of the protests votes cast for Jill Stein. What have they ever done to make you think they give a shit what Green party voters think? You’re expressing frustration that they learned nothing from this past election and yet you think the solution is: If only more people had voted Green then they would have snapped out of it!

Talk about weak, faulty analytic logic.

This is the logic you’re looking for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbuvz7POnVI

wow. just read Karen’s comment below (after posting my own shabbily-articulated comment just moments ago). More, more, more pathetic ostrich head-in-sand morbid DNC-faithful optimism; how deep is this poisoned well? Yes, let’s keep Nancy Pelosi in that leadership role. Under her tenure the Democratic Party has really advanced and matured, and the future looks bright and non-divisive (for them and their clique, anyway); Chuck Schumer …. no reason to change his leadership role — under his tenure the Democratic Party has really advanced and matured, and the future looks bright and non-divisive (for them and their clique, anyway). Good g-d, That Karen comment is another nail in this DNC-built coffin — we the people don’t stand a chance. Pelosi, Shumer, Tillerson, DeVos, — their victory assured with all those Karen-heads buried in the sand. Thank goodness we were spared divisiveness. Whew! close one there!

wow. just read Karen’s comment below (after posting my shabbily articulated comment). More more more pathetic ostrich head-in-sand morbid optimism. Yes, let’s keep Nancy Pelosi in her leadership role - under her tenure the Democratic Party has really advanced and matured, and the future looks bright and non-divisive (for them and their clique, anyway); Chuck Schumer …. no reason to change his leadership role — under his tenure the Democratic Party has really advanced and matured, and the future looks bright and non-divisive (for them and their clique, anyway). Good g-d, That Karen comment is another nail in this DNC-built coffin — we the people dont stand a chance. Pelosi, Shumer, Tillerson, DeVos, — their victory assured with all those Karen-heads buried in the sand. Thank goodness we were spared divisiveness. Whew! close one there!

I think Jay’s final comments following listener calls (regarding the real ultimate importance of one’s voting choice i believe he offers very commonsensical analysis and perspective; regarding his rationalizing the justification for the progressive vote for Clinton as the sound strategic solution to careful, intelligent analysis (i.e., the lesser of 2 evils tale) — is, plain and simple, utterly flawed by profoundly weak, faulty analytic logic. To be brief: if, as Jay says, the point of one’s choice is to assign your vote in the way that adds the least harm to this world, then there is no sound basis for a Clinton vote. Though Jay says that one’s vote for Clinton does not represent that voter’s ‘endorsement’ of Clinton, — this is completely irrelevant to the ‘point’ of voting choice, — why? Because, the big picture importance of a vote for Clinton is that the DEMOCRATIC PARTY establishment WILL NONETHELESS perceive every such vote as an endorsement of their leadership, direction, etc. The result of this? That the worst trajectory of the Democratic Party becomes more deeply entrenched with every vote cast for its candidate. AND, much more dangerous than a Trump administration for this election cycle is a DNC that is totally and permanently turned against people, a DNC that will never again function as opposition to elite oligarchy. Every vote that went to Stein registered as wakeup call to the Democratic leadership that they are on the wrong track. … in the end of course, there were not enough such votes for the DNC ostriches to take note of the wakeup call. None of it seemed to matter anyway, as the Democratic leadership has proven in these post-election months, that they’ve learned NOTHING from this experience — and have recommitted the party to ‘stay the course’ on the way to dissolution as the party of the people, as real philosophical opposition to the Republican party principles and deeds.

I’m not sure which segments you had a problem with, maybe all of them. The funny thing is that this is what I came up with when I took out all of the commentary that I thought was unnecessarily divisive.

My thought on this episode is that if you found it divisive then you’re probably not angry enough at the Democratic party for how thoroughly they failed the country and the world it it’s time of need.

Regarding divisiveness, Jimmy Dore, featured in this episode interviewing Thomas Frank, doesn’t shy away from being divisive and I ended up cutting bits of that interview out because I thought to myself: “Hey, there are important issues that need to be discussed but we don’t need to distract from them by resorting to this.” And if I were to bring that up to Jimmy then it’s very likely his reaction would be that if I found his comments divisive then it’s only because I’m not angry enough at the Democratic party for how they failed the country and the world in it’s time of need.

So, why don’t we just skip past the debate over EXACTLY how angry we’re supposed to be at the situation we find ourselves in and discuss the issues at hand.

Normally I love your podcasts. This one; however, was divisive and whiny. There are important issues out there to discuss without resorting to this.