This is very silly. It’s just another list of contradictions and wishful thinking without any demonstratable evidence.

The presidential elections, along with the other positions elected then, are the highest stakes

Elsewhere you say that movements should be grassroots first. Elsewhere in the thread you then state that down-ticket races won’t have much effect. Elsewhere still you argue that presidents taking executive action and pressuring them to do so is largely worthless because they don’t control the other houses. All of these points seem strangely contradicatory, almost as if you’re full of shit

starting in December and going for the next 3.5 years or so

But that will affect down-ballot races! School boards! Run-offs! Blah blah blah…

Also, if you think a presidential election cycle as defined by the parties is only six months long then you haven’t been paying attention.

including his stated desire to be a dictator

Dictators famously require being voted in and run on that ambition.

They also famously do that, succeed, and then insist four years later that in order to do it, they’ll need a second term.

If you think Trump is a unique threat then you haven’t read basically any American history whatsoever.

Nor do you understand how political power in the US works.

And if you believe he is a unique threat why don’t you support any and all options to ensure he never again occupies the presidency?

What’s the margin between the first and second place parties? You probably need to convince around that number of the leading parties voters. It’s a straight numbers matter. Figure out how many are needed to swing the election, and that’s how many you need to convince.

Without threatening to withold votes, within an incredibly narrow electoral only parameter, in a tiny time frame where anything less than total guarunteed success means its not worth doing. This is what you’ve asserted here and throughout this thread.

Also, as I’ve asked multiple times elsewhere (funny how you don’t respond to those) please provide some examples of the Democrats making an about face on policy within one election cycle, based purely on electoralism. Bonus points if you can provide some examples of that without even threatening to withhold votes.

As to time frame, it needs to be all the time, not just for a few weeks.

Except during the build up to elections for that party, which, in America, is essentially all of the time. See below and keep in mind it doesn’t include any kind of local elections for councillers, governers, state positions etc:

And if you don’t achieve that magic number in that tiny window, then you have to vote for a party that will make it even harder to do next time and start again by your logic.

They’d have to respond if they wanted to win the next election.

But you assert that if they refuse to change their position, you have to vote for them anyway. So there is no threat of them losing an election, because you advocating for voting for them no matter what, and having not using any leverage you might have. (This is another key point you never address whenever it’s put to you) So why would they change their position? Do you see your circular logic yet?

Ultimately politicians need to keep wining to stay in their job. Imperil that and they have to listen or lose their job.

They don’t care about losing their job. They care about not going against the wants of donors who will provide them their next job. They’ll become lobbyists, or sit on boards, or even just be given cushy party positions that aren’t voted on in exchange for their loyalty to the donor class.

And the donor class and party sure as shit don’t care about candidates losing their positions. They can just drop another one in, usually at less cost than the previous one since they’re not established and have no leverage of their own.

In fact, the people who run the party machinary often stand to benefit from their candidates losing elections, as it increases donations which give them power, keep them employed, increase their salaries and comissions etc.

For your assertion to be true you’d have to believe that the only political apparatus is the candidate themselves, independent of the party structure or donors, and that each of them is a purely motivated being of pure civic duty with no other options or oppurtunities.

Again, you know that’s not the case so your arguement is either disingenuous bullshit or you don’t have literally any understand of the electoral process that you profess to be so confident in your opinions of how its the only option.