Votes are not property. Political parties are not owed loyalty automatically. Someone becomes part of the Democratic coalition only when they actually choose to support Democratic party candidates. If they withhold support, then the relevant question is not “how dare they leave?”
but rather “why did the party fail to persuade or retain them?” That shifts responsibility from voters to institutions and leadership.
There's probably some truth in the criticism of non-voters and third party voters, but it's always aimed at the progressive wing of the party. If somebody doesn't vote for Democratic party candidates, they aren't a Democrat. They aren't a vote that we own or can can depend upon. So I think this talk about blaming third party candidates and non-voters is just a lazy excuse to avoid facing shortcomings and failures by the party leadership.
Though “you must vote blue no matter what” argument is frequently directed toward the progressive left, centrist defections, disengaged moderates, or conservative Democrats are often discussed in softer strategic language.
If a party repeatedly depends on fear-based or anti-opponent voting rather than affirmative enthusiasm, it eventually creates a brittle coalition. People may vote tactically for a while, but resentment accumulates if they feel perpetually blamed rather than politically represented.
It can feel easier to scold voters than to examine why enthusiasm, trust, or identification with the party may be weakening in the first place. The rhetoric about third-party voters can function as a displacement mechanism. Instead of confronting weak messaging, voter suppression or strategic mistakes, anger gets redirected toward marginal voters with little structural power.
= new reply since forum marked as read