Voting Strategies for the Next Presidential Election

Since many individuals are already writing about the 2020 election, it's time for an overview.

A legitimately non-establishment presidential winner will not be able to pass much non-establishment legislation, including beneficial reforms. Congress, the courts, and lobbying industries will still be dominated by the establishments. Thirty-four senate seats are up in 2020. Even if an improbable outsider wave occurs, most of the Senate will still be controlled by the establishments. On the good side, terrible non-establishment ideas such as the $1,000 per month universal basic income will not pass. An outsider president must act through appointments, executive orders, and their role as military commander. Presidents appoint roughly 4,000 individuals, 1,212 requiring Senate approval.

Trump is and was almost never an anti-establishment president. He tweets like a Breitbart commenter and governs like George W. Bush. If the country makes it to the next inauguration, we'll either be stuck with another bait-and-switch president or someone who will not sign many beneficial laws or both.

Below are some potential strategies for ethnoracial fact facers.

Voting for the lesser evil, that is, managing the decline at a slower speed: this strategy is selfish, trying to maintain one's status until death, letting future generations deal with the ever increasing free riding and cultural Marxism disasters. Right now, it's difficult to determine which Democrat or Republican is the lesser evil since all their announced contenders support neoconservatism, semi-neoconservatism or crypto-Marxism.

The worse in the short term, the better in the long term: such an individual would inadvertently cause the peaceful break up of the former US before it reaches situations such as Zimbabwe, Venezuela, South Africa or Northern Cyprus. The worse, the better should not be confused with the worse, the worst--getting us into an external or internal super war, leaving almost nothing for survivors--a strategy promoted by those who want to watch the world burn. A worse, the better strategy rules out the reckless militarism of all neoconservatives and semi-neoconservatives, including Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Peter Buttigieg, and almost any Republican challenging Trump in the Republican primary. Occidental Dissent promotes Andrew Yang as an accelerationist. Richard Spencer supports Tulsi Gabbard. Given the overwhelming power of mass media, a Democratic candidate smeared as an "alt-right candidate" will lose more votes than they gain in the Democratic primary. Why bother publicly supporting Yang or Gabbard, unless the strategy is to deliberately sabotage them, especially considering their lack of support for self-determination? Establishments often demonize outsiders for the establishment's own rotten results. Let's not give establishments more opportunities to blame non-multiculturalists.

Avoiding mass evil with a protest vote: voting for an obscure individual or some other tiny third party.

I'm leaning toward avoiding mass evil.