there is a mistaken view of electoral leverage that seems prevalent on the left, where leverage means the ability to make someone lose, rather than the influence you gain when you help them win
Exactly. In 2016, some of these folks actively wanted Trump to win because they honestly seemed to believe that if things got really bad, people would realize the error of their ways. I’m like: “if it gets that bad, we don’t have elections and people are in jail.”
AOC's great strength is that she does get it. I appreciate that she's selling her vote at a high price politically. She's getting a lot but she's also just getting something.
The other view on the left that drives me up the wall is the idea that every vote from someone ostensibly on the right somehow “contaminates” the candidate
Well both are forms of leverage, I think the issue for most protest voters is that the Gaza crisis is immediate, so the need to try to force policy change is urgent. It's not like a typical interest group where you're happy if you get some legislation passed in two years.
It's an easy mistake to make when you're accustomed to being too weak to win
I feel in a way this is the same phenomenon (if you can help them win you may be able to make then lose), but many people forget you need to former to make the latter threat credible.
Constantly fighting to deliver losses isn't a recipe for winning and achieving your aims, both metaphorically and literally!
I have a sort of theory about this. Left politics is theoretically about equality of distribution, so the idea of being rewarded for your support (even through influence) seems wrong. You do the right thing because it's the right thing to do! But … 1/2
I think there another component to it as well - the idea that the duopoly is able to perpetuate itself ONLY because nobody believes that a third party candidate could win and that a superior candidate could be elected if only everyone could be persuaded that it was possible for them to win.