I've read the following rhetorical question recently:
If “vote blue no matter who” doesn't apply to Zohran Mamdani, what does it actually mean?
...and despite all of us understanding the implication, let me actually try to give an answer, as the slogan emerged specifically from US politics, but this phenomenon hasn't.
This specific statement asking people to always vote for the democratic party, no matter who the candidate is, has always been thrown against legitimate criticism of democratic candidates, many of which aren't really leftists or progressives. The idea being similar to the “lesser evil” rhetoric, manufacturing consent for a Democratic candidate by arguing that a Republican is worse. Despite the fallacy that justifiable criticism towards someone isn't diminished by arguing that the strongest opponent is worse, the “winner-takes-all” system demands way less infighting than other electoral systems. A winning party is no longer just a match of better appeal or better policies, if it ever was, but also a game where the winner is decided based on which side can get their herd unquestionably behind their candidate, without doubt, criticism, or vote splitting, i.e. the less critical thinking the better.
There's no time for debates about foundational principles of our strategy, we must look forward to the next election, and the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that.
The statement calling for everyone to vote for the democratic nominee is just one of the many tools used to get people in line, because the electoral system doesn't demand an emancipated and thinking working class, but one that believes their issues can be solved through representatives doing their liberation for them. Beyond that, this calling preys on a specific misconstruction of the concept of solidarity. Let me explain.
The term “solidarity” may be one of the most instrumentalized concepts of our time. In this case, so-called solidarity is truly just a one way street. Solidarity is asked of you when having to agree to more right wing, non-progressive policies or candidates, but never given by default for leftist, socialist candidates. This false sense of solidarity is a tactic to get you to agree to something in a specific scenario, selectively utilizing a generic concept to make you do so. We need to stick together to win, however, it becomes abundantly clear who “we” is when the person needing to win is not part of the paid off in-group. It's “we” who needs the winning, not you.
As unimportant those simple questions, exposing contradictions in our world, may seem, they often begin a fundamental debate, one that isn't wanted in an age where every election is the most important one, where that election is never won, and you need to vote blue, until there's none.
