But there is no such boycotting organization, and without it blasting out the corresponding rhetoric, up to 60% participation personal boycotts can simply be dismissed as "apathy." That is why I have argued in numerous previous posts that the correct response to this election is to vote for one of the 3 or more anti-Genocide Presidential candidates available in your state (Stein, West, De La Cruz, and the SEP which I just learned about). That sends the specific message you may have if like me much of your rage comes from the Genocide of Palestinians being supported by both mainstream candidates with great exhuberance.
Generally speaking, however, I think it's better to vote for Democrats in other races, except for the really bad extra pro-Israel ones like Fetterman.
The failure of CPUSA to adequately critique the Democratic Party is one thing that has been making me rethink my membership in the organization, but I'm sticking with it for now anyway (and NOT joining one of the fake alternatives).
No one has yet explained to me why the CPUSA chose to run Communist Presidential Candidates until 1988, and then started organizing members to support the Democratic Party. Well, I know why, it was the position taken by the majority of representatives at the CPUSA Convention. But it was not guided by Marxist-Leninist theory, which didn't suddenly change around 1988. Either position could be argued to be consistent with Marxist-Leninist theory.
And it probably made a big difference that the CPSU stopped supporting CPUSA around then too. That support made fielding independent Communist candidates at all levels more possible.
Active third parties are the only form of 'party discipline' available to citizens of USA, since we have top down corporatist parties which basically shill for the candidates most attractive to big donors. It may still only be worth voting for major parties for the lesser evil, if the even lesser evil hasn't also gone beyond the pale, as now.
Discipline comes precisely from the fact that third parties, if they gain support among people who usually support majority parties, threaten those parties. That is precisely how FDR was pushed (by competition from Communists, Socialists, and Huey Long) to do the New Deal, otherwise he could have been a fairly conservative President.
Third Parties, or a comparable means of internal party discipline, are an essential part of a Democratic system, especially a winner-take-all system, and especially with corporatist parties who only serve the public as little as they can get away with.
By these "beyond the pale" standards, which Democrats would I have voted for? It looks like all of them for the first term and none for the second. Every Democrat since Kennedy did sufficient 'beyond the pale' things as to be not re-electable in my book, starting with Johnson, who created a false-flag attack to justify sending millions of US troops to fight democracy in Vietnam (and I could go on from there).
Until now, when Harris, who was duly recommended by Biden himself, has put no distance between her policies and his with regards to the ongoing genocide and proxy wars, even when demanded to put forward such differences by critical constituents, such as Michigan Muslims, instead silencing them, and "stopping disinformation" (which all too often means stopping valid criticism, and always means limiting freedom of speech) has become a Democratic Party rallying cry.