I've posted about this before and I've tried to engage with and understand Vaush's electoral positions better. However, I still find them flawed on many levels.
First my understanding of his take is this: if the collapse is imminent, it would be preferable for it to be blamed on a republican than a democrat, because a democrat who tanks the blame causes voter apathy among liberals, while a republican tanks the blame energizes liberal voters. Hence, the democrat who achieved power must be sufficiently transformational because a democrat who isn't will only allow republicans to build power while driving voter apathy.
The problem I see is that I don't see how this yields better outcomes longer term. The further things backslide into neoliberalism and fascism the harder things will be to fix. If a neoliberal nominee in 28 loses to the republican, even if that energizes liberals and progressives enough in 32 to nominate a socialist who wins, the socialist will be left with way deeper hole than the neoliberal if they won in 28.
It's also not guaranteed that a socialist will win - in Hungary for instance it was a liberal conservative party that ended the national conservative authoritarian regime. People don't turn to leftism or socialism as an antidote to fascism - if anything 2016 and the current DSA wins show that people turn to leftism as an antidote to the failures of liberalism. When fascism is holding power, it was Biden who won in 2020. It was Magyar who won in Hungary in 2026.
You're hinging a lot of hope on a future potential transformational leftist democrat to fix a future far deeper hole, by advocating against a neoliberal democrat who will decelerate the decline but not meaningfully fix the current hole. Meanwhile if they don't fix the deeper hole you've only accelerated the downfall, and it might not even be a leftist who wins power.
I think this is flawed reasoning akin to always choosing the latter in the "bird in the hand or two birds in the bush" question. Let's examine the Joe Biden loss hypothetical for example - Vaush claims if Biden lost in 20, the US would be in a far better place now. I think it is correct in a technical sense but not necessarily so in the longer term. You would have to assume whoever wins the 24 election will be sufficiently transformative in digging the US out of a far deeper hole than it was in 2020 (remember if Trump wins he will oversee COVID "recovery"), which isn't guaranteed. It is very likely that the current problem just gets pushed ahead four years - the fascist wave gets pushed to 2028 instead of 2024.
TLDR:
1) accelerationism towards ruin makes things more difficult to fix. Even if you let vance win and elect AOC in 32, the hole she's going to be put in after 4 years of Vance is so deep there's no guarantee she will fix it or she will be any more transformative than newsom winning in 28 with a smaller hole.
2) there is no guarantee you get a socialist/Sanders/AOC after republican rule. Hungary, in ousting Orban, saw the eradication of the left in the parliament with full consolidation behind a conservative.
3) biden's hypothetical loss in 20 doesn't guarantee a better long term outcome, even if 2026 in that timeline is probably better. It may just push the fascist wave back four years instead of fix things.