|
spotlessd posted:It would be tautological if a-c-c-e-l-e-r-a-t-i-o-n-i-s-t (a configuration of letters that constitutes a symbolic form) and accelerationist (the symbol's referent) were the same thing. They patently are not. This is a level beyond 
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
twodot posted:I don't see how the threat of "You don't want to lose these people" can exist without people voting third party. It can exist when those people just don't vote (which is what most people who are displeased with a party will do). It's also obvious, but worth pointing out, that just as people who are much to the left of the Democratic Party are well within their right to refuse to vote for them unless they have left-leaning policies, people who are in the center of the Democratic Party, or to its right, are within their right to refuse to vote for them if they stray too far from the center. And there's way more of those.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:
Hi I have a question: how do we get leaders who oppose imperialism into office if we don't vote for them. For the purposes of this question, let's assume that millions of people are cool with voting for an imperialist such as Trump who is promising them endless colonial wars in the middle east until we've looted all the oil, because, well, because those millions demonstrably exist so it's a reasonable assumption. Please write a long crazy screed about this rather than this boring-as-gently caress argument about what came first the accelerationists or the term 'a-c-c-e-l-e-r-a-t-i-o-n-i-s-t-s', tia
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Maybe Hillary will surprise me, but I doubt it. Dodd-Frank was weak stuff and will pretty much allow another crash to happen in the next eight years because it has not solved any of the fundamental problems. And if you want organized labor to be a thing in the US again you have to get rid of Taft-Hartley so that they can actually use a full range of tactics instead of the absolutely gimpy set they have now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hi I have a question: how do we get leaders who oppose imperialism into office if we don't vote for them. For the purposes of this question, let's assume that millions of people are cool with voting for an imperialist such as Trump who is promising them endless colonial wars in the middle east until we've looted all the oil, because, well, because those millions demonstrably exist so it's a reasonable assumption. Is this a real question? You fight imperialism by actually loving fighting imperialism and not just giving up because  Truuuuuump. It would be a lot simpler if we could just vote for someone who already opposed imperialism, but reminder that we're talking about the presidency. The literal job description is "chief steward of U.S. hegemony". Regardless, one kind of obvious way to get a "lesser imperialist" into office is to scare the poo poo out of his predecessor. The 60s antiwar movement (another failure in your eyes, since it didn't end the war any sooner) and "Vietnam syndrome" probably had something to do with U.S. elites' unwillingness to commit to another war for almost 30 years. Yes, imperialist projects continued to progress along other lines and through other channels, but there wasn't another long-term occupation until Iraq. That's quite an achievement. Not only that, but the obvious parallels with Vietnam and fear of a public backlash made it incredibly difficult for the U.S. to actually succeed at its mission. Even in 2001, with the full mobilization of the U.S. propaganda machine and American chauvinism turned up to 11, body count still meant something. Troop safety was an even higher priority than actually succeeding, which is completely insane. The same rules of engagement that were seen as necessary post-Vietnam made it unimaginably difficult to carry out the task of occupying a foreign nation. And guess what? Nothing about this would have changed if voter turnout had dropped to 1% because it doesn't loving matter. The damage done to U.S. interventionism was done in the street by opposition movements. It's not really a mystery how this works, the question is whether you actually give a poo poo about imperialism or you just want things to be impossible so your vote can stand as a brave and powerful message delivered straight to the heart of a thoroughly cowed and irrelevant bloc of white racists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:This is a level beyond Do you think the word tree is the same object as literally all trees? I wanted to do literally anything else besides that stupid derail but I'm not gonna let some idiot rapid-firing pointless quibbles with his tag team of flunkies pull the old D&D poo poo of "welp sorry but we can't get to the point today because this irrelevant detail is poorly worded". spotlessd fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Do you think the word tree is the same object as literally all trees? I wanted to do literally anything else besides that stupid derail but I'm not gonna let some idiot rapid-firing pointless quibbles with his tag team of flunkies pull the old D&D poo poo of "welp sorry but we can't get to the point today because this irrelevant detail is poorly worded". And how, exactly, do you plan to stop me? Your best gambit has been to engage in condescension, something that might intimidate a child but merely leaves me hungering for your (metaphorical) overthrow. Like, everything you have said in your own defense has been an unconvincing attempt to present yourself as pure poo poo at writing, in that your point is buried under tautological claims, and this is actually hard to credit. So I will, in large part because your dull whining about the god drat D&D hivemind deserves being driven back into the Circle of Hell which spawned it, refuse to let you get away with calling yourself stupid. You have conceded all the particulars, but have dug in on the generality, because this is the last stand of GBS in your mind or something, and man I wish that were the case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:And how, exactly, do you plan to stop me? Your best gambit has been to engage in condescension, something that might intimidate a child but merely leaves me hungering for your (metaphorical) overthrow. Like, everything you have said in your own defense has been an unconvincing attempt to present yourself as pure poo poo at writing, in that your point is buried under tautological claims, and this is actually hard to credit. So I will, in large part because your dull whining about the god drat D&D hivemind deserves being driven back into the Circle of Hell which spawned it, refuse to let you get away with calling yourself stupid. Hey rear end in a top hat theres a post waiting for you on the other page maybe start there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Hey rear end in a top hat theres a post waiting for you on the other page maybe start there. Your post was empty of semantic content. All it was was screaming 101-level concepts because you are constitutionally unable to treat other people decently. You waste of life, you refuse to disavow the implicit claim here, that "accelerationist" failed to describe a belief when it was invented and only describes a belief now because of its invention leading people to identify with the imaginary group. Do you think yourself subtle and cunning?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
This guy's entire argument hinges on his idea that Trump won't be particularly bad. Most people aren't going to agree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Your post was empty of semantic content. All it was was screaming 101-level concepts because you are constitutionally unable to treat other people decently. You waste of life, you refuse to disavow the implicit claim here, that "accelerationist" failed to describe a belief when it was invented and only describes a belief now because of its invention leading people to identify with the imaginary group. Do you think yourself subtle and cunning? Okay so can we start with the fact that you're actually mad about something else and you couldn't care less about this point. You're still wrong but if this is going to go on for another page I'd like you to at least be honest about the reason why. Edit: "accelerationist" failed to refer to accelerationists because there loving weren't any. spotlessd fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:your point is buried under tautological claims spotlessd posted:You fight imperialism by actually loving fighting imperialism Checks out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 13:57
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Hey rear end in a top hat theres a post waiting for you on the other page maybe start there. What would be the point? Despite how many words you've written none of them actually make any coherent arguments. All you've done, over and over again, is state your poorly thought-out opinions as if they were facts. But you already know this, you know you have no arguments, have no worthwhile political accomplishments, and will never have either, which is why you choose to focus on pedantry to try and disguise that fact. It's quite sad, really. But it's also become boring. So I suggest you run along, little boy, and leave the adults to handle what you can't. Edit: quote:Edit: "accelerationist" failed to refer to accelerationists because there loving weren't any. Factually incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Okay so can we start with the fact that you're actually mad about something else and you couldn't care less about this point. You're still wrong but if this is going to go on for another page I'd like you to at least be honest about the reason why. So is this the tautology again, as if it were profound, or are you finally openly asserting that the denotative and connotative ideological beliefs of "accelerationism" are slanders which described nobody until people adopted the slanderous accusations as their own beliefs. I'm disappointed you have damned yourself to Hell with your vile treatment of other people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
First, do you wanna leash your dog here or what's going on? There's pretending to know what you're talking about and then there's pretending to know what we're talking about, if you know what I mean.Brainiac Five posted:So is this the tautology again, as if it were profound, or are you finally openly asserting that the denotative and connotative ideological beliefs of "accelerationism" are slanders which described nobody until people adopted the slanderous accusations as their own beliefs. Reminder that on this very page you loudly insisted that you were not a child. Are we standing by that here because this is some pretty insane bullshit? Apart from the fact that this is a kind of unusual use of the words denotative and connotative, particularly for someone who gets mad about namedropping "101-leveling concepts" (what college did you go to again?) , you can find my assertion in practically every single post on the last page. Oh hell, I'll just put it on this one too: quote:Just before we both get banned - if you say "Really, Jesus was a communist", you are claiming that Jesus held a set of beliefs consistent with the tenets of communism. This is a different sense of the word than saying "Boy, I sure hope there aren't any communists out here." The latter refers to shared identity. No one would anticipate that the meaning is something like "I sure hope there aren't any people whose beliefs are consistent with the tenets of communism out here". The communist in this sense can be a communist in the sense that a capitalist is a capitalist--not ideologically, but as a member of the group named capitalists. It's not completely absurd (but you are an absurd person) to take the phrase "There were no accelerationists until..." to mean literally no one since the beginning of time ever held any ideas that were consistent with the tenets of accelerationism." But this is natural language and you actually do have to meet people half way. The more natural and obvious sense is that there was no shared identity named "accelerationists" to which pepople acquiesced until after it was invented as a pejorative. Even now there is arguably no such thing. There conceivably could have been a person who held a set of beliefs consistent with the tents of Trotskyism, but claiming this entails that there were Trotskyists before there was a Trotsky is a total abuse the sense in which "Trot" is almost always used. You just up and decided that you didn't have to respond because uhhhhh it was wordsy? Can I do that? Edit: Just consider that you've walked so far back from the original point that your only remaining complaint is "Hey! This guy thought something was profound. Haw!" I'm not lying anymore, I'm not even wrong, I'm just guilty of being "a little unprofound". Wow it must be really convenient to only actually have to defend a totally subjective assertion... spotlessd fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:First, do you wanna leash your dog here or what's going on? There's pretending to know what you're talking about and then there's pretending to know what we're talking about, if you know what I mean. Nobody uses "accelerationist" to refer to a social grouping. They use it to refer to an ideological grouping. People are not talking about accelerationists coming to steal their children, they are talking about people's beliefs being consistent with a particular set of ideological beliefs called accelerationism. So you quite simply do not understand what is happening when people accuse someone of being an accelerationist, and you've decided to call it a "term of abuse". Undoubtedly you will deny that you picked that phrasing to link the word with domestic violence subtextually. Your return to posting about Trotskyism unveils your basic goal, which is to delegitimize these terms, firstly through etymological determinism, insisting that they were created as insults and so shall always be insults, something which is a laughable attempt to slough off linguistics as a discipline. It also would disqualify people from using the term "neoliberalism". Secondly, you want to present them as being a synthetic social grouping, which still fails miserably for Trots, who are quite happy to describe themselves as Trotskyists in the same way someone might describe themselves as a Marxist, because they recognize that person as the primary intellectual parent of their ideological system. And as said earlier, nobody believes in an Accelerationist International. But you seem to have a hard time reading things, in that you assume my insults are formal positions. So, for example, if I said that your arguments sound like you came up with them after a couple joints of cheap ditch weed in your dorm room, you might post "proof" you were living off-campus at the time, or that you only smoked the good poo poo, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Nobody uses "accelerationist" to refer to a social grouping. They use it to refer to an ideological grouping. People are not talking about accelerationists coming to steal their children, they are talking about people's beliefs being consistent with a particular set of ideological beliefs called accelerationism. So you quite simply do not understand what is happening when people accuse someone of being an accelerationist, and you've decided to call it a "term of abuse". Undoubtedly you will deny that you picked that phrasing to link the word with domestic violence subtextually. What in the ever loving gently caress are you on about. "An abuse of the sense in which the phrase 'trot' is almost always used" is a... what, exactly? A sly invocation of domestic abuse? Because I guess I thought it was (HEH) punchy or something? This is even weirder than it was yesterday. Anyway you're still just wrong. Of course people use the term accelerationist to refer to "social" grouping or identity. That was the whole basis of my complaint with the other guy, who didn't just call my posts or sentiment "acclerationist"--presumably because that would involve an argument--but just kind of blandly referred to me as an accelerationist, and complained indirectly about accelerationists. He used the freakin' article! Although I'm still not totally convinced of his competence as a speaker. quote:Your return to posting about Trotskyism unveils your basic goal, which is to delegitimize these terms, firstly through etymological determinism, insisting that they were created as insults and so shall always be insults, something which is a laughable attempt to slough off linguistics as a discipline. It also would disqualify people from using the term "neoliberalism". Secondly, you want to present them as being a synthetic social grouping, which still fails miserably for Trots, who are quite happy to describe themselves as Trotskyists in the same way someone might describe themselves as a Marxist, because they recognize that person as the primary intellectual parent of their ideological system. And as said earlier, nobody believes in an Accelerationist International. Why on Earth would I want to de-legitimize the word "trot"? Half my conversations with other "leftists" here and elsewhere end with me calling them "a loving liberal trot". To tell the truth I kind of get off on it at little. Of course I know very well that people self-identify as trotskyists, (those poor depraved souls), as any ML would. What do you think we do all day?* So you can't get me on lying, being wrong, or *wistfully* not profound, which means now we're just down to rank psychologizing. Yes you've unearthed my dastardly plan to sell more newspapers. *Correct. We trade newspaper jokes. quote:But you seem to have a hard time reading things,  Okay it's on me, I guess, to not accidentally drop prepositions from time to time over what is rapidly approaching like 10 full pages of posting, but this just speaks to your whole insanely dishonest approach of taking the least charitable reading of a given statement, one that falls far short of the just ordinary basic normal rear end human obligation to understand the person you are speaking to before launching into a huge tirade about loving nothing, and making that the basis of a totally irrelevant tangent of an argument that you had zero interest in other than to cheer on your pet retard. Why would you not just ask for clarification? I mean you should have been able to guess that this: quote:but claiming this entails that there were Trotskyists before there was a Trotsky is a total abuse (of*) the sense in which "Trot" is almost always used. was not actually two sentences. Okay now, remember when I asked that, if you were really just mad about something else and you wanted to have that argument instead, you admit to that? This bizarre accusation that I'm like, cynically exploiting your emotional reaction to the word "abuse" is so loving bonkers dude just come on already. What is your actual problem? I've got the day off I'll give you big fat wall of text about anything you want but you have to meet me half way and just name the topic that actually gets you so wound up. You are so insanely smug and certain at every turn that you've got me licked for sure this time (I'm going to be overthrown) but time after time you are just fundamentally mistaken about things any competent speaker would grasp if they weren't more interested in pathologoizing my views than engaging on the argument. At least if you'd just shut the gently caress up you'd only be wrong. Now, you're wrong and deranged. spotlessd fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:Do you think the word tree is the same object as literally all trees? I wanted to do literally anything else besides that stupid derail but I'm not gonna let some idiot rapid-firing pointless quibbles with his tag team of flunkies pull the old D&D poo poo of "welp sorry but we can't get to the point today because this irrelevant detail is poorly worded". lol no, it's obvious, and stupid, and completely irrelevant to any point other than you whining that someone called you an accelerationist. Which you're still doing, despite your declaration of its irrelevance and wanting to do literally anything else. Amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:What in the ever loving gently caress are you on about. This pose of anger is a fairly decent act. You're even starting to misspell words. But you still cut out the part where I made fun of you, so the act is still pitifully unconvincing. Anyways, such argument as can be found beneath the mossy heap of posturing boils down to the bizarre claim that describing someone as an accelerationist means you believe in an organized group of accelerationists, which I can only attribute to you having a private set of syntactical rules for English you are inadvertently foisting on us. It also boils down to a baffling analogy where we compare an ideological system largely established by a particular person to one that was not established by any person in particular and conclude that the two are basically identical. Which is pretty bullshit. You can't say that Trotskyism as it is understood today existed before Trotsky's exile because Trotskyism is established as a response to the particular ideological characteristics of the USSR at that time. But accelerationism is simply the idea of reinforcing the contradictions of a system until it collapses, and even if we restrict ourselves to socialist acceleration, we can still say it can exist anywhere where socialism has a presence. The differences in the nature of the ideas and beliefs render this analogy you decided to posture over unconvincing as an argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:It can exist when those people just don't vote (which is what most people who are displeased with a party will do). Taerkar posted:People who voted for Bernie in the primaries and are now supporting Hillary have done a lot more to shift the Democratic Party further left than those that voted for Bernie but are now feeling the Johnson or feeding Stein's ego.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Please vote third party so Trump can win and take your voting rights away. You don't deserve them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:What in the ever loving gently caress are you on about. and I thought new forum software was a bad poster! but no i'm for voting for him/her/xir bc their the lesser of two posting evils man post pics of you getting teargassed. what protest was it at?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:and I thought new forum software was a bad poster! but no i'm for voting for him/her/xir bc their the lesser of two posting evils Please don't misgender the man who spent multiple pages mocking a woman he called a dude while simultaneously bitching how mean it was for her to politely ask him not to do that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Here's what you're throwing your vote away on, folks. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/26/jill-stein-s-ideology-says-one-thing-her-investment-portfolio-says-another.html quote:She has also repeatedly called for public pension funds to divest from companies in the fossil-fuel industry. quote:In one of the handful of direct stock investments Stein holds, she listed between $50,001 and $100,000 in the pharmaceutical giant Merck, which paid a record fine for overbilling Medicaid. She has also invested $1,130,010 to $2,400,000 in funds that maintain significant stakes in Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, and Allergan. quote:Yet she has between $50,001-$100,000 invested in a fund that has Raytheon Corp. as its fourth largest holding, a $38 million investment. Raytheon, which is the fourth largest defense contractor in the world and derives 90 percent of its revenue from military contracts, manufactures drone systems, which Stein has committed to ending, and significant missile systems. Jill stein is a multimillionaire who directly profits from fossil fuels, big pharma, and the MIC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This pose of anger is a fairly decent act. You're even starting to misspell words. But you still cut out the part where I made fun of you, so the act is still pitifully unconvincing. Okay so no apology then, got it. quote:Anyways, such argument as can be found beneath the mossy heap of posturing boils down to the bizarre claim that describing someone as an accelerationist means you believe in an organized group of accelerationists, which I can only attribute to you having a private set of syntactical rules for English you are inadvertently foisting on us. It's not a bizarre claim at all. Consider these two sentences: "Your ideas here are tantamount to accelerationism" vs. "You're just one of those accelerationist pissheads" (his words), which I guess is... ascriptive? There's definitely a word for it. But I think the distinction is as clear its going to get. One is a substantive question about what someone thinks, the other is very obviously a question of identity or belonging, of being a part of a whole. Note that this whole doesn't actually have to form its basis in a specific set of ideas or anything else! It functions purely by extension: as a set of things. It's not tied in anyway to the claim that there was more than one person whose thoughts were broadly compatible with the principles of accelerationism in human history. You seem to be under the impression that "loving acceleration pissheads" obtains in the period predating the coining of the term but it just obviously doesn't, just as there were no communists in a variety of prehistoric societies that can be accurately described as communist. The idea that this amounts to a version of etymological* determinism is just the latest in a long series of pathetic straws you're grasping for when you still very easily could just cop to being full of poo poo. Getting back to your tendency to extract whatever sentiments you find most useful from my posts regardless of what the text actually supports, consider what your version commits me to: "There has never, in the history of human thought, been anything that resembles accelerationism." Not only is this a really huge claim that basically no one would make, it totally excludes the basic thrust of my argument that the word was invented to describe (pejoratively) an existing set of ideas! Your justification for this super disingenuous reading is that I'm like a Holocaust denier or some sort of revisionist trying to "de-legitimatize" the use of accelerationist as a pejorative (my dastardly tactic to stain the illustrious history of Wiki-educated liberals weeping blood at what used to exist almost entirely as running LF gag). This again is just rank psychologizing on your part. The most charitable interpretation of your position is that you definitely didn't deliberately misread the post precisely so you could engage in this kind of speculation, but I don't really think you've earned it. Honestly the worst part of this whole derail is that if I'd just adopted the millenialisms which constitute the whole substance his and your political world and said "accelerationists weren't really A Thing until..." we'd be done by now. quote:It also boils down to a baffling analogy where we compare an ideological system largely established by a particular person to one that was not established by any person in particular and conclude that the two are basically identical. Which is pretty bullshit. You can't say that Trotskyism as it is understood today existed before Trotsky's exile because Trotskyism is established as a response to the particular ideological characteristics of the USSR at that time. But accelerationism is simply the idea of reinforcing the contradictions of a system until it collapses, and even if we restrict ourselves to socialist acceleration, we can still say it can exist anywhere where socialism has a presence. The differences in the nature of the ideas and beliefs render this analogy you decided to posture over unconvincing as an argument. The basic substance of the ideas in question never even entered into the argument. The words are similar. Or rather, their origin story is. The process by which both terms emerged is just factually alike. If had I said "accelerationism did not exist until... etc." you would at least have a real quibble. Maybe you imagined I did, since you tend to do that, but I didn't. I said "they didn't exist until... etc." Take your meds and try again. Or don't! Set yourself on fire for all I care. spotlessd fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Please vote third party so Trump can win and take your voting rights away. You don't deserve them. The one intellectually honest liberal in this thread, ladies and gentlemen. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:The one intellectually honest liberal in this thread, ladies and gentlemen. What are you, some kind of accelerationist?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:The one intellectually honest liberal in this thread, ladies and gentlemen. Looks like we have a trot. Do you believe in military intervention as long as it's for an ideologically-approved National Liberation Movement like the brave comrades of the SAA?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Here's what you're throwing your vote away on, folks. As has been exhaustively shown the only principals third-party voters are willing to stand by and vote for is "gently caress minorities".
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Spelling and etymology is the new grammar attack troll huh? Well. Gotta start somewhere. Just don't puppetmaster after all this or you a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Just don't puppetmaster after all this or you a bitch. B-but I need "puppetmaster defense" to get BINGO. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:How can this be true unless we're acknowledging the threat of losing the base isn't real? Would supporting Bernie in the primaries and choosing not to vote do more to shift the Democratic Party than supporting Bernie in the primaries and voting Johnson in the general? How in the world is the Democratic Party even tracking this? They can't be correlating actual election records, so they must be using polling. Doesn't that mean the proper strategy to shift the Democratic Party is to vote however you want in the elections, and then tell the appropriate lie to pollsters? That so many voters showed up in the primaries to vote for Bernie demonstrated that the base was more supportive of a candidate with his platforms than perhaps it may have been (or at least was perceived to be) in the past. The rough percentage of how many votes supported Bernie but will vote for Hillary in the general election is known from polling. Outside of the 'sabotage the other party in an open primary crowd', primary voters are more likely to vote for you in the general, though they are not a good indicator on actual turnout. (As in how many will turn out in total) If anything I think Bernie's strong showing in the primaries showed that the Democratic base is in fact for more left-leaning that it has been assumed to be in the past and had contributed to stronger stances on many platform positions and things Hillary has mentioned in her rallies, speeches, and during the debates. If Bernie had been just another also-run and Hillary ended up with 90%+ of the total primary vote then they would have likely been more cautious during the general for fear of demotivating some of the base (as well as trying to attract disaffected Republican-leaning voters in greater numbers) Sure people may lie to polls, but people will lie in the other direction as well (Like saying they'll vote for Stein instead). And if you can't trust the polling then what? Also post-mortems on elections are a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Sure people may lie to polls, but people will lie in the other direction as well (Like saying they'll vote for Stein instead). And if you can't trust the polling then what? twodot fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Oct 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Anyone who said that they voted Bernie in the Primaries but is going to vote Jill or Johnson in the actual election is worth approximately 0 consideration by the Democratic Party. The 'Petulant Child' vote is pretty consistent (and overstated) historically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Anyone who said that they voted Bernie in the Primaries but is going to vote Jill or Johnson in the actual election is worth approximately 0 consideration by the Democratic Party. The 'Petulant Child' vote is pretty consistent (and overstated) historically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:Right, I'm not trying to dispute that, I'm saying presuming you're right, that person should just say whatever it is that does shift the party to the pollster, and vote however they want, because it's apparently the pollster that matters. If the polls don't bear out results to a reasonable margin then the dems will stop taking them into account. So vote Killary, cuz the Berninator did more to influence dem policy in one primary than Johnson, Stein, and Ла Рива did in multiple elections. gently caress, if foreign policy is your thing then even PRON HAUL and his voters did more to influence it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:If the polls don't bear out results to a reasonable margin then the dems will stop taking them into account. This is also why I don't understand the "vote D/R in a swing state, vote G/L/? in a safe state to move the party" strategy. If the party looks at the results and finds that in close elections, third-party voters break for them then why would they move the toward the third-party voters (whose votes they have anyway when it matters) and risk losing centrists to the other major party?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:Right, I'm not trying to dispute that, I'm saying presuming you're right, that person should just say whatever it is that does shift the party to the pollster, and vote however they want, because it's apparently the pollster that matters. The parties don't use one method of information-gathering exclusively. Polls matter. Primary votes matter. What canvassers and phone banks hear matters. What people write in matters. What people say on Twitter matters. Politics are an information war and every scrap of information is collected from every source it possibly can be collected from. The actual votes are gonna be an important part of that process, but they're just more data points in the ongoing war. And, of course, we must all remember that the only people saying they'll vote third party are all Libertarians living in comfortably blue states. In other words, cowards who only vote the way they do because they know that it isn't a risk, and spend 90% of their time trying to find new excuses to justify their lovely politics and horrific void morality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
Somfin posted:The parties don't use one method of information-gathering exclusively. Polls matter. Primary votes matter. What canvassers and phone banks hear matters. What people write in matters. What people say on Twitter matters. Politics are an information war and every scrap of information is collected from every source it possibly can be collected from. That and the much dumber middle class milquetoast communists voting La Riva/Stein.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
Somfin posted:The parties don't use one method of information-gathering exclusively. Polls matter. Primary votes matter. What canvassers and phone banks hear matters. What people write in matters. What people say on Twitter matters. Politics are an information war and every scrap of information is collected from every source it possibly can be collected from. There are also lots of Republicans voting Libertarian this year. Part of the reason Bill Clinton won GA in 1992 is because so many Republicans voted for Perot instead of HW Bush. We're seeing the same kind of effect with Johnson and Trump. That's one reason why the numbers in GA are so close. Clinton is within 2 points, last I checked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 13:27
|
|
