|
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. quote: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. vintagepurple posted:If the polls don't bear out results to a reasonable margin then the dems will stop taking them into account.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:06 |
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, maybe this is true, but it's at odds with what the person I replied to was saying, so you should reply to them, and tell them they are wrong instead of quoting me. I used you as an example, dude. twodot posted:This is just wrong. Also what's with calling people cowards? I've already addressed this, even if you're right, what's bad about being a coward? Are you suggesting people should engage in risky behavior with respect to voting? Do you also think using condoms is bad? Do you think that people living in swing states should vote for (to use the most odiously popular example) Gary Johnson? E: gently caress it, I'm not gonna bother with the runaround. Do you think handing the country to Trump is a good outcome if it means a bunch of people get to vote for their perfect candidate, given that those perfect candidates do not want to win? Somfin fucked around with this message at 10:53 on Oct 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/Channel4News/status/794232437337247744 Looks like Zizek sees trump as less dangerous than Clinton. Funny that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
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. I would love to see American boots on the ground in the middle east a second time. That would be the end of US imperialism for the long run for sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Sethex posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/Channel4News/status/794232437337247744 And?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And? He dumb af.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:He dumb af.  zizek is pretty much hot garbage
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Trump earning the coveted CineD vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
So like are you guys conventional unironic Democrats?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Do you think that people living in swing states should vote for (to use the most odiously popular example) Gary Johnson? quote:Do you think handing the country to Trump is a good outcome if it means a bunch of people get to vote for their perfect candidate, given that those perfect candidates do not want to win? Edit: Somfin posted:I used you as an example, dude. twodot fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, maybe this is true, but it's at odds with what the person I replied to was saying, so you should reply to them, and tell them they are wrong instead of quoting me. Why, to use your verb, is "signalling" the major parties with a third-party vote only a good choice for voters in non-swing states?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:No. No one should vote for Gary Johnson. Actually encouraging Gary Johnson votes is good because he siphons off the trump electorate more than the Shillary electorate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Why, to use your verb, is "signalling" the major parties with a third-party vote only a good choice for voters in non-swing states? Panzeh posted:Actually encouraging Gary Johnson votes is good because he siphons off the trump electorate more than the Shillary electorate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
It isn't, because most polls shows that the second choice of Johnson voters is either evenly split between HRC and Trump, or slightly in favor of Clinton. He is an idiot and you shouldn't vote for him, but he is not hardcore anti-choice, he is against the war on drugs (pro marijuana legalization), pro LGBT rights and against the death penalty. He's not stealing away more crazy right-wingers than he is young progressives. Most of his typical right wing policies are the boring stuff. Private prisons, school vouchers, medical insurance and gun control. The only major hot button issue that he is currently very clearly on the conservative side of is being super pro coal. Edit: Yes, most of the "boring stuff" is super important and not boring at all. For general elections though, the big four buttons are LGBT rights, climate change/energy, wars and weed. Doom Rooster fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Doom Rooster posted:For general elections though, the big four buttons are LGBT rights, climate change/energy, wars and weed. Must be why they haven't really talked about climate change, weed, or the majority of wars the US is already involved in during the debates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
call to action posted:Must be why they haven't really talked about climate change, weed, or the majority of wars the US is already involved in during the debates. They talked a lot about power/renewables (climate change) and ISIS in the two debates that I could force myself to sit through. Weed doesn't need a debate to get your targeted voters. It's established in the primaries at the latest, if you are pro or anti weed, and the relevant voters fall in line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
twodot posted:In swing states, the likelihood of the population of people inclined to vote third party to actually matter makes the utility of attempting to sway the Democrats less than winning the election. So you want the Democratic Party candidate to win- you think that this is a good thing, you think that this is the right thing, you think it is such a good thing that people in swing states should compromise their deep-seated beliefs and vote Hillary- but you, personally, don't want to have to vote for her? Sorry, I'm just trying to figure out the mindset that says "I want this person to win" and also says "I don't want to help them win" and doesn't reel from cognitive dissonance. Somfin fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Somfin posted:So you want the Democratic Party candidate to win- you think that this is a good thing, you think that this is the right thing- but you, personally, don't want to have to vote for her? Step 1. Be privileged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Somfin posted:So you want the Democratic Party candidate to win- you think that this is a good thing, you think that this is the right thing, you think it is such a good thing that people in swing states should compromise their deep-seated beliefs and vote Hillary- but you, personally, don't want to have to vote for her? quote:Sorry, I'm just trying to figure out the mindset that says "I want this person to win" and also says "I don't want to help them win" and doesn't reel from cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Is there place all the thrown out votes go like that dumpster behind planned parenthood?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:I think it's the best available option. I would of course prefer the rest of the nation agree with my politics, but given the polling we have it's pretty clear that people broadly disagree with me, so I'll take what I can get. Voting for Clinton in a swing state isn't a matter of compromising your beliefs, it's a matter of doing the thing you think will result in the best outcome. Your beliefs should include supporting things that aren't your favorite thing when your favorite thing is unavailable and your least favorite thing is in danger of happening. It's not a matter of principles, this is purely consequentialist. Are you seriously suggesting that Idaho Democrats shouldn't bother to vote for Hillary because it "won't help?" E: While at the same time defending voting for people who wouldn't want to win even if they could?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Are you seriously suggesting that Idaho Democrats shouldn't bother to vote for Hillary because it "won't help?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:If they think she's the best candidate, they should vote for her for the same reason I vote for my preferred candidate, preference signaling. Not because they think they are helping her win. Let's ignore that preference signalling doesn't matter or change anything. If someone's vote could help her win, then they should vote for her?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Let's ignore that preference signalling doesn't matter or change anything. If someone's vote could help her win, then they should vote for her?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yes? I don't understand how this is a question, given what I said. How do you think that it gets to the point where voting for Hillary will help her win? I'll give you a hint: you don't do it by throwing up your hands and saying it's impossible. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:How do you think that it gets to the point where voting for Hillary will help her win?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
twodot posted:Have you not been following along? If 50% of Idaho voters start voting Stein and Clinton, I think the Stein voters can figure out it's time to switch to Clinton. As is, there's no reason to think Idaho is anywhere close to a tipping point, and voting Clinton isn't going to get Idaho to the tipping point. You give Stein voters a lot more credit than I do. And I'll ask again, since you (purposefully) ignored it, how does Idaho reach anywhere close to a tipping point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You give Stein voters a lot more credit than I do. It really has to start with trump having a less than 10 point lead I think. There's kind of a catch 22, but it's less applicable as the difference grows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You give Stein voters a lot more credit than I do. Obviously they can't, ever, no matter what, because otherwise it would mean he has an obligation to try to fight for (and vote for!) the candidate that he actually wants to be President and not waste his time with worthless ideological purity signposting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You give Stein voters a lot more credit than I do. "Aw poo poo, if we hadn't voted for Stein then Hillary could have won. Welp!" *Next election, votes 3rd party again, proves to be useless* Note: Mainly I don't think most third party voters (like most voters in general) really know how their state is trending.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You give Stein voters a lot more credit than I do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:If you know how to flip Idaho in 2016, you should stop posting here and be someone's campaign manager. You don't flip a state in a year. Just look at Iowa. Solid red for decades. Now a swing state with a fairly solid recent blue track record. And the reason for that is because blue voters got out and loving voted, year after year, pushing the number toward the centre, rather than looking at the polls and deciding "Ah gently caress it, my personal sacred vote won't change anything, I might as well vote for Stein."
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You don't flip a state in a year. Just look at Iowa. Solid red for decades. Now a swing state with a fairly solid recent blue track record. And the reason for that is because blue voters got out and loving voted, year after year, pushing the number toward the centre, rather than looking at the polls and deciding "Ah gently caress it, my personal sacred vote won't change anything, I might as well vote for Stein." Edit: Also for the purposes of this thread are you claiming Iowa flipped because third party voters stopped voting third party? twodot fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:Releasing a Republican targeted bioweapon? Like I have no clue how to shift Idaho absent significant demographic changes. If you know how to flip Idaho in 2016, you should stop posting here and be someone's campaign manager. Do you think the reason Idaho is deep red is because too many Democratic sympathetic voters are voting third party? The way to change voting demographics has been known for a long time, you encourage people to vote for your party so that you can prove you have the base needed to make the changes that they want next election. The reasonable goal is to incrementally increase turnout every year until you tip the scales. But just pretending that it's impossible from the get go and you should never even try is the dumbest thing ever. How do you ever accomplish anything in your life with this outlook?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The way to change voting demographics has been known for a long time, you encourage people to vote for your party so that you can prove you have the base needed to make the changes that they want next election. The reasonable goal is to incrementally increase turnout every year until you tip the scales. But just pretending that it's impossible from the get go and you should never even try is the dumbest thing ever. How do you ever accomplish anything in your life with this outlook?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:Look if you want to go out and flip Idaho, I'll never tell you not to. People who aren't idiots just realize flipping other states is a way better way to spend resources. You quizzing me on how to flip Idaho just doesn't make any sense in this conversation. If flipping Idaho is possible, go out and do it! What's stopping you? Trying to convince defeatist idiots is how you do it. I just explained that to you in the post you quoted. I'm sorry that it's not a magical instant fix-all, but if that's all you're willing to accept then you're going to lead a very disappointing life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Trying to convince defeatist idiots is how you do it. I just explained that to you in the post you quoted. I'm sorry that it's not a magical instant fix-all, but if that's all you're willing to accept then you're going to lead a very disappointing life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:Also for the purposes of this thread are you claiming Iowa flipped because third party voters stopped voting third party? I'm sorry that you have fallen so far into "not perfect therefore not good," but no, I'm not saying that. Iowa hasn't loving flipped. Iowa is a swing state that is polling worryingly red. But it sure as gently caress wouldn't have become a swing state if it didn't get close for a couple years. And it wouldn't get close if every single would-be Democratic Party voter looked at the polls and said "Yeah well the person I agree with mostly is not gonna win, it's never gonna happen, gently caress everything, I'mma put my vote toward Snake Oil McGee and his fancy teeth." Every one of you defeatist accellerationist dipshits we can convince is another vote toward making safe states unsafe and unsafe states swing and swing states flip. On a related note, check back through your post history in this thread. Have you noticed how often you retreat back to "Yeah, you're right, but are you really blaming and every single vote helps, you fuckhead
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
Somfin posted:and every single vote helps, you fuckhead
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:06 |
|
|
twodot posted:This is just not true, and if you think it's true, you don't understand how American elections work. Voting matters in the aggregate. Enough people don't vote, then it has repercussions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:23
|
|