|
Kilroy posted:Wouldn't the Nazi just cut a deal to share power with the other far-right dickheads, or perhaps even co-opt that party entirely, and then implement most or all of the terrible policies you were hoping to avoid by voting for him? OOCC is literally using the same playbook as the Germans did in 1933, but hoping it turns out differently.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
BadOptics posted:OOCC is literally using the same playbook as the Germans did in 1933, but hoping it turns out differently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Hey, sometimes the march of pragmatism requires the gassing of a nonzero number of untermenschen. Imagine what would happen if a right-winger was in charge though! "I am pretty sure the government will vote to approve to gassing jews given the chance so I should totally vote to let them rewrite the constitution"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:OOCC is literally using the same playbook as the Germans did in 1933, but hoping it turns out differently. I mean, Hungary seems like it’s already too far gone at this point to matter. He’s suggesting that they do “something,” in this case trying to strategically vote to mitigate the outcome. But the situation is so far gone that nothing they do will likely be relevant. Of course, none of this is about the US, so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Which policies are you talking about, specifically? Because the policies that I'm talking about, like M4A, are extremely popular among the Democratic base, and are also popular among the general electorate. The reason why establishment Democrats do not push for them is because of the structural barriers that exist to block actually progressive legislation from making it onto the ballot. "There are structural barriers!" doesn't work as an excuse for why leftist policy (or leftist politicians advocating that policy) can't win democratic primaries because there are more significant structural barriers for leftist policy and politicians in general elections. If those policies can't win in democratic primaries they can't win period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"There are structural barriers!" doesn't work as an excuse for why leftist policy (or leftist politicians advocating that policy) can't win democratic primaries because there are more significant structural barriers for leftist policy and politicians in general elections. If those policies can't win in democratic primaries they can't win period.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok cool, what should we do instead? Vote for Republicans? I’d say the liberal answer would be vote for nazis instead of republicans but what’s the difference! *laugh track*
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"There are structural barriers!" doesn't work as an excuse for why leftist policy (or leftist politicians advocating that policy) can't win democratic primaries because there are more significant structural barriers for leftist policy and politicians in general elections. If those policies can't win in democratic primaries they can't win period. Then why did Bernie poll better than Hillary for the general? I kind of feel like the reality is the other way around at this point, it's the centrists who do more poorly with the current year general electorate. The only problem is the centrists won't support leftists in the primary so they can get to the general. That's the real reason people on the left hate the Democratic establishment and are identifying as independent in greater and greater numbers, the left has spent their entire lifetime trying and failing to convince centrists to be leftists. And of course, all the while, the centrists insist they are leftists but just more pragmatic and electable even though they lose and they lose and they lose when the general comes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"There are structural barriers!" doesn't work as an excuse for why leftist policy (or leftist politicians advocating that policy) can't win democratic primaries because there are more significant structural barriers for leftist policy and politicians in general elections. If those policies can't win in democratic primaries they can't win period. What makes you think this? The way I see it the barriers in a general are actually way lower since people are paying more attention and the differences between the candidates are more easy to differentiate at a glance (eg: Bernie vs Trump is a clearer choice than Bernie vs Hillary where both candidates are ostensibly pushing the same platform).
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Then why did Bernie poll better than Hillary for the general? Because he had not yet been a victim of the institutional barriers that would hinder leftist politicians in a general election. Why didn't the US media treat Bernie like the UK media treats Corbyn? They would have, had he won the primary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Because he had not yet been a victim of the institutional barriers that would hinder leftist politicians in a general election. Why didn't the US media treat Bernie like the UK media treats Corbyn? They would have, had he won the primary. impotently flailing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:impotently flailing? Don't sign your posts
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"There are structural barriers!" doesn't work as an excuse for why leftist policy (or leftist politicians advocating that policy) can't win democratic primaries because there are more significant structural barriers for leftist policy and politicians in general elections. If those policies can't win in democratic primaries they can't win period. ...actually no? Like this thing you're saying is just kinda wrong, because in the primary you basically have a bunch of Democrats voting, and most are going to go for the candidate that is treated the most seriously by the media, etc (as well as things like the influence of superdelegates and what have you on voter perception). But in the general election most left-aligned people are going to vote for the Democratic candidate, because they won't consider the Republican a viable alternative in the same way the other candidate in the primary was considered a viable alternative. So the big difference there is that most Democrats are going to vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election regardless, but in the primary you have nothing but Democratic voters who are often/usually going to go for the person with institutional support and credibility. The most that can be done to handicap the leftist Democratic candidate in the primary is either the media refusing to cover them (which likely wouldn't have a huge impact, because as long as a Dem is going to the voting booth they'd like be voting for Sanders/whoever unless they specifically dislike him) or centrist Dems running a third party candidate (which would be SUPER conspicuous). The UK isn't a great comparison because they have the Lib Dems as a "third option" for more centrist people to run to (not to mention the system of government being different). edit: Put another way, being the "default" choice matters a ton in a primary, but the "default" choice in the general is usually just "the candidate from my party" which wouldn't depend upon ideology. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Don't sign your posts
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:What makes you think this? The way I see it the barriers in a general are actually way lower since people are paying more attention and the differences between the candidates are more easy to differentiate at a glance (eg: Bernie vs Trump is a clearer choice than Bernie vs Hillary where both candidates are ostensibly pushing the same platform). Well I for one am happy that some people have decided to prove Majorian wrong by defending the premise he asserted no one was defending. It's not necessarily true that the general election electorate is paying more attention than the (far smaller) primary electorate, and it's pretty obvious that voters in the democratic primary had intense preferences about, say, medicare for all, so I don't think these conjectures describe reality. If democratic primary voters can't tell the difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders then it begs credulity that general election voters will be able to tell the difference between bernie's policies and hers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Well I for one am happy that some people have decided to prove Majorian wrong by defending the premise he asserted no one was defending. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:...actually no? Like this thing you're saying is just kinda wrong, because in the primary you basically have a bunch of Democrats voting, and most are going to go for the candidate that is treated the most seriously by the media, etc (as well as things like the influence of superdelegates and what have you on voter perception). But in the general election most left-aligned people are going to vote for the Democratic candidate, because they won't consider the Republican a viable alternative in the same way the other candidate in the primary was considered a viable alternative. So the big difference there is that most Democrats are going to vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election regardless, but in the primary you have nothing but Democratic voters who are often/usually going to go for the person with institutional support and credibility. The most that can be done to handicap the leftist Democratic candidate in the primary is either the media refusing to cover them (which likely wouldn't have a huge impact, because as long as a Dem is going to the voting booth they'd like be voting for Sanders/whoever unless they specifically dislike him) or centrist Dems running a third party candidate (which would be SUPER conspicuous). So you're suggesting that the media is the institutional barrier to leftists winning democratic primaries, but that the media would not be an institutional barrier to leftists winning general elections, and you don't want to consider the case of Corbyn because... the liberal democrats?  twodot posted:Ok cool, what should we do instead? Vote for Republicans? Like let's agree everything you say is true and people are idiots and will always reject good policies. Do we stop being in favor of good policies? What is it that you want? I dunno man maybe y'all are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I dunno man maybe y'all are hosed. edit: Unless, I guess, if you are willing to say I should abandon good policy positions and instead support bad policy positions, but you seem unwilling to do that. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
Lol at the dem primary being the gate-keeper of republican policy
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Lol at the dem primary being the gate-keeper of republican policy Chuck Schumer, likely to be majority leader next year if Democrats take back the Senate, told CNBC Tuesday that one of his top two 2017 priorities would be an enormous corporate tax cut.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
Schumer as majority leader almost makes me want republicans to hold the senate after 2018
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So you're suggesting that the media is the institutional barrier to leftists winning democratic primaries, but that the media would not be an institutional barrier to leftists winning general elections, and you don't want to consider the case of Corbyn because... the liberal democrats? I explained in that post the difference. This is not that complicated. The circumstances of the primary are different in the sense that being considered the "default" and more "legitimate" choice has a significant impact. In the general, on the other hand, potential Democratic voters are generally only choosing between the Democrat and the Republican, and voting for the Republican is not at all comparable to voting for the alternative candidate in the Democratic primary. The media can't really persuade most Democratic voters that the Republican candidate is a more legitimate person to vote for than the hypothetical leftist Democratic candidate. So the difference is that during the primary the media can point to the mainstream candidate and say "this man/woman is the more legitimate/reasonable choice," but they can't do that about any of the alternatives during the general. They can badmouth the hypothetical leftist candidate, and this might depress turnout, but there isn't an alternative for most Democrats to choose instead. Regarding Corbyn's case, first off the issue wasn't "voters voting for Corbyn" because that isn't how the UK's political system works. They vote for parliament who then would appoint Corbyn if Labour won the majority. So Corbyn being portrayed negatively in the media might hurt Labour (with him as the leader), but at the end of the day voters aren't voting for him specifically. Also, the Lib Dems are important because they're a mainstream alternative for voters to go to other than Labour. The US has no such alternative because most liberals are not remotely willing to vote for a Republican and third parties aren't viable here. I realize you think you're making some clever point here, but you're directly wrong in this case. Usually my responses to your posts are along the lines of "your argument isn't proving the point you think it is," but in this case your argument is just directly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 05:16
|
|
|
Ytlaya's right, JC. You should really stick to slavery and rape apologism. It's what you're best at. I mean, you could also stop being a lovely human being, but assuming that's off the table, play to your strengths.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
The whole argument that the Dem primary electorate reflects the general electorate is so obviously false and logically absurd that only a brainworm-addled centrist in the age of Trump would even think of making it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 09:14
|
|
|
In the context of recent posts, above, what is/are OOCC?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 10:11
|
|
|
geegee posted:In the context of recent posts, above, what is/are OOCC? Owlofcreamcheese.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Owlofcreamcheese. Thanks . . . I knew that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 11:21
|
|
|
geegee posted:In the context of recent posts, above, what is/are OOCC? An actual fascist trying to court votes by pretending it to be "reasonable centrist compromise".
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 11:45
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:An actual fascist trying to court votes by pretending it to be "reasonable centrist compromise". You got me, the idea of strategic voting and spoilers is a witch's trick to cloud your mind and I've been a secret hungarian agent this whole time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 13:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"There are structural barriers!" doesn't work as an excuse for why leftist policy (or leftist politicians advocating that policy) can't win democratic primaries because there are more significant structural barriers for leftist policy and politicians in general elections. If those policies can't win in democratic primaries they can't win period. "bernie would've won" isn't an opinion it's a truism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 13:17
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You got me, the idea of strategic voting and spoilers is a witch's trick to cloud your mind and I've been a secret hungarian agent this whole time. Look at all you imbeciles getting mad, but what if I told you I'm only voting for the nazis ~strategically~ 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 13:20
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Look at all you imbeciles getting mad, but what if I told you I'm only voting for the nazis ~strategically~ USPOL: I knew he was a Nazi and I was strategically intrigued
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 13:34
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You got me, the idea of strategic voting and spoilers is a witch's trick to cloud your mind and I've been a secret hungarian agent this whole time. I'm not accusing you of being an Hungarian secret agent, I'm saying that you are a fascist who's attempting to normalize fascism. Otherwise your insistence on supporting loving Jobbik out of "strategic concerns" makes absolutely no loving sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
I'm reminded of some American centrist who went on a tweetstorm about an 'alternative' to that horrible leftism that could be a 'compromise' and he basically described himself inventing fascism from wholecloth. People who don't want to have to think about politics and yet are very invested in politics end up gravitating to fascism, because it's all easy answers and self-delusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 14:18
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:I'm not accusing you of being an Hungarian secret agent, I'm saying that you are a fascist who's attempting to normalize fascism. Otherwise your insistence on supporting loving Jobbik out of "strategic concerns" makes absolutely no loving sense. :votes one far right party into 100% of parliamentary seats: whew, good thing we avoided fascism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
What a hill to die on...
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
Is voting for neither one not an option?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Is voting for neither one not an option? the election is in like 9 days. Maybe if they have another election in 4 years they can run better candidates. I wonder if there is a way to break up the supermajority parliamentary vote that might cancel elections....
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Is voting for neither one not an option? Most oppositional work is being done outside the formal political processes, since the country hasn't been a functioning democracy since, well, ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Anyway, the support for Jobbik probably comes form the fact that Orban is fairly close with the Kremlin and the belief that "Jobbik could be controlled" even though it would still be the largest party in such an alliance. Also, Orban almost certainly is going to win by a massive margin in seats, his party is polling stronger than last election and the system has a big FPTP competent. I wouldn't be surprised if the opposition is pushed even farther in the corner. (Btw political consensus is either unraveling or still moving to the extremes in Europe. As the latest Italian/Austrian elections show.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Mar 29, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2018 15:07
|
|
