|
mcmagic posted:I just pointed out races where there are good progressive candidates who haven't been pushed out of the race by anyone and centrist fuckheads are still going to win. You're ignoring that problem. It's Extremely Normal for you to interpret the fact that candidates who vastly outspend their opponents usually win as democracy in action, and blame voters for it.
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well voting for one of them is actively obstructing any chance of facilitating long term change and the other is voting republican. No, that's what you've convinced yourself. Voting for the Dem may or may not help your long term goals. But unless you've got some crazy wierd Republican, the Republican will almost always be worse.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This thread has cushioned itself from the reality that leftists are years away from being a real player in national politics because you can't get mad that Bernie didn't win and then follow like 3 progressive races and then say "gently caress it Dems are worthless I'm voting for RCP and posting on the internet" first of all chairman bob will lead us to glory second of all you have yet to explain to me why i should vote for people who actively work against me
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Voting for the Dem may or may not help your long term goals. RON HOWARD: it won't
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:It's Extremely Normal for you to interpret the fact that candidates who vastly outspend their opponents usually win as democracy in action, and blame voters for it. If voters care enough and are angry enough it doesn't matter. BTW it only takes a few heads on spikes to move the party HARD. Eric Kanter outspent Dave Bratt like 15-1.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This thread has cushioned itself from the reality that leftists are years away from being a real player in national politics because you can't get mad that Bernie didn't win and then follow like 3 progressive races and then say "gently caress it Dems are worthless I'm voting for RCP and posting on the internet" LOL it always comes back to "suck it leftists" doesn't it? "Better things aren't possible" I smugly refrain because I got mad at lefty Twitter
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:LOL it always comes back to "suck it leftists" doesn't it? I'm a leftist. Just not a dumb one. I know you really want me to be a liberal because then you can have this persecution complex but lol
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm a leftist. and yet you spend a ton of time defending the need to vote for a party that hates you
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm a leftist. So you're posting in this thread to tell your fellow leftists that they should just accept the lovely situation they're in? I don't think you really get what leftism is about, it's not about accepting the lovely status quo and saying "well I guess the only solution is raising a shitload of money" And before you get mad because I dare to take a contrary opinion, I voted for Hillary in Florida so don't even come at me with this "you gotta vote Dem" poo poo, I loving did my part.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
its almost like you're a lib who thinks hes a leftist because youve bought wholly into the american paradigm where anything less than debasing yourself before the god capitalism is leftism
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:and yet you spend a ton of time defending the need to vote for a party that hates you You have to live in the real world.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You have to live in the real world. i do, and in that world the democrats dont actually care about me, dickeye q internet, broke working class guy
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:If voters care enough and are angry enough it doesn't matter. You mean it takes overwhelming unity and engagement to counter the influence of money and the conniving of party elites, not that it "doesn't matter"
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You have to live in the real world. "You can't ask for too much change too quickly" - the White Moderate
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:i do, and in that world the democrats dont actually care about me, dickeye q internet, broke working class guy lovely democratic policy that didn't got NEARLY far enough in numerous aspects helped a lot of broke rear end people in the last 10 years. There is a materiel difference between republicans and democrats. WampaLord posted:"You can't ask for too much change too quickly" - the White Moderate I'm not a moderate.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and by voting for said worthless dem, i ensure i will never get any choice but a worthless dem. your suggestion doesn't make the slightest bit of sense if we want things to change Here's the thing: if your choice is literally pointless, yeah, whatever, stay home. I don't think anyone will really refute that if it literally (actually literally not figurative literally) doesn't matter then save the gas money or whatever. It's usually not, though. Let's take a hypothetical Senate seat in the upcoming election. Additionally, let's dispense with D and R for a moment, and just call them Good and Not Good because that's the real issue at hand. If, if, there is a way to have 51 Good in the Senate, that is obviously better than having 51 Not Good. Again, I don't think this is disputable. More to the point, having 51+ Not Good is quantitatively worse than having 51 Good: the barely-failed ACA repeal, the not-failed tax bill, and a number of other issues show that this is the case, even with the current administration remaining. Once again, I don't think this is disputable. If it is, just stop here because you're just clearly out of touch. Your issue, then, is that you don't believe that D and R actually map to Good and Not Good 1:1. Which is, well...pretty correct. They may on some issues but if they did an appreciable percentage then this thread wouldn't exist. So, if you're given a choice in a general senate election for Worthless Dem versus Republican, your choice (as you see it) is the following: a) Definitely Not Good b) Probably Not Good if we're being really generous today, otherwise Definitely Not Good and so you advocate for c) don't pick either so b) is aware that Probably Not Good is insufficient to win. Thus, in a future election, you've got a better choice, maybe Definitely Not Good versus Probably Good On Some Things (or maybe more, see below). Now we're at the point where I'm asking if I've got this correct, since an incorrect premise kind of ruins the rest of this. I think I do though. The questions then, are the following: First, how sure are you that this plan will work? Second, how can you be sure your message is received? You are, in effect, advocating "If you're not Good enough you won't win an election because we won't vote for you". How is this any different to a recipient hearing "We won't vote for you at all"? Whether or not declining to vote for someone (but also not the other side) is effectively a vote for the other side can be argued. What can't be argued is that some people will see that as the case, and some of them are the ones who you're trying to send this message to. Third, is this worth the cost? There has to be one, of course. If this strategy works, it involves Democrats losing general elections. Therefore by definition this involves a Republican winning that election. I refer back to my Probably Not Good versus Definitely Not Good characterization of the election. You are advocating for Definitely Not Good by definition and so inherently advocating for those positions. The cost is whatever those positions are, those votes the Definitely Not Good candidate makes, and so on. I believe your counterpoint is that those positions and votes would be identical between Probably Not Good and Definitely Not Good. You may be correct, and in a larger number of cases than people would like. However! Incumbency advantage is a real and quantifiable effect. Even if those positions and votes are the same, you are handing an advantage to Definitely Not Good that they'll hold later on when you try to put Actually Kinda Decent in that seat. This means, if I'm correct, that your judgment is that your aim of getting at least Actually Kinda Decent in that seat is made easier after sending the message that Probably Not Good will fail, and is made easier by a greater extent than the task is made harder by Definitely Not Good having that incumbency advantage. How sure can you be that's the case? Fourth and finally, tying questions two and three together. How can you convince others of this position? I'm not going to make any assumptions (or bother to go digging in post history) about whether or not you fall under Generic Mid Twenties White Male Who Won't Feel Consequences Either Way or Woman of Color Who Believes That The Risk Of Empowering A Racist Society Is Worth The Potential Gains, or any other set of labels. You can feel free to correct me or not; that's not my point. What is my point is that you're going to have to convince others who do fall under such headings. For example, if I rely on the ACA in order to afford medication to live, then you need to convince me that an effective vote for a Definitely Not Good, an effective vote to further dismantle/repeal regulations I rely on to live, is worth it, and that it's worth the fact that this sort of thing is literally life or death. In this example, not only do I have a vested interest in grasping onto anything, anything that might help me, I've also got definite proof that Probably Not Good is different from Definitely Not Good: to my knowledge, not a single Democrat crossed the aisle and voted for ACA repeal. There might be some outlier I'm forgetting, but even if not the large majority obviously voted in my interest. How do you convince that person of your position? How do you justify the risk? I'm a privileged white person. Frankly, my life is likely to be okay no matter who wins what election because the world is dumb and unfair. It would be very safe for me to say "effectively voting in Republicans will lead to better Democratic candidates down the line" because if that's wrong and everything goes horribly, I'm basically fine! But that's not the case for everyone, and I'm not sure how I could tell someone "look you're screwed and going to suffer horribly anyway, so why don't you definitely vote for suffering horribly because I've got a plan". I'd love for there to be One Weird Trick For Getting Leftists Elected (Centrists Hate It!) but can you show this is that trick?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:and yet you spend a ton of time defending the need to vote for a party that hates you This is a thread about strategic voting. If you want it to be LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS! Cool dude. WampaLord posted:So you're posting in this thread to tell your fellow leftists that they should just accept the lovely situation they're in? Nope. I never said that. I said what reality is and possible ways to change that. If you don't understand what you're up against, how the gently caress are you fighting it? quote:I don't think you really get what leftism is about, it's not about accepting the lovely status quo and saying "well I guess the only solution is raising a shitload of money" I literally said that was a bad solution. It's sure as gently caress not a leftist one, and almost certainly you're going to be so compromised before you get rich that you won't care by that point. quote:And before you get mad because I dare to take a contrary opinion, I voted for Hillary in Florida so don't even come at me with this "you gotta vote Dem" poo poo, I loving did my part. I'm not mad, and do you think I should congratulate you for making the obvious choice? Have a cookie.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I just pointed out races where there are good progressive candidates who haven't been pushed out of the race by anyone and centrist fuckheads are still going to win. You're ignoring that problem. i've already addressed it. but i'll address it another way so you can understand. you can't claim that just because a few progressives stood up the dem party that the problem is solved and it's all on voters now. first off, cynthia nixon is already wealthy and famous, so she actually stands a fighting chance against the democratic party. she's also a huge outlier. another proof that you just can't lay this at the feet of dem voters is joe biden. he almost certainly would've run if hillary hadn't cleared the field in a similar manner to what's happening now. and he would've been a stronger candidate against trump than hillary (though i hate him a ton). instead we ended up with the weakest candidate possible cause the dems cleared the field as much as they could before, and then you have the temerity to blame voters. pretty sad and shortsighted mcmagic
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Maybe this posting is self-hatred for having had to vote Dem? OK, but kinda of performative.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Maybe this posting is self-hatred for having had to vote Dem? OK, but kinda of performative. Maybe you're a really stupid dipshit who should re-evaluate their take on politics because getting to the point where you're blaming voters is really hosed up
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i've already addressed it. but i'll address it another way so you can understand. you can't claim that just because a few progressives stood up the dem party that the problem is solved and it's all on voters now. first off, cynthia nixon is already wealthy and famous, so she actually stands a fighting chance against the democratic party. she's also a huge outlier. another proof that you just can't lay this at the feet of dem voters is joe biden. he almost certainly would've run if hillary hadn't cleared the field in a similar manner to what's happening now. and he would've been a stronger candidate against trump than hillary (though i hate him a ton). instead we ended up with the weakest candidate possible cause the dems cleared the field as much as they could before, and then you have the temerity to blame voters. pretty sad and shortsighted mcmagic The problem will never be "solved" democracy is like pushing the boulder up a hill. Do you realize how much poo poo I took on these forums for saying how dumb it was to clear the field for Hillary? That is a given but guess what? Voters still had to vote for her and they did... Bernie probably wins if he had joined the race 6 months earlier.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This is a thread about strategic voting. strategic voting is bullshit if your choices are "guy who hates me" and "guy who hates me slightly less"
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:strategic voting is bullshit if your choices are "guy who hates me" and "guy who hates me slightly less" Sounds like an easy choice to me.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Sounds like an easy choice to me. yes, to not vote
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
like if my options are die or die but it takes a little longer, gently caress that, i reject your offer entirely and if you want me to participate you need to actually offer me something
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:yes, to not vote Wrong. Vote for the less lovely candidate and then realize that voting is pretty much the bare minimum of civic engagement and then work to make positive change in one of millions of other ways there are to make those changes. What is the bridge from more republicans winning because leftists vote for the lesser of 2 evils and getting the progressive change you want?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
BTW there is a reason that OWS started when there was a lovely centrist Democrat in the white house and there are former Bush lawyers running for the Senate as democrats with Trump in power.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This thread has cushioned itself from the reality that leftists are years away from being a real player in national politics because you can't get mad that Bernie didn't win and then follow like 3 progressive races and then say "gently caress it Dems are worthless I'm voting for RCP and posting on the internet" No, the thread is suggesting that the left is never going to become a player in national politics by slavishly supporting the democrats and limiting itself to the democratic elite's acceptable methods of activism.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Trasson posted:The questions then, are the following: quote:Second, how can you be sure your message is received? You are, in effect, advocating "If you're not Good enough you won't win an election because we won't vote for you". How is this any different to a recipient hearing "We won't vote for you at all"? Whether or not declining to vote for someone (but also not the other side) is effectively a vote for the other side can be argued. What can't be argued is that some people will see that as the case, and some of them are the ones who you're trying to send this message to. this one is easy. write to ge candidate john/jane doe and tell them why you're not voting for them. if they care to receive the message they will. that's all you can do to be heard (aside from joining an entryist org like the DSA/YDSA). quote:Third, is this worth the cost? There has to be one, of course. If this strategy works, it involves Democrats losing general elections. Therefore by definition this involves a Republican winning that election. I refer back to my Probably Not Good versus Definitely Not Good characterization of the election. You are advocating for Definitely Not Good by definition and so inherently advocating for those positions. The cost is whatever those positions are, those votes the Definitely Not Good candidate makes, and so on. I believe your counterpoint is that those positions and votes would be identical between Probably Not Good and Definitely Not Good. i cannot be sure. but taking safe votes has got us nothing but dems trying to become oligarchs and fascists roaming the US. you have to take a chance sometime (this is also a fundamental flaw with the dems at the moment btw). quote:Fourth and finally, tying questions two and three together. How can you convince others of this position? I'm not going to make any assumptions (or bother to go digging in post history) about whether or not you fall under Generic Mid Twenties White Male Who Won't Feel Consequences Either Way or Woman of Color Who Believes That The Risk Of Empowering A Racist Society Is Worth The Potential Gains, or any other set of labels. You can feel free to correct me or not; that's not my point. What is my point is that you're going to have to convince others who do fall under such headings. For example, if I rely on the ACA in order to afford medication to live, then you need to convince me that an effective vote for a Definitely Not Good, an effective vote to further dismantle/repeal regulations I rely on to live, is worth it, and that it's worth the fact that this sort of thing is literally life or death. generally i don't. i make my argument, state why i think it's the right path, but if the person is not inclined to agree with me at the moment, they usually will not be receptive no matter what i say. what ends up convincing people are the democrats. every time the dems stab another group in the back, let people down, rig more elections, i find more and more people i used to disagree with not disagreeing with me much anymore. quote:I'm a privileged white person. Frankly, my life is likely to be okay no matter who wins what election because the world is dumb and unfair. It would be very safe for me to say "effectively voting in Republicans will lead to better Democratic candidates down the line" because if that's wrong and everything goes horribly, I'm basically fine! But that's not the case for everyone, and I'm not sure how I could tell someone "look you're screwed and going to suffer horribly anyway, so why don't you definitely vote for suffering horribly because I've got a plan". i cannot. but at the same time, there are precious few other options to swing things around fast. the dems are wholly resistant to reform, so if we take the gentle approach, maybe we can make them change their ways in 25-30 years. problem is, many of us (including myself) don't have that kind of time. i'm not well off. the rest of my generation is not well off. and things are getting worse. and we are finding our chances at democratically changing them vanishing. so we either take a gamble, or chances are we don't change anything and things continue to get even worse ad infinitum.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No, the thread is suggesting that the left is never going to become a player in national politics by slavishly supporting the democrats and limiting itself to the democratic elite's acceptable methods of activism. You don't think getting a head like Cuomo or Feinstein on a pike would increase the left's power in national politics?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Trasson posted:Second, how can you be sure your message is received? You are, in effect, advocating "If you're not Good enough you won't win an election because we won't vote for you". How is this any different to a recipient hearing "We won't vote for you at all"? Whether or not declining to vote for someone (but also not the other side) is effectively a vote for the other side can be argued. What can't be argued is that some people will see that as the case, and some of them are the ones who you're trying to send this message to. The response to that is not "Whelp, I guess I better vote for the Democrat because it is impossible to message opinions to politicians." The response to that is to eject the clearly incompetent politicians and replace them with not-idiots who can read a poll. If a politician can't read the result of an election, the problem is with the politician and not voters.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The problem will never be "solved" democracy is like pushing the boulder up a hill. Do you realize how much poo poo I took on these forums for saying how dumb it was to clear the field for Hillary? That is a given but guess what? Voters still had to vote for her and they did... Bernie probably wins if he had joined the race 6 months earlier. we're not talking about democracy. the primaries cannot be called that anymore. we're discussing oligarchy
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:we're not talking about democracy. the primaries cannot be called that anymore. we're discussing oligarchy This is stupid and hyperbolic. Republicans can do this and so can progressives. it's about the voters.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You don't think getting a head like Cuomo or Feinstein on a pike would increase the left's power in national politics? I think that the democratic establishment is sufficient powerful and malign and distributed enough that the left won't actually achieve power in the party and devoting effort to supporting it at the expense of just nuking it and putting that effort into a different party or organization on the left's terms is futile.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think that the democratic establishment is sufficient powerful and malign and distributed enough that the left won't actually achieve power in the party and devoting effort to supporting it at the expense of just nuking it and putting that effort into a different party or organization on the left's terms is futile. A third party is a pipe dream that is never going to happen. It would only serve to elect more republicans anyway. The only answer is pushing the democratic party to the left.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is stupid and hyperbolic. Republicans can do this and so can progressives. it's about the voters. it really is not. a small group of leaders is deciding upon representatives and trying to sink everyone else. and if their choice loses, they either leave the chosen nominee without support so republicans can win, or actively sabotage them. it's oligarchy, plain and simple. sorry you don't like me calling things by their actual names
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:A third party is a pipe dream that is never going to happen. It would only serve to elect more republicans anyway. The only answer is pushing the democratic party to the left. If you're suggesting that the left can completely take over the democrats, why on earth in the next breath do you suggest they can never have another party? You know what's possible? Cleanly taking over the party of rich oligarchs. You know what's impossible? Destroying it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Maybe you're a really stupid dipshit who should re-evaluate their take on politics because getting to the point where you're blaming voters is really hosed up Are you confusing me with McMagic? I didn't blame voters. OwlFancier posted:No, the thread is suggesting that the left is never going to become a player in national politics by slavishly supporting the democrats and limiting itself to the democratic elite's acceptable methods of activism. Some people are, some people aren't suggesting that. Some folks are just mad that people disagree with them. However, I'm not advocating leftists become a slave to the Dems, or accept Dem's restraints on activism. Placing people in a bin of "slaves to the Dems" if they don't agree with your strategy is lazy. BENGHAZI 2 posted:strategic voting is bullshit if your choices are "guy who hates me" and "guy who hates me slightly less" No that's literally strategic voting. If every election was "good candidate vs bad one" then there would be no need to vote strategically.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:A third party is a pipe dream that is never going to happen. It would only serve to elect more republicans anyway. The only answer is pushing the democratic party to the left. Ah yes, because as we know the Democrats and the Republicans have been the only two parties in America since 1776 Jaxyon posted:No that's literally strategic voting. If every election was "good candidate vs bad one" then there would be no need to vote strategically. Do you think individual votes actually matter?!? Jesus christ you're focusing so hard on making sure that individual goons vote correctly like that matters in the slightest. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 21:14 on May 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
Frankly if at this point in history you are not voting for a communist candidate your values are poo poo, your ideology is poo poo, and it’s hella likely that you are poo poo too. This especially goes if you’re actively arguing against voting for communists and fighting people who have.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2018 21:13
|
|
