|
Kagrenak posted:Except those are the groups on this forum, not in US society at large so what you're left with is most people voting for Biden and trump anyway. Coming up with stupid rhetorical tricks which ignore the reality of the situation at large is worthless. Realistically speaking, you are expecting people to meaningfully differentiate between two candidates with struggling cognitive abilities, support of genocide, sexual assault histories, support for draconian border control, so on, so forth, because you are so convinced that there is a significant difference between the two candidates despite us living under both candidates and getting similar results. A voting reform doesn't change that the idea of countenancing a third party being refused is what holds a third party back, not the "structure of the system." Nothing says the Green Party is a "third party" other than funding and voting participation, both of which can just be changed if people didn't immediately jump in and claim it's impossible every time. And the whole "putting candidates forward who won't support a genocide" thing feels pointless when the Democratic Party has proven its overall platform is pro-Zionism. It'd be less effort to support an entirely different party than to reform the stance of a party that refuses to change and employs any number of measures to insure it never strays too far from its "core values." Demanding Middle Easterners in this country to "recognize" Biden as the "better option" is about as gross as when it was demanded of rape victims four years ago, so I'm excited to see it be demanded of trans people in 2028.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
I didn't know Jill Stein was even running this year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Of course we're not a two-party system, but there is literally a 0% chance of a non-Biden/Trump candidate winning in 2024. Infrastructure week, the Ira, the chips act, were all desperately needed domestic investments. the administration has done a terrible job promoting any of their accomplishments wet_goods fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
Raiad posted:At this point, I think that we should put "voting reforms" in the same bucket of things that are not feasibly possible, such as a non-conservative supreme court or not supporting genocide in Gaza. This carrot loses value when it is a transparent false promise. Ranked choice voting has passed in several states and can be pushed further through direct democracy in the form of ballot measures. Working to force the Dems to run better candidates is how we got people like the squad into the house, even if they still haven't been able to get a ton done. There's no reason this can't be extended to other offices and RCV to more elections. Defeatism is lazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
Would someone just tell me who is the most correct person to use my incredibly-potent nuclear bomb Vermonter vote on already? You know, Uncle Ben once said "with great power comes great responsibility", and that goes triple for MY vote, so someone spill the beans already so I can finally fix all of this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 18:59
|
|
|
mutata posted:Would someone just tell me who is the most correct person to use my incredibly-potent nuclear bomb Vermonter vote on already? You know, Uncle Ben once said "with great power comes great responsibility", and that goes triple for MY vote, so someone spill the beans already so I can finally fix all of this. Vermin Supreme
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
mutata posted:Would someone just tell me who is the most correct person to use my incredibly-potent nuclear bomb Vermonter vote on already? You know, Uncle Ben once said "with great power comes great responsibility", and that goes triple for MY vote, so someone spill the beans already so I can finally fix all of this. Vote for me and I'll make all your foreign policy dreams come true
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:emanding Middle Easterners in this country to "recognize" Biden as the "better option" is about as gross as when it was demanded of rape victims four years ago, so I'm excited to see it be demanded of trans people in 2028. Cool of you to bring us up as a future one when that's a very obvious difference between the two candidates, one which trump has only grown harsher on in the interim four years. You don't give a poo poo about us and if you're also trans then you're just loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:01
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Okay. Please stop stealing votes from Jill Stein to prop up the Democratic Party's failing attempt to keep Donald Trump out of office. This doesn't really work because I would rather have Biden than Jill Stein as president.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
this is a good-faith question from a concerned anti-genocide but still Biden voter: it was my understanding that the point of voting third party is to show there are substantial numbers of voters who care deeply enough to throw their vote away, so the results of Genocide Joe 2,100,000 Genocide Don 2,080,000 Peace Party Cand 21,000 might make the losing party adopt some of the third party's positions. apologies if thus is stupid or wrong, I don't have a degree in poli-sci (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:Cool of you to bring us up as a future one when that's a very obvious difference between the two candidates, one which trump has only grown harsher on in the interim four years. You don't give a poo poo about us and if you're also trans then you're just loving stupid. Things can change. In a world where Biden adopted all of Trump's anti-trans positions precisely, would it still be imperative on you to support him?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:04
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:this is a good-faith question from a concerned anti-genocide but still Biden voter: This would require them knowing why you voted for a third party. Also for that third party's positions to be popular enough to gain votes while also not losing you votes for abandoning your previous position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:05
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I explained the indication in my original post. The word "compromise" only makes sense in that context if you're making an image argument, and not a moral argument. I am pointing out that it is an image argument. You are now attempting to frame even its opposition as an imahe argument, but it is not, and your attempt to reframe it as such as recognized. Image arguments are not "very pertinent moral question"s. They are only tangentially related to moral questions at all. What? Compromising morals isn't about image, it's about the moral. If I think that murder is wrong, but I do one anyways because I think circumstances demand it, I have compromised my morals and it has nothing to do with my self-image. In his post, the democrats are the ones compromising, not him, so how could it be about his ego? quote:"we can compromise on the genocide since it's going to happen no matter what." is not an actual argument anyone has raised made except you, because the people you are disagreeing with are making moral arguments, and that is an image argument. Saying that genocide is wrong but not opposing it because it would cause other problems is compromising the principal that genocide is wrong. It may be justifiable in certain situations, but it is a compromise of that principal. In fact, it's the one that he accuses the democrats (not himself) of making. quote:This wasn't the argument made, but if it was it would be an argument based on credibility, not one based on morality (although credibility arguments are sometimes a worthwhile argument as part of a larger moral argument, it doesn't seem particularly relevant here and some work would need to be done to render it so, if that argument was to be raised which, as far as I can tell, it wasn't) It is part of a moral argument. He is addressing the moral argument that voting for democrats would ensure the protection of other vulnerable groups. He explains that their lack of credibility because of their compromise (not his) makes him suffer doubts that they may actually protect those vulnerable groups. quote:This is you, again, explaining the argument is based on image and not morality?? While arguing its a moral argument? I genuinely don't understand why you keep arguing my position thinking it supports your own. Again, you are shorting out on the word compromise here: He is not the one compromising, he is saying that the Democrats compromise muddies the water about whether they would actually fulfill the moral reason to vote for them, i.e. to protect other minority groups. There is nothing about his ego or image involved there. The only part that actually involves him is that the situation "offers him doubts" that they would follow through, it's not even that he thinks they straight up won't. quote:I suspect you are using a definition of "excluding it is a factor" that also means something different from what is obvious, since you've already explained twice at this point that my argument includes it as a factor and describes how it does so. So by whatever definition you are using here, can you explain (from a moral, not image based, foundation) why it should be/is "included as a factor" in the way you seem to think? This is reasonable. I'll offer a simplified version of BRAKE FOR MOOSE's posts, which correctly pointed out what I was getting at: BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:It cannot have moral weight under this thinking, because the ultimate conclusion is that as long as the two candidates hold the same position, the position is irrelevant, no matter how odious. It ceases to be a factor. In the moral calculus, it's obvious: If you think the situation is the same for both sides, it's cancelled out. It has zero weight on your voting decision, regardless of your personal feelings on it, since 'the result is the same on both sides.' That leaves the remainder (domestic issues) which you are weighing your voting decision on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:This would require them knowing why you voted for a third party. Also for that third party's positions to be popular enough to gain votes while also not losing you votes for abandoning your previous position. Also to know where those 3rd party votes came from. If they came from Trump Land USA, it's more a problem for Republican's than it is for Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I also like how you've completely ignored the fact that the genocide didn't start in October 2023 and won't end when a ceasefire happens. Agitating for a ceasefire for humanitarian reasons is one thing, but don't pretend it'll end the genocide in Gaza. Trump and Obama both supported the genocide in Gaza, along with almost every member of Congress in the last few decades, and all of a sudden it's becoming a dealbreaker in only this one particular election? I'm deeply worried that people on the left are going to use Gaza as an excuse to help get Trump back into office, and then go back to not caring about Gaza at all, secure in the knowledge that they managed to find themselves an excuse to not vote for Biden despite the fact that he's responded to most of their domestic policy demands. It's nice that supporting genocides has suddenly become a dealbreaker among people who've happily voted for pro-genocide presidents and members of Congress in the past, but I can't help but notice how often it's coming from people who've hated Biden since 2019 and have consistently taken every excuse they can find to advocate opposing him. It's not exactly persuasive when someone with a NoJoe 2020 tag suggests that an event that happened in 2023 is the reason they can't possibly justify voting for Biden. I'm rather concerned that all the leftists who suddenly discovered a deep concern about Gaza a few months ago are going to express that concern solely through leaving the "President" slot on their ballot blank, pat themselves on the back for doing their part to stop genocide, and then forget all about Palestine and go back to ranting about student loans or railroad unions or something. Overturning the overwhelming American political consensus in favor of Israel is a large undertaking that'll probably take several Congressional election cycles (because the true root of it is in Congress, not in the presidency!). I understand that you take great pride in having cared about the Palestinians before it was cool, but you're not the only poster on these forums who was aware of the genocide prior to October 7. In the unarchived portion of the forums, we've got threads on the conflict that date back a decade, and tons of posters have discussed the apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide that the Israelis have been committing against the Palestinians. In any case, if the leftists have as much power as you seem to think they might, Genocide Joe should maybe stop contributing material support to the genocide--not just to get the votes of these leftists, but because supporting genocide is pretty loving evil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:Cool of you to bring us up as a future one when that's a very obvious difference between the two candidates, one which trump has only grown harsher on in the interim four years. You don't give a poo poo about us and if you're also trans then you're just loving stupid. Tell me, what makes you think the trans vote is so much less expendable to the Democratic Party calculus than the Muslim vote. What makes you look at how indifferent the Democratic Party is to Palestinian suffering and think, "Ah, that could never be the trans vote." What I am is a rape survivor who got blown off by Democratic supporters back in 2016 despite my concerns. Do not assume your concerns won't be next. And I'm really sorry in advance when you inevitably go through that, because truly, it's a betrayal that is very, very hard to shake off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Things can change. In a world where Biden adopted all of Trump's anti-trans positions precisely, would it still be imperative on you to support him? Yes I would still vote for Biden because there are many other policy differences which would continue to be important. I'm not so selfish I can't see past my own group's interest. It's not like we got basically anything from anyone nationally until Biden anyway. I would also redouble the work already I do to get better candidates and to pass ranked choice voting and I would additionally press Massachusetts to take additional protective state level actions
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:08
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Tell me, what makes you think the trans vote is so much less expendable to the Democratic Party calculus than the Muslim vote. What makes you look at how indifferent the Democratic Party is to Palestinian suffering and think, "Ah, that could never be the trans vote." I don't because I'm very familiar with them not giving a single poo poo about us and I'm not stupid. That's been the case for most of my life, Obama didn't even support gay marriage for a long time. That's why I do things on top of voting. This isn't the gotcha you think it is. Do you think I don't think about how precarious the victories we've eeked out over the last decades are?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:this is a good-faith question from a concerned anti-genocide but still Biden voter: When running a campaign, there are different "paths" to victory. You can take position X and win with the X group of voters. You could take position Y and win with the Y group of voters. The larger the group of voters you have, the number of "paths" to victory grow exponentially. That's why there's a vast difference between a campaign for a small town mayor and the president of the United States. There's only so many ways a small town mayor can get elected if there's only 8,000 people in town. Meanwhile, in a country of 300,000,000+ people, there are tons of groups (intersecting and non-intersecting) that can help elect a president. Just because one group didn't vote for a presidential candidate doesn't mean they can't get other groups elsewhere to vote for them. There is an entire industry of people and an entire branch of humanities studies dedicated to analyzing this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:this is a good-faith question from a concerned anti-genocide but still Biden voter: It depends on what state you're in and if there's any worthwhile third parties to promote for that particular goal. The US has a handful of "perennial candidature" parties which became a waste of even a protest vote long ago. Best examples include green party and psl on the left, libertarian and any "constitutional" party on the right. So it's not a great field for moral pressure for change in the major parties. Usually the best options for inspiring change begin at the local level, with any sort of action that can push established candidates out in favor of change candidates, or keep establishment centrists from bullying their way in. like we had to do with a literal Kennedy over here
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:It cannot have moral weight under this thinking, because the ultimate conclusion is that as long as the two candidates hold the same position, the position is irrelevant, no matter how odious. It ceases to be a factor. Therein lies your faulty assumption and your argument that comes tumbling down once its stilts are poked. There is no such line when there are two possible outcomes and one is objectively, unquestionably better than the other and when there's so much weight in one choice vs the other. Sure, there's a red line for me to, say, not support a novelist who was accused of rape by not buying their books, but the only thing that will happen is that this novelist's writing career will suffer and I won't get the books that I really wanted. What's happening in Gaza is the default Israeli response to the worst antisemitic attack since WW2. By "default," I mean that it would have happened under Trump, Biden, and Bernie because Israel is a still democratic country that has its own agency, and regardless of what some posters think, a people with a very difficult history who will respond harshly to violent threats. So again, you will have a very long parade of American leaders who will either do nothing or do little to stop Israel from killing civilians, while offering very different policy outcomes for everything else. Not sure where a red line enters the equation in which someone will be president. Main Paineframe posted:I also like how you've completely ignored the fact that the genocide didn't start in October 2023 and won't end when a ceasefire happens. Agitating for a ceasefire for humanitarian reasons is one thing, but don't pretend it'll end the genocide in Gaza. Trump and Obama both supported the genocide in Gaza, along with almost every member of Congress in the last few decades, and all of a sudden it's becoming a dealbreaker in only this one particular election? I'm deeply worried that people on the left are going to use Gaza as an excuse to help get Trump back into office, and then go back to not caring about Gaza at all, secure in the knowledge that they managed to find themselves an excuse to not vote for Biden despite the fact that he's responded to most of their domestic policy demands. It's nice that supporting genocides has suddenly become a dealbreaker among people who've happily voted for pro-genocide presidents and members of Congress in the past, but I can't help but notice how often it's coming from people who've hated Biden since 2019 and have consistently taken every excuse they can find to advocate opposing him. It's not exactly persuasive when someone with a NoJoe 2020 tag suggests that an event that happened in 2023 is the reason they can't possibly justify voting for Biden. I'm rather concerned that all the leftists who suddenly discovered a deep concern about Gaza a few months ago are going to express that concern solely through leaving the "President" slot on their ballot blank, pat themselves on the back for doing their part to stop genocide, and then forget all about Palestine and go back to ranting about student loans or railroad unions or something. Overturning the overwhelming American political consensus in favor of Israel is a large undertaking that'll probably take several Congressional election cycles (because the true root of it is in Congress, not in the presidency!). To drive the point further, this "discovery" about why NoJoes suddenly cannot vote for Joe come 2024 is not very convincing. Some of these same people defend the pro-genocide, pro-slavery, pro-starvation Houthis for example, as well as make arguments for why we should stop arming Ukraine or why the Uighur genocide is not really a genocide. The obvious, obvious common thread here is support for America's adversaries like Russia and China and weakening of America's allies like Israel in a bid for a multi-polar world. Not that Israel doesn't do Very Bad Things, because they do and have been doing very bad things to the Palestinians for a very long time, but the outrage seems extremely selective. There are people who think that Israel is the worst country in the world and should be brought to heel while Russia should be placated, even though Russia is arguably responsible for more misery now than Israel ever would be in its entire existence. small butter fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:When running a campaign, there are different "paths" to victory. You can take position X and win with the X group of voters. You could take position Y and win with the Y group of voters. The larger the group of voters you have, the number of "paths" to victory grow exponentially. That's why there's a vast difference between a campaign for a small town mayor and the president of the United States. There's only so many ways a small town mayor can get elected if there's only 8,000 people in town. Meanwhile, in a country of 300,000,000+ people, there are tons of groups (intersecting and non-intersecting) that can help elect a president. Which voting bloc(s) is Biden winning through his hardline Zionist and anti-immigration stances that will make up for the voters he's losing through those same stances, exactly? Not Evangelical Zionists, certainly. Jewish hardline pro-Israel voters? I think their minds are already made up. Immigration hawks? Not likely. So what's the electoral strategy here? Trying to win Florida again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:29
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:this is a good-faith question from a concerned anti-genocide but still Biden voter: We wouldn't know why they voted third party. The people voting for the green party aren't necessarily doing so because they're upset that the Democrat isn't socialist enough. They could also be protest voting because the Democrat isn't moderate enough, or protest voting against the Republican, or they could be dedicated green party voters. That's also why third parties aren't usually spoilers. Clinton lost Wisconsin by 23,000 votes and Jill Stein got 31,000, but if Stein hadn't been on the ballot enough of those voters would have skipped or voted for Trump that he'd still have won. What we do know is that protest voting because Democrats aren't left enough (or Republicans aren't right enough) is rare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Which voting bloc(s) is Biden winning through his hardline Zionist and anti-immigration stances that will make up for the voters he's losing through those same stances, exactly? Not Evangelical Zionists, certainly. Jewish hardline pro-Israel voters? I think their minds are already made up. Immigration hawks? Not likely. So what's the electoral strategy here? Trying to win Florida again? The example was supposed to be a generic representation to answer the question. I'm sure an actual team of political scientists is already crunching those numbers and looking at groups you and I aren't not even thinking about. And is it the right answer? Again, I was just using a generic example to answer a question. volts5000 fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:We wouldn't know why they voted third party. The people voting for the green party aren't necessarily doing so because they're upset that the Democrat isn't socialist enough. They could also be protest voting because the Democrat isn't moderate enough, or protest voting against the Republican, or they could be dedicated green party voters. The highlighted items would be extremely unlikely of someone voting Green, given their positions and the plethora of right-wing third parties that exist. volts5000 posted:The example was supposed to be a generic representation to answer the question. Right, but your post seemed to suggest that there is a strategy at play here - that there are paths to victory for Biden even after he alienates important voter demos that helped elect him in 2020. I'd like to know what you think the strategy is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Tell me, what makes you think the trans vote is so much less expendable to the Democratic Party calculus than the Muslim vote. What makes you look at how indifferent the Democratic Party is to Palestinian suffering and think, "Ah, that could never be the trans vote." If the dems have betrayed us by 2028 then that's our issue to weigh up and think about in 2028, but right now it's pretty loving clear that a bunch of blue states are enacting trans protection/refuge bills while a bunch of red states enact trans repression bills, so this is perhaps not the powerful and persuasive argument you think it is. Yeah Biden/the dems might throw us under the bus, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised, but when one side is actually trying to destroy us today and the other side might hypothetically try to do so tomorrow but are either helping us or letting us alone today, well, the choice is pretty loving obvious. Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The highlighted items would be extremely unlikely of someone voting Green, given their positions and the plethora of right-wing third parties that exist. I don't know the strategy. I'm not a part of his campaign. I'm not even volunteering at my local office.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:42
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:I don't know the strategy. I'm not a part of his campaign. I'm not even volunteering at my local office. Okay, so when you say this... quote:Just because one group didn't vote for a presidential candidate doesn't mean they can't get other groups elsewhere to vote for them. ...you're just assuming that Team Biden has a plan here, and that he isn't just shooting himself in the foot? That's the point I'm getting at here. How is what Biden is doing with regard to Gaza and immigration not political malpractice?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Okay, so when you say this... No. I was answering this question. Shrecknet posted:this is a good-faith question from a concerned anti-genocide but still Biden voter: It was a generic "this is how politics and campaigning works". I wasn't saying anything about Biden specifically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:I just want to point out that this argument is coming from the Chief Tonal Architect Kagrenek, of the dwemer, whose blasphemous attempts to ensure their victory by meddling with the heart of lorkhan resulted in the disappearance of every dwemer present in the mundus. What does this mean? Probably Magic posted:you are so convinced that there is a significant difference between the two candidates despite us living under both candidates and getting similar results. I'm trans. It's a very real difference to me. Probably Magic posted:Demanding Middle Easterners in this country to "recognize" Biden as the "better option" is about as gross as when it was demanded of rape victims four years ago, so I'm excited to see it be demanded of trans people in 2028. Why would you care in 2028? You clearly don't care about the impact on trans people right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
So if I'm trans and I can't afford to leave the country or move to a blue state, should I just get ready to die now? Because if something doesn't change soon, it's looking like Biden is going to lose, which means that Trump will be able to enact Project 2025 and kill me and my entire community. I really don't see a way out of this. Should I just run to a blue state anyway even if I have no job lined up, or don't have very much money? (not that blue states are going to be much safer either)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:this is a good-faith question from a concerned anti-genocide but still Biden voter: It's far more likely that the losing party will adopt positions from the winning party, which would be twice as effective (since they'd only need to pull away 10k votes to change that result, not 20k) and has more potential benefit (they could potentially pull more than just 21k voters from the winning party). Yeah, sure, trying to take votes from the winning party may not be effective and risks losing other votes, but the same is also true of trying to take votes from the third-party, whose extreme positions are clearly unpopular and whose voters are clearly disinclined to support the Democrats. Besides, you're massively understating the size of the gap here. Here's what the actual results in 2020 looked like: Democrats: 81,283,501 Republicans: 74,223,975 Libertarians: 1,865,535 Green Party: 407,068 So the Dems got 200 times as many votes as the Greens, not just the 100 times in your example. And by your own logic, the Dems should be seeking to adopt positions from the Libertarian Party, not the Greens. After all, the last time the Green Party outperformed the Libertarian Party in an election was in 2000, when the Libertarian candidate refused federal matching funds. Considering that the Greens have lost to the party that wants to abolish welfare and end Social Security in the last five straight presidential elections, it's hard to imagine that anyone sees adopting their policies as a way to attract significant political support. Ultimately, the whole thing is nonsense, because major political shifts do not start at the presidency. They start in Congress. Partly because whether a president has support from Congress makes a big difference in how much the president can accomplish, of course. But also because there are a lot more Congressional elections than there are presidential elections, and therefore a lot more opportunities for people to make their political preferences known through voting. Moreover, the smaller scope of the races means more room for outsider candidates with unusual policies or stances to take a shot at getting themselves in front of the electorate and seeing what the voters think of their positions. For example, while Trump's often treated as a political game-changer, he was preceded by several cycles of increasingly insane Republicans getting into the Congress and ousting longtime incumbents. By the time 2015 rolled around, it was already quite clear that the GOP base was desperately hungry for someone like Trump. Majorian posted:Which voting bloc(s) is Biden winning through his hardline Zionist and anti-immigration stances that will make up for the voters he's losing through those same stances, exactly? Not Evangelical Zionists, certainly. Jewish hardline pro-Israel voters? I think their minds are already made up. Immigration hawks? Not likely. So what's the electoral strategy here? Trying to win Florida again? I'm getting tired so I'm just going to google some polls and post a few charts for you.    Looks like there's still a fair amount of people out there who might find "support for Israel" and "reducing how utterly overwhelmed the southern border is" to be appealing. I know it's a lot of fun to pretend that our views are the majority views and that only tiny fringe groups disagree with us, but unfortunately the reality is exactly the opposite. Hell, even among groups that think that Israel is committing genocide, the campaign in Gaza until Hamas is destroyed is still a more popular outcome for Gaza than immediate ceasefire, and maintaining or increasing aid to Israel is more popular than decreasing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:No. I was answering this question. I get that, but if we apply this principle to Biden's reelection bid, do his anti-immigration and pro-Likud stances not at least seem to rule out multiple paths to victory that he might have previously had? I realize, of course, that nobody can say for sure whether or not those policies will damage his reelection chances, but I'd like to know what you think. Is Biden hurting or helping his chances with these stances overall, in your opinion? I think the answer is yes, that he's probably hurting his chances of being reelected. That points to the problem I have with the type of "blame the voter" arguments that I'm seeing in this broader discussion: at some stage, you have to grapple with the fact that candidates can alienate important parts of their voter coalition through their stances. IMO that's on the candidate, not on the voter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:. I agree with the rest of your post but I don't see those cross tabs in the document? The percentages under the 'describes self as very liberal" basically work out such that there are at least some people who hold those two views but don't imply that is the majority view. I would like to talk to someone who holds both of those positions though because is the idea just that it's worth it or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 20:06
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm getting tired so I'm just going to google some polls and post a few charts for you. "Finding them appealing" is an incredibly broad description, however. How many of those voters are swing voters/undecideds for whom Biden's anti-immigration, pro-Likud policies could be the decisive factor in getting them to vote for him? We don't know; those polls don't say. Also the first poll you cite ends in 2021. The second one only asks if the US is doing "too much, not enough, or the right amount" to "resolve this conflict." "Resolving this conflict" is pretty imprecise. I don't think any of those answer my question, ie: "Who is Biden winning over that is going to cover for who he's losing through these stances?" quote:I know it's a lot of fun to pretend that our views are the majority views and that only tiny fringe groups disagree with us, but unfortunately the reality is exactly the opposite. I'm well aware of this fact. I think most people here are. My question remains: what's the plan? Who is Biden winning over through these stances? Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Feb 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 20:10
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:Because if something doesn't change soon, it's looking like Biden is going to lose Legit, what is this sentiment based on? I'm also trans and terrified Trump even having a sneeze of a chance in the general. Between: - Democrats electorally overperforming expectations over the past few years. - Abortion rights being a major driver to the polls. - Economic factors steadily trending positively in terms of stabilized inflation, high chance of interest rates coming down, wages catching up with inflation despite sentiments of doom (see the statistics around majority of Americans rating themselves as financially stable but thinking other Americans are not) - Anti-LGBT laws and culture war bullshit being a bigger turn-off for moderate voters than Republicans anticipated - Labor steadily seizing back power in a number of historic strikes - Replubicans in Congress and in state houses shooting themselves in the foot constantly in between losing funding and having members retire - NATO countries picking up slack and steadily spinning up defense production to counter Russia - Trump having demonstrably attempted insurrection and being under 91 indictments since losing the election. - Several bipartisan economic and infrastructure initiatives coming online - Student loan forgiveness, though reduced in scope, managing to happen in a significant way despite SCOTUS interference Why is it obvious Democrats are slated to lose? Gaza, immigration issues, and Biden's age absolutely albatrosses around their collective necks, but how does that mean they are absolutely gping to lose?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Tell me, what makes you think the trans vote is so much less expendable to the Democratic Party calculus than the Muslim vote. What makes you look at how indifferent the Democratic Party is to Palestinian suffering and think, "Ah, that could never be the trans vote." "Do not assume your concerns won't be next" already happened in 2016-2020 under Trump. In 2016-2020, Trump appointed three far-right Supreme Court justices who were later instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade and rolling back the right to an abortion. I consider that a betrayal of women in general, and of rape victims in particular. Tara Reade, the woman who accused Biden of rape, defected to Russia in May of 2023. She asked Vladimir Putin personally to accelerate her citizenship request, according to Wikipedia. This is over a year after Putin instigated the Russian invasion Ukraine, resulting in the rape, torture, and execution of thousands of Ukrainians, especially Ukrainian women. I consider Tara Reade's defection a betrayal of women in general, and of rape victims in particular. I might have given Tara Reade the benefit of the doubt before her defection; now, I believe she was lying about being raped. Biden is willing to provide Ukraine with arms to defend itself. Trump is not. And, don't forget about COVID. Trump made a big show of publicly removing his mask when the pandemic was raging, while Biden set a positive example by wearing a mask and minimizing gatherings during his campaign. COVID is especially deadly to pregnant women, as well as to the elderly and people with pre-existing health problems. It's great that there's COVID vaccines now, but before vaccines reduced the mass harm of COVID, Trump's behavior was an extra-strong "gently caress you" to pregnant women and every other COVID-vulnerable group. If Trump is re-elected, then I have no doubt that poo poo will get worse for almost everyone, including and especially women and rape victims, in the U.S. and in Ukraine. Probably in other nations too. If Biden is re-elected, then I think poo poo has at least a chance of getting better in the U.S., the Ukraine, and maybe other nations. I think the chance of the U.S. doing anything to end the genocide in Palestine is very low under Biden and zero under Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 20:18
|
|
|
A Meatslab posted:
It doesn't but people ITT are so (understandably but frustratingly) focused on the dems issues that they don't step back and see the issues that face the Republicans when low info voters actually realize trump is the candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 20:18
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:I agree with the rest of your post but I don't see those cross tabs in the document? The percentages under the 'describes self as very liberal" basically work out such that there are at least some people who hold those two views but don't imply that is the majority view. 60% of liberals think Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, but only 27% think there should be an immediate ceasefire, while 42% think the war has to end with the destruction of Hamas in some form or fashion. There's got to be a fair chunk of people who think it's a genocide but that there shouldn't be a ceasefire. Though rather than self-identified liberals, I was personally looking at Dem/Biden voters and 18-29 groups, both of which are admittedly slightly less sure that it's a genocide. As for how people can put those positions together, I think I can get an idea of it even if they don't agree: they believe that Hamas has to be destroyed, and that Israel has the fundamental right to invade Gaza and destroy Hamas in retaliation for Oct 7th. They wish that Israel wouldn't be quite so blatantly going out of their way to cause needless civilian casualties, but their desired result isn't "stop the war", it's "convince Israel to stop shooting quite so many civilians and focus entirely on Hamas".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Which voting bloc(s) is Biden winning through his hardline Zionist and anti-immigration stances that will make up for the voters he's losing through those same stances, exactly? Not Evangelical Zionists, certainly. Jewish hardline pro-Israel voters? I think their minds are already made up. Immigration hawks? Not likely. So what's the electoral strategy here? Trying to win Florida again? I think you overestimate how many people (outside of leftists/people ITT) would even agree with your opinion of Biden being a “hardline Zionist” and has “anti-immigration” stances….
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 20:25
|
|
