|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
There are way too many assumptions of intentionality being alleged throughout this discussion that deserve far more lip service. Particularly at the national level, figuring out the "this group of people did this because..." questions is both far more difficult than folks are acting and likely a total waste of time in the first place.
|
On July 21 2018 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:00 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 22:53 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:48 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 22:27 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:22 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 21:25 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 21:17 kollin wrote:
[quote]
If abortion gets ripped up as a result of Trump's SC choices will you still hold this position? I'm fairly sympathetic to your thinking, but I'm interested in exactly what price you'd pay. Why is that my (or progressives) fault? We aren't exactly in the pro-life camp (I am personally, but not as public policy). In my view this is just more of the propaganda and blame game. It just keeps the vicious cycle perpetuating. If it happens, we have to fight to change it again. The fight never ends you know? None of this is guaranteed to last. No different to neoliberals stripping the gains made under FDR, Ike, LBJ... Also, let's not forget the Dem strategy of appealing to moderate Republicans. Where is Susan Collins now? This has to be the most toothless form of political activism, where people push for a progressive agenda, but take no responsibility of anything other than what they are pushing for. Everything that is bad is someone else’s fault, every victory is theirs to own and no one else’s. And progressives wonder why women in the Democratic Party don’t like this faction of the left. Oh yeah? I doubt I saw you on a kayak blocking and icebreaker, cheering Greenpeace activists suspended from a bridge when Obama gave the green light to drill the arctic. Need more? Yeah you were probably one of those whining about traffic that day with the rest of the liberals. I show up to fight, let me know when you're ready.  I prefer to spend my time doing things that will have some impact, working on local elections to assure adequate funding for rehabilitation clinics and assisting homeless shelters. But hey, keep blaming the threat to abortion on “the liberals” I’m sure that is going to be a winning strategy for when ya all need their votes. The women will be lining up. Women? You know how many were out there with us that day? Two of them were suspended from that bridge. The current administrator of Greenpeace is a woman. They don't like progressives? Interesting! Thank you for assisting homeless shelters at least. Maybe you can care about the environment that Dems like to destroy as well (otherwise maybe no point?). I don't want to put words into Plansix's mouth but I imagine many women won't be happy if the progressive left abstaining from an election costs them the right to have an abortion or having contraception fall under basic healthcare coverage. Again, our fault? Why not blame Hillary for being a pied piper? Or the DNC and DCCC for the strategy of appealing to moderates? Same ol' same ol'. Because neither Hillary nor the DNC thought to themselves "lets go and lose today, the suffering is worth the try to maybe get something better next time". They knew what they were doing. Hillary polled terribly against everyone so they pushed the only people she polled even with. Then they ignored progressives saying they didn't need our votes and continue to try to absolve themselves from backing a clearly morally corrupt candidate in the primary/general by pointing at the monster she helped create and didn't beat anyway. Which has no bearing on what I said.
|
On July 21 2018 23:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2018 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:00 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 22:53 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:48 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 22:27 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:22 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 21:25 screamingpalm wrote:
[quote]
Why is that my (or progressives) fault? We aren't exactly in the pro-life camp (I am personally, but not as public policy). In my view this is just more of the propaganda and blame game. It just keeps the vicious cycle perpetuating. If it happens, we have to fight to change it again. The fight never ends you know? None of this is guaranteed to last.
No different to neoliberals stripping the gains made under FDR, Ike, LBJ...
Also, let's not forget the Dem strategy of appealing to moderate Republicans. Where is Susan Collins now?
This has to be the most toothless form of political activism, where people push for a progressive agenda, but take no responsibility of anything other than what they are pushing for. Everything that is bad is someone else’s fault, every victory is theirs to own and no one else’s. And progressives wonder why women in the Democratic Party don’t like this faction of the left. Oh yeah? I doubt I saw you on a kayak blocking and icebreaker, cheering Greenpeace activists suspended from a bridge when Obama gave the green light to drill the arctic. Need more? Yeah you were probably one of those whining about traffic that day with the rest of the liberals. I show up to fight, let me know when you're ready. I prefer to spend my time doing things that will have some impact, working on local elections to assure adequate funding for rehabilitation clinics and assisting homeless shelters. But hey, keep blaming the threat to abortion on “the liberals” I’m sure that is going to be a winning strategy for when ya all need their votes. The women will be lining up. Women? You know how many were out there with us that day? Two of them were suspended from that bridge. The current administrator of Greenpeace is a woman. They don't like progressives? Interesting! Thank you for assisting homeless shelters at least. Maybe you can care about the environment that Dems like to destroy as well (otherwise maybe no point?). I don't want to put words into Plansix's mouth but I imagine many women won't be happy if the progressive left abstaining from an election costs them the right to have an abortion or having contraception fall under basic healthcare coverage. Again, our fault? Why not blame Hillary for being a pied piper? Or the DNC and DCCC for the strategy of appealing to moderates? Same ol' same ol'. Because neither Hillary nor the DNC thought to themselves "lets go and lose today, the suffering is worth the try to maybe get something better next time". They knew what they were doing. Hillary polled terribly against everyone so they pushed the only people she polled even with. Then they ignored progressives saying they didn't need our votes and continue to try to absolve themselves from backing a clearly morally corrupt candidate in the primary/general by pointing at the monster she helped create and didn't beat anyway. Which has no bearing on what I said.
Sure it does. They knew fully well that losing was a probability. Their capacity for denial and peer pressure notwithstanding.
EDIT: They are also hoping for a Democrat even further right (better) as a result.
|
On July 21 2018 23:11 farvacola wrote:
There are way too many assumptions of intentionality being alleged throughout this discussion that deserve far more lip service. Particularly at the national level, figuring out the "this group of people did this because..." questions is both far more difficult than folks are acting and likely a total waste of time in the first place.
Agreed. My objections are mostly to the attitudes of folks in this thread, rather than progressives at large.
|
On July 21 2018 23:11 farvacola wrote:
There are way too many assumptions of intentionality being alleged throughout this discussion that deserve far more lip service. Particularly at the national level, figuring out the "this group of people did this because..." questions is both far more difficult than folks are acting and likely a total waste of time in the first place.
I mean, this is at least somewhat reasonable and I appreciate that, but do you consider Assange and WikiLeaks to be mere assumptions? I would at least agree that this old debate seems perpetually circular and I'm not sure if it's one that liberals and progressives need to have or not. I predict it will blow up again in 2020.
|
What do you mean by "do you consider Assange and WikiLeaks to be mere assumptions?" I don't particularly like either, but I don't see the point in positing why they did what they did.
|
On July 21 2018 23:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 23:11 farvacola wrote:
There are way too many assumptions of intentionality being alleged throughout this discussion that deserve far more lip service. Particularly at the national level, figuring out the "this group of people did this because..." questions is both far more difficult than folks are acting and likely a total waste of time in the first place. Agreed. My objections are mostly to the attitudes of folks in this thread, rather than progressives at large.
Not your attitude though, of course! 
|
On July 21 2018 23:27 farvacola wrote:
What do you mean by "do you consider Assange and WikiLeaks to be mere assumptions?" I don't particularly like either, but I don't see the point in positing why they did what they did.
In that case I wonder what you mean by "assumptions"?
I thought you were trying to say that it was an assumption to say that Hillary was acting as a pied piper for example.
Or assumptions about the Dem strategy to appeal to moderates?
I don't think I have assumed anything.
|
On July 21 2018 23:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 23:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2018 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:00 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 22:53 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:48 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 22:27 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:22 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
This has to be the most toothless form of political activism, where people push for a progressive agenda, but take no responsibility of anything other than what they are pushing for. Everything that is bad is someone else’s fault, every victory is theirs to own and no one else’s. And progressives wonder why women in the Democratic Party don’t like this faction of the left. Oh yeah? I doubt I saw you on a kayak blocking and icebreaker, cheering Greenpeace activists suspended from a bridge when Obama gave the green light to drill the arctic. Need more? Yeah you were probably one of those whining about traffic that day with the rest of the liberals. I show up to fight, let me know when you're ready. I prefer to spend my time doing things that will have some impact, working on local elections to assure adequate funding for rehabilitation clinics and assisting homeless shelters. But hey, keep blaming the threat to abortion on “the liberals” I’m sure that is going to be a winning strategy for when ya all need their votes. The women will be lining up. Women? You know how many were out there with us that day? Two of them were suspended from that bridge. The current administrator of Greenpeace is a woman. They don't like progressives? Interesting! Thank you for assisting homeless shelters at least. Maybe you can care about the environment that Dems like to destroy as well (otherwise maybe no point?). I don't want to put words into Plansix's mouth but I imagine many women won't be happy if the progressive left abstaining from an election costs them the right to have an abortion or having contraception fall under basic healthcare coverage. Again, our fault? Why not blame Hillary for being a pied piper? Or the DNC and DCCC for the strategy of appealing to moderates? Same ol' same ol'. Because neither Hillary nor the DNC thought to themselves "lets go and lose today, the suffering is worth the try to maybe get something better next time". They knew what they were doing. Hillary polled terribly against everyone so they pushed the only people she polled even with. Then they ignored progressives saying they didn't need our votes and continue to try to absolve themselves from backing a clearly morally corrupt candidate in the primary/general by pointing at the monster she helped create and didn't beat anyway. Which has no bearing on what I said. Sure it does. They knew fully well that losing was a probability. Their capacity for denial and peer pressure notwithstanding. EDIT: They are also hoping for something even further right (better) as a result. Did Clinton set out to purposefully lose? Yes or No?
The answer is No. No matter how many mistakes, no matter how faulty the logic. Clinton did not aim to fail.
The "rather 4 y Trump then 8y Clinton progressive did aim to 'fail' and it is therefor not a far stretch to imagine some people might hold them in partial blame for the results of that choice.
|
On July 21 2018 23:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 23:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2018 23:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2018 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:00 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 22:53 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:48 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 22:27 screamingpalm wrote:[quote] Oh yeah? I doubt I saw you on a kayak blocking and icebreaker, cheering Greenpeace activists suspended from a bridge when Obama gave the green light to drill the arctic. Need more? Yeah you were probably one of those whining about traffic that day with the rest of the liberals. I show up to fight, let me know when you're ready. I prefer to spend my time doing things that will have some impact, working on local elections to assure adequate funding for rehabilitation clinics and assisting homeless shelters. But hey, keep blaming the threat to abortion on “the liberals” I’m sure that is going to be a winning strategy for when ya all need their votes. The women will be lining up. Women? You know how many were out there with us that day? Two of them were suspended from that bridge. The current administrator of Greenpeace is a woman. They don't like progressives? Interesting! Thank you for assisting homeless shelters at least. Maybe you can care about the environment that Dems like to destroy as well (otherwise maybe no point?). I don't want to put words into Plansix's mouth but I imagine many women won't be happy if the progressive left abstaining from an election costs them the right to have an abortion or having contraception fall under basic healthcare coverage. Again, our fault? Why not blame Hillary for being a pied piper? Or the DNC and DCCC for the strategy of appealing to moderates? Same ol' same ol'. Because neither Hillary nor the DNC thought to themselves "lets go and lose today, the suffering is worth the try to maybe get something better next time". They knew what they were doing. Hillary polled terribly against everyone so they pushed the only people she polled even with. Then they ignored progressives saying they didn't need our votes and continue to try to absolve themselves from backing a clearly morally corrupt candidate in the primary/general by pointing at the monster she helped create and didn't beat anyway. Which has no bearing on what I said. Sure it does. They knew fully well that losing was a probability. Their capacity for denial and peer pressure notwithstanding. EDIT: They are also hoping for something even further right (better) as a result. Did Clinton set out to purposefully lose? Yes or No? The answer is No. No matter how many mistakes, no matter how faulty the logic. Clinton did not aim to fail. The "rather 4 y Trump then 8y Clinton progressive did aim to 'fail' and it is therefor not a far stretch to imagine some people might hold them in partial blame for the results of that choice.
The aim wasn't to fail for anyone. Merely a probability. No one you're talking to voted to lose "no matter how many mistakes, no matter how faulty the logic", so your attempt to hold progressives more accountable than Hillary and her supporters doesn't hold water.
I agree that we shouldn't even be talking about it other than to say that it's going to go the same in 2018 and 2020 because nothing has significantly changed. Other than they don't have a Clinton.
|
On July 21 2018 23:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 23:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2018 23:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2018 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:00 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 22:53 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:48 Plansix wrote:On July 21 2018 22:27 screamingpalm wrote:[quote] Oh yeah? I doubt I saw you on a kayak blocking and icebreaker, cheering Greenpeace activists suspended from a bridge when Obama gave the green light to drill the arctic. Need more? Yeah you were probably one of those whining about traffic that day with the rest of the liberals. I show up to fight, let me know when you're ready. I prefer to spend my time doing things that will have some impact, working on local elections to assure adequate funding for rehabilitation clinics and assisting homeless shelters. But hey, keep blaming the threat to abortion on “the liberals” I’m sure that is going to be a winning strategy for when ya all need their votes. The women will be lining up. Women? You know how many were out there with us that day? Two of them were suspended from that bridge. The current administrator of Greenpeace is a woman. They don't like progressives? Interesting! Thank you for assisting homeless shelters at least. Maybe you can care about the environment that Dems like to destroy as well (otherwise maybe no point?). I don't want to put words into Plansix's mouth but I imagine many women won't be happy if the progressive left abstaining from an election costs them the right to have an abortion or having contraception fall under basic healthcare coverage. Again, our fault? Why not blame Hillary for being a pied piper? Or the DNC and DCCC for the strategy of appealing to moderates? Same ol' same ol'. Because neither Hillary nor the DNC thought to themselves "lets go and lose today, the suffering is worth the try to maybe get something better next time". They knew what they were doing. Hillary polled terribly against everyone so they pushed the only people she polled even with. Then they ignored progressives saying they didn't need our votes and continue to try to absolve themselves from backing a clearly morally corrupt candidate in the primary/general by pointing at the monster she helped create and didn't beat anyway. Which has no bearing on what I said. Sure it does. They knew fully well that losing was a probability. Their capacity for denial and peer pressure notwithstanding. EDIT: They are also hoping for something even further right (better) as a result. Did Clinton set out to purposefully lose? Yes or No? The answer is No. No matter how many mistakes, no matter how faulty the logic. Clinton did not aim to fail. The "rather 4 y Trump then 8y Clinton progressive did aim to 'fail' and it is therefor not a far stretch to imagine some people might hold them in partial blame for the results of that choice.
The age old saying is that Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive. It is AKA controlled opposition. Yes, the Dems would rather win with Hillary, but also rather lose to Trump (than win with Bernie). Or any progressives- there is plenty of evidence of this where the DNC and DCCC especially undermine progressives that are running against moderate Republicans.
|
On July 21 2018 23:29 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 23:27 farvacola wrote:
What do you mean by "do you consider Assange and WikiLeaks to be mere assumptions?" I don't particularly like either, but I don't see the point in positing why they did what they did. In that case I wonder what you mean by "assumptions"? I thought you were trying to say that it was an assumption to say that Hillary was acting as a pied piper for example. Or assumptions about the Dem strategy to appeal to moderates? I don't think I have assumed anything.
Describing what happened and who did what in positive terms is far less problematic than asserting that an actor or actors did something for some particular reason or purpose. Confining a discussion to the former keeps things focused on issues far more amenable to discussion than the alternative.
|
On July 21 2018 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 23:30 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2018 23:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2018 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:00 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 22:53 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:48 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I prefer to spend my time doing things that will have some impact, working on local elections to assure adequate funding for rehabilitation clinics and assisting homeless shelters.
But hey, keep blaming the threat to abortion on “the liberals” I’m sure that is going to be a winning strategy for when ya all need their votes. The women will be lining up. Women? You know how many were out there with us that day? Two of them were suspended from that bridge. The current administrator of Greenpeace is a woman. They don't like progressives? Interesting! Thank you for assisting homeless shelters at least. Maybe you can care about the environment that Dems like to destroy as well (otherwise maybe no point?). I don't want to put words into Plansix's mouth but I imagine many women won't be happy if the progressive left abstaining from an election costs them the right to have an abortion or having contraception fall under basic healthcare coverage. Again, our fault? Why not blame Hillary for being a pied piper? Or the DNC and DCCC for the strategy of appealing to moderates? Same ol' same ol'. Because neither Hillary nor the DNC thought to themselves "lets go and lose today, the suffering is worth the try to maybe get something better next time". They knew what they were doing. Hillary polled terribly against everyone so they pushed the only people she polled even with. Then they ignored progressives saying they didn't need our votes and continue to try to absolve themselves from backing a clearly morally corrupt candidate in the primary/general by pointing at the monster she helped create and didn't beat anyway. Which has no bearing on what I said. Sure it does. They knew fully well that losing was a probability. Their capacity for denial and peer pressure notwithstanding. EDIT: They are also hoping for something even further right (better) as a result. Did Clinton set out to purposefully lose? Yes or No? The answer is No. No matter how many mistakes, no matter how faulty the logic. Clinton did not aim to fail. The "rather 4 y Trump then 8y Clinton progressive did aim to 'fail' and it is therefor not a far stretch to imagine some people might hold them in partial blame for the results of that choice. The aim wasn't to fail for anyone. Merely a probability. No one you're talking to voted to lose "no matter how many mistakes, no matter how faulty the logic", so your attempt to hold progressives more accountable than Hillary and her supporters doesn't hold water. I agree that we shouldn't even be talking about it other than to say that it's going to go the same in 2018 and 2020 because nothing has significantly changed. Other than they don't have a Clinton. "Rather Trump then Clinton"as a progressive is, imo, aiming to fail.
If you want 2018 and 2020 to go different then stop aiming high for the Presidency and aim at Congress.
The Tea Party has shown you how to successfully hijack a party. Take seats in Congress so you can influence policy. That way you can make steady steps forward rather then an all or nothing grab for the Presidency.
|
On July 21 2018 23:41 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 23:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2018 23:30 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2018 23:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2018 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 23:00 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 22:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2018 22:53 screamingpalm wrote:
[quote]
Women? You know how many were out there with us that day? Two of them were suspended from that bridge. The current administrator of Greenpeace is a woman. They don't like progressives? Interesting!
Thank you for assisting homeless shelters at least. Maybe you can care about the environment that Dems like to destroy as well (otherwise maybe no point?). I don't want to put words into Plansix's mouth but I imagine many women won't be happy if the progressive left abstaining from an election costs them the right to have an abortion or having contraception fall under basic healthcare coverage. Again, our fault? Why not blame Hillary for being a pied piper? Or the DNC and DCCC for the strategy of appealing to moderates? Same ol' same ol'. Because neither Hillary nor the DNC thought to themselves "lets go and lose today, the suffering is worth the try to maybe get something better next time". They knew what they were doing. Hillary polled terribly against everyone so they pushed the only people she polled even with. Then they ignored progressives saying they didn't need our votes and continue to try to absolve themselves from backing a clearly morally corrupt candidate in the primary/general by pointing at the monster she helped create and didn't beat anyway. Which has no bearing on what I said. Sure it does. They knew fully well that losing was a probability. Their capacity for denial and peer pressure notwithstanding. EDIT: They are also hoping for something even further right (better) as a result. Did Clinton set out to purposefully lose? Yes or No? The answer is No. No matter how many mistakes, no matter how faulty the logic. Clinton did not aim to fail. The "rather 4 y Trump then 8y Clinton progressive did aim to 'fail' and it is therefor not a far stretch to imagine some people might hold them in partial blame for the results of that choice. The aim wasn't to fail for anyone. Merely a probability. No one you're talking to voted to lose "no matter how many mistakes, no matter how faulty the logic", so your attempt to hold progressives more accountable than Hillary and her supporters doesn't hold water. I agree that we shouldn't even be talking about it other than to say that it's going to go the same in 2018 and 2020 because nothing has significantly changed. Other than they don't have a Clinton. "Rather Trump then Clinton"as a progressive is, imo, aiming to fail. If you want 2018 and 2020 to go different then stop aiming high for the Presidency and aim at Congress. The Tea Party has shown you how to successfully hijack a party. Take seats in Congress so you can influence policy. That way you can make steady steps forward rather then an all or nothing grab for the Presidency.
No. It's not. Though I'm not of that ilk.
I suppose for progressives that enjoy the hamster wheel, that is solid advice though.
|
On July 21 2018 23:41 Gorsameth wrote:
If you want 2018 and 2020 to go different then stop aiming high for the Presidency and aim at Congress.
The Tea Party has shown you how to successfully hijack a party. Take seats in Congress so you can influence policy. That way you can make steady steps forward rather then an all or nothing grab for the Presidency.
Yes, Congress is the most important component here. We are, trying at least.
|
So you have "the left" and "the right", the right has 50 voters and the left has 50 voters. We have established, as per Gorsameth, that no matter how left you are it is always better for you to vote for the left candidate than the right candidate. Under that premise, the correct strategy for the leftwing candidate is to move right.
By moving right, they can't lose someone on the left, because it's still the correct political strategy for the leftwing to vote for the candidate, he's better than the opposition. And by moving right, you can tempt the 10 people on the right who are closer to the center, making it 60-40. That's already been done, that was corporatism and neoliberalism.
Now that you're at 60-40. There's less air now so to readjust the right has to move even further right (they might appeal rhetorically to the left as Trump does but it's going to be a lie obviously). Then the Overton window readjusts with a new center, we get back closer to 50-50, and the correct political strategy for the leftwing candidate is again to move to the right, because when you do that, you can tempt the 10 guys who are closest to the center now, and it's still the correct strategy for the people on the left to vote for you because you're still better than the alternative.
There's never a point where the correct strategy for the left isn't to move to the right according to the picture you paint, Gors. At some point it's going to be too rightwing for you, and you'll be annoyed, but the correct strategy will still be to vote for them, because the right will be worse. So essentially you're okay now because first they're coming for the socialists.
|
On July 22 2018 00:02 Nebuchad wrote:
So you have "the left" and "the right", the right has 50 voters and the left has 50 voters. We have established, as per Gorsameth, that no matter how left you are it is always better for you to vote for the left candidate than the right candidate. Under that premise, the correct strategy for the leftwing candidate is to move right.
By moving right, they can't lose someone on the left, because it's still the correct political strategy for the leftwing to vote for the candidate, he's better than the opposition. And by moving right, you can tempt the 10 people on the right who are closer to the center, making it 60-40. That's already been done, that was corporatism and neoliberalism.
Now that you're at 60-40. There's less air now so to readjust the right has to move even further right (they might appeal rhetorically to the left as Trump does but it's going to be a lie obviously). Then the Overton window readjusts with a new center, we get back closer to 50-50, and the correct political strategy for the leftwing candidate is again to move to the right, because when you do that, you can tempt the 10 guys who are closest to the center now, and it's still the correct strategy for the people on the left to vote for you because you're still better than the alternative.
There's never a point where the correct strategy for the left isn't to move to the right according to the picture you paint, Gors. At some point it's going to be too rightwing for you, and you'll be annoyed, but the correct strategy will still be to vote for them, because the right will be worse. So essentially you're okay now because first they're coming for the socialists.
Thats why there are primaries. If you are to the right of to many of your 50 or 60 guys you lose the primary to the guy on your left...
|
On July 22 2018 00:29 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2018 00:02 Nebuchad wrote:
So you have "the left" and "the right", the right has 50 voters and the left has 50 voters. We have established, as per Gorsameth, that no matter how left you are it is always better for you to vote for the left candidate than the right candidate. Under that premise, the correct strategy for the leftwing candidate is to move right.
By moving right, they can't lose someone on the left, because it's still the correct political strategy for the leftwing to vote for the candidate, he's better than the opposition. And by moving right, you can tempt the 10 people on the right who are closer to the center, making it 60-40. That's already been done, that was corporatism and neoliberalism.
Now that you're at 60-40. There's less air now so to readjust the right has to move even further right (they might appeal rhetorically to the left as Trump does but it's going to be a lie obviously). Then the Overton window readjusts with a new center, we get back closer to 50-50, and the correct political strategy for the leftwing candidate is again to move to the right, because when you do that, you can tempt the 10 guys who are closest to the center now, and it's still the correct strategy for the people on the left to vote for you because you're still better than the alternative.
There's never a point where the correct strategy for the left isn't to move to the right according to the picture you paint, Gors. At some point it's going to be too rightwing for you, and you'll be annoyed, but the correct strategy will still be to vote for them, because the right will be worse. So essentially you're okay now because first they're coming for the socialists. Thats why there are primaries. If you are to the right of to many of your 50 or 60 guys you lose the primary to the guy on your left...
If you accept Gors' premise, it's also strategically wrong to vote left in primaries, because if you do you reduce the number of people who will view the left as the lesser of two evils.
Hence why you get a bunch of people talking about how Ocasio-Cortez and people like her are hurting the odds of democrats in the Midwest.
|
On July 22 2018 00:02 Nebuchad wrote:
So you have "the left" and "the right", the right has 50 voters and the left has 50 voters. We have established, as per Gorsameth, that no matter how left you are it is always better for you to vote for the left candidate than the right candidate. Under that premise, the correct strategy for the leftwing candidate is to move right.
By moving right, they can't lose someone on the left, because it's still the correct political strategy for the leftwing to vote for the candidate, he's better than the opposition. And by moving right, you can tempt the 10 people on the right who are closer to the center, making it 60-40. That's already been done, that was corporatism and neoliberalism.
Now that you're at 60-40. There's less air now so to readjust the right has to move even further right (they might appeal rhetorically to the left as Trump does but it's going to be a lie obviously). Then the Overton window readjusts with a new center, we get back closer to 50-50, and the correct political strategy for the leftwing candidate is again to move to the right, because when you do that, you can tempt the 10 guys who are closest to the center now, and it's still the correct strategy for the people on the left to vote for you because you're still better than the alternative.
There's never a point where the correct strategy for the left isn't to move to the right according to the picture you paint, Gors. At some point it's going to be too rightwing for you, and you'll be annoyed, but the correct strategy will still be to vote for them, because the right will be worse. So essentially you're okay now because first they're coming for the socialists. yes, which is why its such a shit system.
And how does not voting help? The left moves further left in an attempt to get you back? which means they give up in the center and the right still wins without having to move?
This all assumes there is more right (or left) for a party to go to in order to draw voters. Its a problem the GOP might be running into, how much further right can they go?
And if the left goes to far right then you have them fighting over what basically amounts to right voters and there is room for a new party to emerge to take the now uncontested left.
Or for the large group of left voters to force their will through the primary process. Which is kind of what happened with the Tea Party. The GOP moved to far left (for their taste) which created a big enough group of disenfranchised right voters to force through a candidate.
|
On July 22 2018 00:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2018 00:02 Nebuchad wrote:
So you have "the left" and "the right", the right has 50 voters and the left has 50 voters. We have established, as per Gorsameth, that no matter how left you are it is always better for you to vote for the left candidate than the right candidate. Under that premise, the correct strategy for the leftwing candidate is to move right.
By moving right, they can't lose someone on the left, because it's still the correct political strategy for the leftwing to vote for the candidate, he's better than the opposition. And by moving right, you can tempt the 10 people on the right who are closer to the center, making it 60-40. That's already been done, that was corporatism and neoliberalism.
Now that you're at 60-40. There's less air now so to readjust the right has to move even further right (they might appeal rhetorically to the left as Trump does but it's going to be a lie obviously). Then the Overton window readjusts with a new center, we get back closer to 50-50, and the correct political strategy for the leftwing candidate is again to move to the right, because when you do that, you can tempt the 10 guys who are closest to the center now, and it's still the correct strategy for the people on the left to vote for you because you're still better than the alternative.
There's never a point where the correct strategy for the left isn't to move to the right according to the picture you paint, Gors. At some point it's going to be too rightwing for you, and you'll be annoyed, but the correct strategy will still be to vote for them, because the right will be worse. So essentially you're okay now because first they're coming for the socialists. yes, which is why its such a shit system. And how does not voting help? The left moves further left in an attempt to get you back? which means they give up in the center and the right still wins without having to move? This all assumes there is more right (or left) for a party to go to in order to draw voters. Its a problem the GOP might be running into, how much further right can they go? And if the left goes to far right then you have them fighting over what basically amounts to right voters and there is room for a new party to emerge to take the now uncontested left. Or for the large group of left voters to force their will through the primary process. Which is kind of what happened with the Tea Party. The GOP moved to far left (for their taste) which created a big enough group of disenfranchised right voters to force through a candidate.
Yes, the left might move further left to get you back. There's at least a bigger chance of that happening than if they perceive you are a lock no matter what they do. Though what happens in reality when the left becomes too centrist is that a bunch of leftwingers vote for the far right party instead, as we can observe in Europe (and to be honest, as we can observe in America as well), so that's even worse.
Your perception is that when you give up the center, the right just gets to have it and that's bad, nothing else changes. What actually happens in the scenario you've described is that you've redefined the center to be to the left of where it was. The right might seize that opportunity but if they do, they become less extreme in the process, which is good for society in general. And if they're less extreme, they're moving left, which means they recognize the positions which were once leftist at the center aren't as evil as they said, which means they are less energized. Energy is much more important than where you put the center, as we've seen in the last few years: the right has been moving to the right more and more and that hasn't hurt them electorally, cause they were more energized than the other side.
Right now there's a ton of energy on our side. We should use that.
It's going to be excessively hard to create a third party to the left of democrats in this system, the barriers against that happening are very high. On the other hand I'm pretty sure that 17 seconds after the left overtakes the democratic party if that ever happens, there will be a third party for liberals. They know unity is just a talking point.
edit: The Tea Party is not a reaction to the GOP moving too far left, it's a reaction to the GOP not moving far enough right. Before the Tea Party the biggest change was reaganism, which was already moving the GOP to the right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
