|
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 |
On July 22 2018 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2018 00:34 Gorsameth wrote: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, 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.
The right doesn't get less extreme when the left moves further left. They have no reason to move towards the left because they are winning where they are.
|
On July 22 2018 00:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2018 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2018 00:34 Gorsameth wrote: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, 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. The right doesn't get less extreme when the left moves further left. They have no reason to move towards the left because they are winning where they are.
Then we aren't losing the people at the center.
|
On July 22 2018 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2018 00:50 Gorsameth wrote:On July 22 2018 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2018 00:34 Gorsameth wrote: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, 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. The right doesn't get less extreme when the left moves further left. They have no reason to move towards the left because they are winning where they are. Then we aren't losing the people at the center. If you move to far left some people in the center will consider the right a better option without the right moving their position.
|
On July 22 2018 00:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2018 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2018 00:50 Gorsameth wrote:On July 22 2018 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2018 00:34 Gorsameth wrote: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, 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. The right doesn't get less extreme when the left moves further left. They have no reason to move towards the left because they are winning where they are. Then we aren't losing the people at the center. If you move to far left some people in the center will consider the right a better option without the right moving their position.
Then the question is why? My answer is the left is not communicating well enough. There is no reason this should happen, especially when economics (which always ranks towards the top) is in our favor. The "left" is losing because of the neoliberal shift pandering to myths and legends.
|
On July 22 2018 00:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2018 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2018 00:50 Gorsameth wrote:On July 22 2018 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2018 00:34 Gorsameth wrote: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, 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. The right doesn't get less extreme when the left moves further left. They have no reason to move towards the left because they are winning where they are. Then we aren't losing the people at the center. If you move to far left some people in the center will consider the right a better option without the right moving their position.
Do you see how in your system it's correct for the left to move right to get votes, but the right always stays in place? Shouldn't they move left to appeal to more voters, since the people on the right will be forced to vote for them anyway?
|
United States24701 Posts
I think there is more to this complex system than moving right or moving left. There are way more degrees of freedom, and both parties have screwed up with many of them, but we somehow always end up pigeonholed into talking about everything in terms of how left or how right.
|
This discussion is ignoring the external factors bearing upon people's decisions to vote!! Just as from the New Deal to Reagan there was more or less a consensus around the state's role in society and the responsibilities that were part of that role, from Reagan to Trump there has been another consensus around that role (which the 2008 crash doesn't appear to have changed YET, but might well as the effects of central bank monetary policy manifest). I think it's somewhat futile to discuss electoral calculus without taking into account external conditions - as a result, all you can really do is form principled positions and stick by them as much as possible. Those principles might include sacrificing your conception of an ideal candidate to protect abortion or whatever, but regardless, I think attempting to 'game' the system by finding the sweet spot between left, far left, right and far right is a waste of time.
|
On July 22 2018 01:07 micronesia wrote:
I think there is more to this complex system than moving right or moving left. There are way more degrees of freedom, and both parties have screwed up with many of them, but we somehow always end up pigeonholed into talking about everything in terms of how left or how right.
For this argument we're starting from the premise that no matter what happens the socialists should always vote for the liberals because they are better than the conservatives. The reason why this assumption is wrong is because if it gives a built-in advantage to the right, as the correct move no matter where the center is is always to move to the right, liberalism being at its core a rightwing ideology, more comfortable with conservatism than with socialism. Of course reality is more complex than that in some aspects, but there's also a level of simplicity to the criticism.
|
United States24701 Posts
I think the disagreement started here:
On July 21 2018 19:37 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 17:51 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 17:32 iamthedave wrote:
Most people don't educate themselves well enough on the candidates (See: all the USA voters who still think Hilary Clinton didn't have a full platform because nobody could be bothered to check the website she constantly said existed)
I don't know anyone who didn't think she had a platform, it's that none of us liked it- or how watered down she made Bernie's platform that he fought for. She blamed millennials for "not doing their homework", unfortunately for her, they did.  To this day I hear people claim that Hilary didn't have a policy on [INSERT ISSUE HERE]. I'm not saying nobody read her policies, but I'll bet the majority didn't (not least because the majority of Americans didn't even vote). And if millenials 'did their homework' and came up with the conclusion that Donald Trump was a better choice than Hilary, they're imbeciles, so I don't know what you're putting a smiley on the end of your sentence for.
At that time, the premise wasn't that socialists should vote for the democrat in any general presidential election. The premise seemed to be that socialists choosing not to vote or voting for a third party was not preferable to defeating Trump at all costs. The discussion may have morphed, but I think the original premise was reasonable.
|
On July 22 2018 01:22 micronesia wrote:I think the disagreement started here: Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 19:37 iamthedave wrote:On July 21 2018 17:51 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 17:32 iamthedave wrote:
Most people don't educate themselves well enough on the candidates (See: all the USA voters who still think Hilary Clinton didn't have a full platform because nobody could be bothered to check the website she constantly said existed)
I don't know anyone who didn't think she had a platform, it's that none of us liked it- or how watered down she made Bernie's platform that he fought for. She blamed millennials for "not doing their homework", unfortunately for her, they did. To this day I hear people claim that Hilary didn't have a policy on [INSERT ISSUE HERE]. I'm not saying nobody read her policies, but I'll bet the majority didn't (not least because the majority of Americans didn't even vote). And if millenials 'did their homework' and came up with the conclusion that Donald Trump was a better choice than Hilary, they're imbeciles, so I don't know what you're putting a smiley on the end of your sentence for. At that time, the premise wasn't that socialists should vote for the democrat in any general presidential election. The premise seemed to be that socialists choosing not to vote or voting for a third party was not preferable to defeating Trump at all costs. The discussion may have morphed, but I think the original premise was reasonable.
Okay, I take your point, but can't we extrapolate that? Even if there was Rubio rather than Trump, it would still be better for a socialist to vote for Clinton rather than Rubio under that logic, wouldn't it? Or would you (or Gors, or dave) then say that this is fine?
|
On July 22 2018 01:22 micronesia wrote:I think the disagreement started here: Show nested quote +On July 21 2018 19:37 iamthedave wrote:On July 21 2018 17:51 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 17:32 iamthedave wrote:
Most people don't educate themselves well enough on the candidates (See: all the USA voters who still think Hilary Clinton didn't have a full platform because nobody could be bothered to check the website she constantly said existed)
I don't know anyone who didn't think she had a platform, it's that none of us liked it- or how watered down she made Bernie's platform that he fought for. She blamed millennials for "not doing their homework", unfortunately for her, they did. To this day I hear people claim that Hilary didn't have a policy on [INSERT ISSUE HERE]. I'm not saying nobody read her policies, but I'll bet the majority didn't (not least because the majority of Americans didn't even vote). And if millenials 'did their homework' and came up with the conclusion that Donald Trump was a better choice than Hilary, they're imbeciles, so I don't know what you're putting a smiley on the end of your sentence for. At that time, the premise wasn't that socialists should vote for the democrat in any general presidential election. The premise seemed to be that socialists choosing not to vote or voting for a third party was not preferable to defeating Trump at all costs. The discussion may have morphed, but I think the original premise was reasonable.
Couldn't one argue that if someone came to the conclusion that Hillary was a better choice than Jill Stein, they too are an imbecile. Sorry, but I have a hard time accepting that premise. I could just as easily then claim that Hillary supporters are to blame for Trump because of the primary shenanigans. Unless you want to say that socialists and progressives are expected to stay disenfranchised and vote blue no matter who?
|
United States24701 Posts
The opportunity to save yourself from having to choose between voting for Clinton to defeat Rubio and voting outside the two nominated contenders was in the primary, as others have said. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of problems with the way primaries are run, and we've discussed to death the problems with the two party system... but not voting because your preferred candidate didn't win the primary doesn't justify allowing a much worse candidate than Hillary to win (presuming Hillary was significant better than Trump which I do believe, especially considering where we are today).
edit: note that I don't generally give people a hard time for voting third party in that situation even though I personally wouldn't do it
|
On July 22 2018 01:31 micronesia wrote:
The opportunity to save yourself from having to choose between voting for Clinton to defeat Rubio and voting outside the two nominated contenders was in the primary, as others have said. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of problems with the way primaries are run, and we've discussed to death the problems with the two party system... but not voting because your preferred candidate didn't win the primary doesn't justify allowing a much worse candidate than Hillary to win (presuming Hillary was significant better than Trump which I do believe, especially considering where we are today).
Yeah but under the logic presented by Gors it's also a strategical mistake to vote left in the primary, because then if you win you have reduced the number of people who will be forced to see the left as the lesser of two evils and you offer a bigger audience to the right. The only way in which voting left in the primary is correct is if we dismiss the logic altogether (which we should, cause it's terrible).
|
On July 22 2018 01:31 micronesia wrote:
The opportunity to save yourself from having to choose between voting for Clinton to defeat Rubio and voting outside the two nominated contenders was in the primary, as others have said. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of problems with the way primaries are run, and we've discussed to death the problems with the two party system... but not voting because your preferred candidate didn't win the primary doesn't justify allowing a much worse candidate than Hillary to win (presuming Hillary was significant better than Trump which I do believe, especially considering where we are today).
edit: note that I don't generally give people a hard time for voting third party in that situation even though I personally wouldn't do it
Not voting and voting third party are not the same thing. I respect your opinion that you think warmonger Clinton would not be as bad, I just do not agree. Why can't progressives try to build a third party instead of being forced to choose a Blue Dog or moderate?
|
On July 22 2018 01:27 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2018 01:22 micronesia wrote:I think the disagreement started here: On July 21 2018 19:37 iamthedave wrote:On July 21 2018 17:51 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 17:32 iamthedave wrote:
Most people don't educate themselves well enough on the candidates (See: all the USA voters who still think Hilary Clinton didn't have a full platform because nobody could be bothered to check the website she constantly said existed)
I don't know anyone who didn't think she had a platform, it's that none of us liked it- or how watered down she made Bernie's platform that he fought for. She blamed millennials for "not doing their homework", unfortunately for her, they did. To this day I hear people claim that Hilary didn't have a policy on [INSERT ISSUE HERE]. I'm not saying nobody read her policies, but I'll bet the majority didn't (not least because the majority of Americans didn't even vote). And if millenials 'did their homework' and came up with the conclusion that Donald Trump was a better choice than Hilary, they're imbeciles, so I don't know what you're putting a smiley on the end of your sentence for. At that time, the premise wasn't that socialists should vote for the democrat in any general presidential election. The premise seemed to be that socialists choosing not to vote or voting for a third party was not preferable to defeating Trump at all costs. The discussion may have morphed, but I think the original premise was reasonable. Couldn't one argue that if someone came to the conclusion that Hillary was a better choice than Jill Stein, they too are an imbecile. Sorry, but I have a hard time accepting that premise. I could just as easily then claim that Hillary supporters are to blame for Trump because of the primary shenanigans. Unless you want to say that socialists and progressives are expected to stay disenfranchised and vote blue no matter who?
Jill Stein is right up there with voting for Ross Perot. The woman is an idiot out for her own self glorification. Her party is worthless and couldn’t get elected as an alderman in her home town. Clinton isn’t great, but at least she was able to get elected as a senator, which is more than Jill can claim.
|
United States24701 Posts
On July 22 2018 01:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2018 01:31 micronesia wrote:
The opportunity to save yourself from having to choose between voting for Clinton to defeat Rubio and voting outside the two nominated contenders was in the primary, as others have said. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of problems with the way primaries are run, and we've discussed to death the problems with the two party system... but not voting because your preferred candidate didn't win the primary doesn't justify allowing a much worse candidate than Hillary to win (presuming Hillary was significant better than Trump which I do believe, especially considering where we are today). Yeah but under the logic presented by Gors it's also a strategical mistake to vote left in the primary, because then if you win you have reduced the number of people who will be forced to see the left as the lesser of two evils and you offer a bigger audience to the right. The only way in which voting left in the primary is correct is if we dismiss the logic altogether (which we should, cause it's terrible).
If his logic is correct, then your problem is you are horribly outnumbered at that point and are unlikely to get a president who supports your values. At that point, the strategy you use won't affect whether or not you get a socialist president but will instead affect whether you get a Clinton or a Trump. It seems similar to me to how in some competitions you reach a point where you cannot win but you can have an effect on some of the other contenders that you can prevent from winning.
Of course, the solution there is to convert more people who vote to your cause. The problem is most of the ultra-left people I talk to drive me further right.
|
On July 22 2018 01:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2018 01:27 screamingpalm wrote:On July 22 2018 01:22 micronesia wrote:I think the disagreement started here: On July 21 2018 19:37 iamthedave wrote:On July 21 2018 17:51 screamingpalm wrote:On July 21 2018 17:32 iamthedave wrote:
Most people don't educate themselves well enough on the candidates (See: all the USA voters who still think Hilary Clinton didn't have a full platform because nobody could be bothered to check the website she constantly said existed)
I don't know anyone who didn't think she had a platform, it's that none of us liked it- or how watered down she made Bernie's platform that he fought for. She blamed millennials for "not doing their homework", unfortunately for her, they did. To this day I hear people claim that Hilary didn't have a policy on [INSERT ISSUE HERE]. I'm not saying nobody read her policies, but I'll bet the majority didn't (not least because the majority of Americans didn't even vote). And if millenials 'did their homework' and came up with the conclusion that Donald Trump was a better choice than Hilary, they're imbeciles, so I don't know what you're putting a smiley on the end of your sentence for. At that time, the premise wasn't that socialists should vote for the democrat in any general presidential election. The premise seemed to be that socialists choosing not to vote or voting for a third party was not preferable to defeating Trump at all costs. The discussion may have morphed, but I think the original premise was reasonable. Couldn't one argue that if someone came to the conclusion that Hillary was a better choice than Jill Stein, they too are an imbecile. Sorry, but I have a hard time accepting that premise. I could just as easily then claim that Hillary supporters are to blame for Trump because of the primary shenanigans. Unless you want to say that socialists and progressives are expected to stay disenfranchised and vote blue no matter who? Jill Stein is right up there with voting for Ross Perot. The woman is an idiot out for her own self glorification. Her party is worthless and couldn’t get elected as an alderman in her home town. Clinton isn’t great, but at least she was able to get elected as a senator, which is more than Jill can claim.
Well, I disagree with her on many things (especially economics), but no more so than Clinton. A Green New Deal is certainly a better platform than Hillary had, even if she didn't understand how to pay for it. A choice between Clinton and building the Greens? That's a no-brainer. 
|
On July 22 2018 01:38 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2018 01:33 Nebuchad wrote:On July 22 2018 01:31 micronesia wrote:
The opportunity to save yourself from having to choose between voting for Clinton to defeat Rubio and voting outside the two nominated contenders was in the primary, as others have said. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of problems with the way primaries are run, and we've discussed to death the problems with the two party system... but not voting because your preferred candidate didn't win the primary doesn't justify allowing a much worse candidate than Hillary to win (presuming Hillary was significant better than Trump which I do believe, especially considering where we are today). Yeah but under the logic presented by Gors it's also a strategical mistake to vote left in the primary, because then if you win you have reduced the number of people who will be forced to see the left as the lesser of two evils and you offer a bigger audience to the right. The only way in which voting left in the primary is correct is if we dismiss the logic altogether (which we should, cause it's terrible). If his logic is correct, then your problem is you are horribly outnumbered at that point and are unlikely to get a president who supports your values. At that point, the strategy you use won't affect whether or not you get a socialist president but will instead affect whether you get a Clinton or a Trump. It seems similar to me to how in some competitions you reach a point where you cannot win but you can have an effect on some of the other contenders that you can prevent from winning. Of course, the solution there is to convert more people who vote to your cause. The problem is most of the ultra-left people I talk to drive me further right.
And there goes the rightwing built-in advantage: you can't get the president you want because you are outnumbered, but if you try and get more people on your side, it's bad strategy because it helps the conservatives. There is literally nothing that we can do, unless we fight back against the premise.
Most of the polls I've seen from the american people don't lead me to believe we're outnumbered, I think our policies would be generally quite popular if they weren't burdened by rightwing talking points. Which, granted, they are. And that's what I would be focusing on if I was american, but I've seen american leftwingers do that already, so that's a good thing.
|
United States24701 Posts
On July 22 2018 01:34 screamingpalm wrote:
I respect your opinion that you think warmonger Clinton would not be as bad, I just do not agree. I'm surprised people still genuinely feel this way, aside from die-hard trump supporters. What would Trump have to do before you are like, "hm, maybe Clinton would have been better"?
Why can't progressives try to build a third party instead of being forced to choose a Blue Dog or moderate?
You can, but unless you have enough influence such that you are able to get your preferred candidate to the general election, you won't have enough influence to change the system in order to make a third party relevant. As I acknowledged this is a big problem.
edit: Nebuchad: "but if you try and get more people on your side, it's bad strategy" I did not say that
|
On July 22 2018 01:44 micronesia wrote:
edit: Nebuchad: "but if you try and get more people on your side, it's bad strategy" I did not say that
You didn't, but that's an implicit consequence of the model that Gors is presenting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
