|
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 June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives)
|
On June 05 2026 02:45 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2026 02:15 LightSpectra wrote:
"Right-wing capitalists were caught running and covering up an underage sex trafficking ring" is a scandal that any socialist since the birth of the ideology would salivate over, its rhetorical value is beyond anyone's wildest hopes in dreams in terms of discrediting capitalism. So our resident totally-left-wing-no-really-I-mean-it wants us to stop talking about it. Makes sense. Most socialist would just say "capitalists were caught running and covering up an underage sex trafficking ring again." They may add "Basically none of the actually powerful people involved will truly be held accountable regardless of which faction of the capitalist uniparty takes power". They may continue: "I can begin to demonstrate this by pointing out no one that plans on voting Democrat believes they will use that power to hold the massive criminal enterprise that is the Trump administration to even a superficial level of accountability. I doubt they could even commit to making promising they'll do it a requirement of people they'll support." That the people that I believe sincerely want Trump and his cronies to be held accountable for their rampant corruption and misdeeds can already say with confidence that even a promise for such accountability isn't a requirement (even if they would ultimately back down and vote/support blue no matter who) is at the core of why the US is on a self-destructive path to chaos. Cool, back to "both parties are the same and switching between them changes nothing". + Show Spoiler + I would almost respect that as a position if you were consistent about that, instead of flip-flopping between this and "I am advocate of non-reformist reforms and those involve elections, like primarying Democrats". The reason the "mock and gawk" spam is such a joke is partially because you pick one of those mutually contradictory positions and run with it until pressed too closely or you get bored, then you switch to the other one.
You replacing what I say with something you hallucinated and putting quotes around it seems to significantly contribute to your habitual misunderstanding of my posting.
They aren't the same and things do change. What won't significantly change (without the organized efforts I mentioned), and what you didn't dispute, is what I actually said.
Most socialist would just say "capitalists were caught running and covering up an underage sex trafficking ring again."
"Basically none of the actually powerful people involved will truly be held accountable regardless of which faction of the capitalist uniparty takes power".
They may continue:
"I can begin to demonstrate this by pointing out no one that plans on voting Democrat believes they will use that power to hold the massive criminal enterprise that is the Trump administration to even a superficial level of accountability. I doubt they could even commit to making promising they'll do it a requirement of people they'll support."
That the people that I believe sincerely want Trump and his cronies to be held accountable for their rampant corruption and misdeeds can already say with confidence that even a promise for such accountability isn't a requirement (even if they would ultimately back down and vote/support blue no matter who) is at the core of why the US is on a self-destructive path to chaos.
|
On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives)
There are not many left because the Republicans have gotten so bonkers with the right wing Christian nationalist populism it is hard to out crazy them. But if the Republicans returned to the John McCain types then there would be a bunch of policy that could cause people to switch.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives)
Well they’re not conservative, so why would they?
This was kind of precisely my point. They’re rather different parties, appealing to quite different people ideologically, at this stage.
The genuine, on-the fence swing voter is getting rarer as polarisation increases.
Both camps of support internally are quite ideologically diverse, the Christian fundamentalist ain’t the socially liberal libertarian. Nor is the fan of socialism particularly similar to the social liberal who maybe wants a slightly fairer tax regime but is generally down with capitalism or whatever
It’s somewhat instructive you rarely hear about the right toning down to win some hypothetical swing voters, because they basically don’t exist. It’s however, frequently proposed as a tactic the left should employ for, some reason
|
On June 05 2026 09:54 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) Well they’re not conservative, so why would they? This was kind of precisely my point. They’re rather different parties, appealing to quite different people ideologically, at this stage. The genuine, on-the fence swing voter is getting rarer as polarisation increases. Both camps of support internally are quite ideologically diverse, the Christian fundamentalist ain’t the socially liberal libertarian. Nor is the fan of socialism particularly similar to the social liberal who maybe wants a slightly fairer tax regime but is generally down with capitalism or whatever It’s somewhat instructive you rarely hear about the right toning down to win some hypothetical swing voters, because they basically don’t exist. It’s however, frequently proposed as a tactic the left should employ for, some reason
Wombat you can not realise thats what you are saying is a myth?
"Well they’re not conservative, so why would they? "
But not voting for progresive when you arent one is bad?
"The genuine, on-the fence swing voter is getting rarer as polarisation increases. "
Its not. I think this is misconception. It is not that fence swing voters getting rarer, it is that parties push policies/ actions which are deterring swing voters for voting for any of the 2.
"Both camps of support internally are quite ideologically diverse, the Christian fundamentalist ain’t the socially liberal libertarian. Nor is the fan of socialism particularly similar to the social liberal who maybe wants a slightly fairer tax regime but is generally down with capitalism or whatever "
Like really? Do you honestly think that gap between Christian fundamentalist and socially liberal libertarian is the same as gap between " fan of socialism" and "social liberal"? You kinda prove Introvert point here. The only reason right is able to put a fight is because it accepted others.
"It’s somewhat instructive you rarely hear about the right toning down to win some hypothetical swing voters, because they basically don’t exist. It’s however, frequently proposed as a tactic the left should employ for, some reason"
Not really, no. What you mean by toning down is accepting left world view. When it comes to, for example abortion right is not unified at all, similarly when it comes to Israel. The reason you dont hear about right toning down is because it doesnt need to. General attitude on the right is " you agree with me on this, and disagree on this? great we can work something out". On the left it is more like " you agree with me on this, and disagree on this? You f...ng NAZI"
|
On June 05 2026 10:35 Razyda wrote:
On the left it is more like " you agree with me on this, and disagree on this? You f...ng NAZI"
Obligatory reminder that even JD Vance called Trump "America's Hitler", some of Trump's military generals and appointees have (accurately) called him fascist and authoritarian, and that American Neo-Nazis would absolutely support Trump and be a small subset of conservatives (not liberals).
Not all Republicans are Nazis, of course, and I don't recall someone on the left calling someone else "a fucking Nazi" for merely disagreeing on a topic, unless maybe that topic included intense anti-Semitism from the other person? Or Nazi salutes? Or something else related to Nazis?
|
On June 05 2026 09:54 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) Well they’re not conservative, so why would they? This was kind of precisely my point. They’re rather different parties, appealing to quite different people ideologically, at this stage. The genuine, on-the fence swing voter is getting rarer as polarisation increases. Both camps of support internally are quite ideologically diverse, the Christian fundamentalist ain’t the socially liberal libertarian. Nor is the fan of socialism particularly similar to the social liberal who maybe wants a slightly fairer tax regime but is generally down with capitalism or whatever It’s somewhat instructive you rarely hear about the right toning down to win some hypothetical swing voters, because they basically don’t exist. It’s however, frequently proposed as a tactic the left should employ for, some reason
The Republican party does run towards the center, esp in the Trump years. A majority of voters want(ed) deportations, "no men in women's sports" and no reforms to Social Security or Medicare. Much of Trump's victory was not only saying "Biden sucked" but it was pointing back to Kamala's *own words* as a politician from deep blue California. Trump was seen (accurately) as the more moderate candidate. The GOP caucus in the Senate has far more dissenters with 54 senators than Dems do when they have 54. The House GOP and Senate as so divided among themselves they can barely pass legislation. There are Republican House members in places like NY that in the middle on abortion. Meanwhile John Fetterman votes for the Dem way something like 95+ percent of the time and he's about to be ejected the next time he's up. You can always get a significant number of Republicans to support amnesty. There's just no arguing that elected GOP representatives are more ideologically diverse than Democrats. Seth Moulton in MA wanted to run for Senate but he said something like "I wouldn't want my daughter to race against a biological male" and the party had a fit, staffers quit, and I think he had to backtrack. When you ask any Democrat what limits there should be on abortion they can't even answer.
And persuasion just obviously matters. Do you think the change in the voting patterns of the white working class or Hispanics in the last few elections is just because Dems didn't want to turn out? Against Donald Trump? Does this seem at all plausible to you?
|
On June 05 2026 09:35 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) There are not many left because the Republicans have gotten so bonkers with the right wing Christian nationalist populism it is hard to out crazy them. But if the Republicans returned to the John McCain types then there would be a bunch of policy that could cause people to switch.
History showed great electoral success in terms of people switching to vote for the amnesty-for-illegals John McCain type Republicans.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1354 Posts
On June 04 2026 15:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
You guys have so much patience it’s kind of unbelievable.
err.. yeah,.. Of course! It's totally patience, not just a case of: https://xkcd.com/386/
Nosiree! we are all smart mature people with the patience of a saint. Noone could possibly suggest it's because we can't help ourselves, why would you even bring that up??!?
|
I personally engage when I want to read about new perspectives. My motivation is more about information-gathering, which is why I always ask for sources. In that sense, I have learned a lot over the years which is why I still engage with this almost 20 years on.
|
On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives)
Currently? Probably compulsory baby-eating.
But the reason for that is that US republicans are just so far gone from sanity that it is really hard to justify voting for them. Basically, you are asking me "how bad would the other guy have to be for me to vote for insane amoral fascists."
And i guess i can imagine some positions that would make me do that, but they seem unlikely. If the democrats chose to run MechaSatan with a policy proposal of bringing back leaded fuel, then building a huge tire fire in the center of every city and throwing all of the babies in there and then starting a nuclear war afterwards, i'd probably vote republican.
I know that you want to make this a "see, the other side feels the same" argument, but only one party in the US is like this. You have a party of pretty boring baseline conservatives, and a party of fucking insane fascists. I don't know how you can get the people who vote fore the utterly insane evil fascists to stop doing that because i don't understand how anyone would vote for them to begin with.
|
On June 05 2026 16:57 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) Currently? Probably compulsory baby-eating. But the reason for that is that US republicans are just so far gone from sanity that it is really hard to justify voting for them. Basically, you are asking me "how bad would the other guy have to be for me to vote for insane amoral fascists." And i guess i can imagine some positions that would make me do that, but they seem unlikely. If the democrats chose to run MechaSatan with a policy proposal of bringing back leaded fuel, then building a huge tire fire in the center of every city and throwing all of the babies in there and then starting a nuclear war afterwards, i'd probably vote republican. I know that you want to make this a "see, the other side feels the same" argument, but only one party in the US is like this. You have a party of pretty boring baseline conservatives, and a party of fucking insane fascists. I don't know how you can get the people who vote fore the utterly insane evil fascists to stop doing that because i don't understand how anyone would vote for them to begin with.
No, what I was trying to do, was to explain to Wombat that Democrats wont loose voters if they expand their policy a bit. Funnily enough your post prove it more, than anything I could say.
|
On June 05 2026 17:24 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 16:57 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) Currently? Probably compulsory baby-eating. But the reason for that is that US republicans are just so far gone from sanity that it is really hard to justify voting for them. Basically, you are asking me "how bad would the other guy have to be for me to vote for insane amoral fascists." And i guess i can imagine some positions that would make me do that, but they seem unlikely. If the democrats chose to run MechaSatan with a policy proposal of bringing back leaded fuel, then building a huge tire fire in the center of every city and throwing all of the babies in there and then starting a nuclear war afterwards, i'd probably vote republican. I know that you want to make this a "see, the other side feels the same" argument, but only one party in the US is like this. You have a party of pretty boring baseline conservatives, and a party of fucking insane fascists. I don't know how you can get the people who vote fore the utterly insane evil fascists to stop doing that because i don't understand how anyone would vote for them to begin with. No, what I was trying to do, was to explain to Wombat that Democrats wont loose voters if they expand their policy a bit. Funnily enough your post prove it more, than anything I could say.
That is potentially true, but there might also be some GH-types around who just won't vote democrat anymore at some point. And the people who don't believe in lesser-evils and feel better about themselves not voting once both parties are too far removed from their position.
Not everyone is a me. In fact, i am not even a US voter, so i might be a really bad barometer for what would happen given certain policy changes.
|
On June 05 2026 17:33 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 17:24 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 16:57 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) Currently? Probably compulsory baby-eating. But the reason for that is that US republicans are just so far gone from sanity that it is really hard to justify voting for them. Basically, you are asking me "how bad would the other guy have to be for me to vote for insane amoral fascists." And i guess i can imagine some positions that would make me do that, but they seem unlikely. If the democrats chose to run MechaSatan with a policy proposal of bringing back leaded fuel, then building a huge tire fire in the center of every city and throwing all of the babies in there and then starting a nuclear war afterwards, i'd probably vote republican. I know that you want to make this a "see, the other side feels the same" argument, but only one party in the US is like this. You have a party of pretty boring baseline conservatives, and a party of fucking insane fascists. I don't know how you can get the people who vote fore the utterly insane evil fascists to stop doing that because i don't understand how anyone would vote for them to begin with. No, what I was trying to do, was to explain to Wombat that Democrats wont loose voters if they expand their policy a bit. Funnily enough your post prove it more, than anything I could say. That is potentially true, but there might also be some GH-types around who just won't vote democrat anymore at some point. And the people who don't believe in lesser-evils and feel better about themselves not voting once both parties are too far removed from their position. Not everyone is a me. In fact, i am not even a US voter, so i might be a really bad barometer for what would happen given certain policy changes.
Thing is GH style voters dont vote democrats, and wont vote for them anyways, so democrats mathematically cant loose this voters. While you are not US citizen I think your position reflects situation rather well.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 05 2026 10:35 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 09:54 WombaT wrote:On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) Well they’re not conservative, so why would they? This was kind of precisely my point. They’re rather different parties, appealing to quite different people ideologically, at this stage. The genuine, on-the fence swing voter is getting rarer as polarisation increases. Both camps of support internally are quite ideologically diverse, the Christian fundamentalist ain’t the socially liberal libertarian. Nor is the fan of socialism particularly similar to the social liberal who maybe wants a slightly fairer tax regime but is generally down with capitalism or whatever It’s somewhat instructive you rarely hear about the right toning down to win some hypothetical swing voters, because they basically don’t exist. It’s however, frequently proposed as a tactic the left should employ for, some reason Wombat you can not realise thats what you are saying is a myth? "Well they’re not conservative, so why would they? " But not voting for progresive when you arent one is bad? "The genuine, on-the fence swing voter is getting rarer as polarisation increases. " Its not. I think this is misconception. It is not that fence swing voters getting rarer, it is that parties push policies/ actions which are deterring swing voters for voting for any of the 2. "Both camps of support internally are quite ideologically diverse, the Christian fundamentalist ain’t the socially liberal libertarian. Nor is the fan of socialism particularly similar to the social liberal who maybe wants a slightly fairer tax regime but is generally down with capitalism or whatever " Like really? Do you honestly think that gap between Christian fundamentalist and socially liberal libertarian is the same as gap between " fan of socialism" and "social liberal"? You kinda prove Introvert point here. The only reason right is able to put a fight is because it accepted others. "It’s somewhat instructive you rarely hear about the right toning down to win some hypothetical swing voters, because they basically don’t exist. It’s however, frequently proposed as a tactic the left should employ for, some reason" Not really, no. What you mean by toning down is accepting left world view. When it comes to, for example abortion right is not unified at all, similarly when it comes to Israel. The reason you dont hear about right toning down is because it doesnt need to. General attitude on the right is " you agree with me on this, and disagree on this? great we can work something out". On the left it is more like " you agree with me on this, and disagree on this? You f...ng NAZI"
The left, and by left I am including the centre left thru to the far left can’t be simultaneously an ideological hive mind, but also unable to agree and fight amongst themselves all the time.
Keir Starmer is (basically) doing exactly what people say you should do tonally to appeal to the centre. In the trans domain, especially on immigration, and he’s still getting hammered, and still losing ground to the likes of Reform.
An imperfect example for many other reasons, but I’m throwing out there specifically as a counterpoint to the idea that if you throw a few bones and dilute things, that you’ll grab all these supposed swing voters.
|
On June 05 2026 20:25 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 10:35 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 09:54 WombaT wrote:On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) Well they’re not conservative, so why would they? This was kind of precisely my point. They’re rather different parties, appealing to quite different people ideologically, at this stage. The genuine, on-the fence swing voter is getting rarer as polarisation increases. Both camps of support internally are quite ideologically diverse, the Christian fundamentalist ain’t the socially liberal libertarian. Nor is the fan of socialism particularly similar to the social liberal who maybe wants a slightly fairer tax regime but is generally down with capitalism or whatever It’s somewhat instructive you rarely hear about the right toning down to win some hypothetical swing voters, because they basically don’t exist. It’s however, frequently proposed as a tactic the left should employ for, some reason Wombat you can not realise thats what you are saying is a myth? "Well they’re not conservative, so why would they? " But not voting for progresive when you arent one is bad? "The genuine, on-the fence swing voter is getting rarer as polarisation increases. " Its not. I think this is misconception. It is not that fence swing voters getting rarer, it is that parties push policies/ actions which are deterring swing voters for voting for any of the 2. "Both camps of support internally are quite ideologically diverse, the Christian fundamentalist ain’t the socially liberal libertarian. Nor is the fan of socialism particularly similar to the social liberal who maybe wants a slightly fairer tax regime but is generally down with capitalism or whatever " Like really? Do you honestly think that gap between Christian fundamentalist and socially liberal libertarian is the same as gap between " fan of socialism" and "social liberal"? You kinda prove Introvert point here. The only reason right is able to put a fight is because it accepted others. "It’s somewhat instructive you rarely hear about the right toning down to win some hypothetical swing voters, because they basically don’t exist. It’s however, frequently proposed as a tactic the left should employ for, some reason" Not really, no. What you mean by toning down is accepting left world view. When it comes to, for example abortion right is not unified at all, similarly when it comes to Israel. The reason you dont hear about right toning down is because it doesnt need to. General attitude on the right is " you agree with me on this, and disagree on this? great we can work something out". On the left it is more like " you agree with me on this, and disagree on this? You f...ng NAZI" The left, and by left I am including the centre left thru to the far left can’t be simultaneously an ideological hive mind, but also unable to agree and fight amongst themselves all the time. Keir Starmer is (basically) doing exactly what people say you should do tonally to appeal to the centre. In the trans domain, especially on immigration, and he’s still getting hammered, and still losing ground to the likes of Reform. An imperfect example for many other reasons, but I’m throwing out there specifically as a counterpoint to the idea that if you throw a few bones and dilute things, that you’ll grab all these supposed swing voters.
Agree, it cant, thats why it needs to drop hive mind thing and accommodate to more positions.
As you said Starmer is not exactly comparison, especially now for quite few reasons, first and foremost by emergence of additional options, in this case reform and greens, so him loosing support doesnt mean that conservatives win. As for appealing to centre - Trans issue wasnt him it was court, immigration he didnt achieve much (170k net looks nice then you realize that 130k Brits left, rough numbers from memory), then he went with things like OSA which was deeply unpopular, and the answer to petition was basically "FU we can do what we want" this is not kind of attitude which is going to make you popular. He also went for people ISAs. Also I dont think UK is similarly ideologically divided in regards to issues like abortion. It becomes more and more divided, but the lines of divide are different and still being drawn.
|
90%+ of voters are never switching their votes because being for/against abortion, queer rights, etc. is too deeply held a value for them.
Swing voters generally pick based on vibes (name recognition, whatever "scandal" is in the news, if gas prices very recently rose even though that's a relatively small part of their finances, etc.). There's not much use in talking about long term strategies to win over those voters, their minds wander like a goldfish scrolling Facebook.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 05 2026 13:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 09:54 WombaT wrote:On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) Well they’re not conservative, so why would they? This was kind of precisely my point. They’re rather different parties, appealing to quite different people ideologically, at this stage. The genuine, on-the fence swing voter is getting rarer as polarisation increases. Both camps of support internally are quite ideologically diverse, the Christian fundamentalist ain’t the socially liberal libertarian. Nor is the fan of socialism particularly similar to the social liberal who maybe wants a slightly fairer tax regime but is generally down with capitalism or whatever It’s somewhat instructive you rarely hear about the right toning down to win some hypothetical swing voters, because they basically don’t exist. It’s however, frequently proposed as a tactic the left should employ for, some reason The Republican party does run towards the center, esp in the Trump years. A majority of voters want(ed) deportations, "no men in women's sports" and no reforms to Social Security or Medicare. Much of Trump's victory was not only saying "Biden sucked" but it was pointing back to Kamala's *own words* as a politician from deep blue California. Trump was seen (accurately) as the more moderate candidate. The GOP caucus in the Senate has far more dissenters with 54 senators than Dems do when they have 54. The House GOP and Senate as so divided among themselves they can barely pass legislation. There are Republican House members in places like NY that in the middle on abortion. Meanwhile John Fetterman votes for the Dem way something like 95+ percent of the time and he's about to be ejected the next time he's up. You can always get a significant number of Republicans to support amnesty. There's just no arguing that elected GOP representatives are more ideologically diverse than Democrats. Seth Moulton in MA wanted to run for Senate but he said something like "I wouldn't want my daughter to race against a biological male" and the party had a fit, staffers quit, and I think he had to backtrack. When you ask any Democrat what limits there should be on abortion they can't even answer. And persuasion just obviously matters. Do you think the change in the voting patterns of the white working class or Hispanics in the last few elections is just because Dems didn't want to turn out? Against Donald Trump? Does this seem at all plausible to you?
I think much of what you say is correct, albeit I was talking more specifically about the ideas of Dems pivoting even more moderate for the purposes of a Presidential, and to be grabbing these centrists types who are just one bone away from flipping. Which perhaps I wasn’t specifically clear on
Why do you think I’m so consistently critical of folks falling behind Trump so often in lockstep? It’s precisely because there is ideological variance out the wazoo.
Yeah you probably don’t get too many pro-life Dems floating about, fair observation. You also probably don’t have many Reps who want radical gun reform, or the kind of universal healthcare some would like to see.
You raise an interesting point re the changes of Hispanic voting patterns. I’ve heard plenty a theory there, I think one plausible one is many lean conservative and it’s only really a perceived courting from one and hostility from the ‘other lot’ that’s kept that cohort consistently in the blue camp. Take that away and their voting tastes should more accurately reflect their general views.
I imagine we’ll see this process occur with British Muslims, who’ve generally electorally aligned with Britain’s left-leaning parties, even predating the current Israel-Palestine conflict which has intensified it yet further. I imagine that will eventually flip and will be less of a reliable bloc as it fragments into the constituent beliefs of its individual parts.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 05 2026 21:11 LightSpectra wrote:
90%+ of voters are never switching their votes because being for/against abortion, queer rights, etc. is too deeply held a value for them.
Swing voters generally pick based on vibes (name recognition, whatever "scandal" is in the news, if gas prices very recently rose even though that's a relatively small part of their finances, etc.). There's not much use in talking about long term strategies to win over those voters, their minds wander like a goldfish scrolling Facebook.
For want of a better term, I’d refer to a certain cohort ‘circumstantial’ swing voters, and crucially I don’t think you can really win them.
Effectively ‘times were bad for me under x government, next time I’m voting y next time’. That could be poor governance, but equally it could be say, a Pandemic, or a global economic shock.
Party X may have good policies to navigate such things, and party Y may less so, but this type of swing voter’s mind is made up on giving the other lot a shot
|
On June 05 2026 13:32 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2026 09:35 Billyboy wrote:On June 05 2026 08:58 Razyda wrote:On June 05 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:
B) Having a party more open to disagreement? The wider left can’t simultaneously be (rightly) criticised for endless infighting and in-factions, but be not open to disagreement. I’d contend there’s plenty of diversity there too, and it’s not merely theoretical. There is plenty with American conservatism too, even if it’s heavily subsumed by devotion to the Dear Leader.
I think you are mistaken here and Introvert is correct. Look through this forum (left leaning members, except GH) and tell me what exactly policy would Democrats have to adopt for them to not vote blue, knowing that it may cause conservatives to win? ( I wont even mention turn them to vote conservatives) There are not many left because the Republicans have gotten so bonkers with the right wing Christian nationalist populism it is hard to out crazy them. But if the Republicans returned to the John McCain types then there would be a bunch of policy that could cause people to switch. History showed great electoral success in terms of people switching to vote for the amnesty-for-illegals John McCain type Republicans.
Damn oBlade, you totally got it again and obliterated me!
But real talk, after the weekly “Trump never did or said that” and it’s proven that he did, how do you just completely forget or ignore it? You think well before the number of times it happens to you that your perspective might shift a little. Is it that you just consume so much garbage that reality has no place to stick?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
