|
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 October 27 2026 09:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 07:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 07:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 06:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]Well that's an important point of contention. Could you elaborate on why and what alternative you imagine? I just think it's a little cavalier to assert that someone isn't sincere in their support of a candidate if they don't do the maximum amount to get their candidate elected. I think it's impressive when people do that, and obviously those who do more will have a greater impact, but I wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome. Something is better than nothing, and different people might have different comfort levels or amounts of time to put towards a campaign. Edit: I just saw your edit "(I don't consider it a purity test so much as an electoral reality)". I'm not sure what you mean by an "electoral reality" in this case. We weren't talking about someone's support of a candidate being insincere if they don't do the maximum. The "maximum" would be far more than using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their progressive goals by choosing a candidate they can collectively organize around (to the extent they reasonably can in their lives/on the forum) to marginally improve that candidate and their progressive convictions chances of success. A reasonable minimum for having progressive convictions is identifying who that progressive nominee could be and organizing (even if it's just in using a portion of one's TL posting in this case) around them. Otherwise it is basically just "sincere" wishful thinking. I also "wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome." But in the case of people that think that voting in primaries after a nominee is practically decided is better than nothing, I disagree. It's basically exactly what I was describing earlier: If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!" All right, I must have misunderstood when you said "organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric". Thanks for the elaboration. I'd prefer I didn't have to ask this but: How did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? I understand what you consider to be a reasonable minimum amount of effort, what more you think people ought to do, and what you think isn't good enough. That gives me more perspective and context for our future conversations, but I can't say for sure how/if it'll affect how I eventually approach the 2028 election. You do recognize the superficialness/futility (based on the system/order) in structuring ones involvement in Democrats nominating the MPVC around voting in a NJ (or similarly situated) primary then, correct? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that since New Jersey is more blue than the average state, using it as a litmus test for how well the most progressive candidate would perform across all 50 states probably isn't going to lead to accurate, generalizable results? (If that's what you mean, then: I'm aware of that. I'll still obviously be voting in New Jersey, but it could make more sense for any New Jerseyans who want to get involved to think about persuading voters in other states too. If I'm misunderstanding your point, then please clarify.) I'm saying voting in the New Jersey primary is aesthetic/superficial/performative/self-soothing due to how the primary system works (timing for one). So "I'll vote for the MPVC in ___(whatever late primary state)___" doesn't meet any reasonable threshold for being demonstrative of genuine progressive convictions. It's definitionally wishful thinking. Okay. I'm still going to vote anyway 
That's fine. I was just demonstrating that you're saying that because you like how it makes you feel to say/do it, not because it is relevant to actually nominating the MPVC. The intent being that you recognized that as well.
|
On October 27 2026 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 09:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 07:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 07:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 06:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I just think it's a little cavalier to assert that someone isn't sincere in their support of a candidate if they don't do the maximum amount to get their candidate elected. I think it's impressive when people do that, and obviously those who do more will have a greater impact, but I wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome. Something is better than nothing, and different people might have different comfort levels or amounts of time to put towards a campaign.
Edit: I just saw your edit "(I don't consider it a purity test so much as an electoral reality)". I'm not sure what you mean by an "electoral reality" in this case. We weren't talking about someone's support of a candidate being insincere if they don't do the maximum. The "maximum" would be far more than using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their progressive goals by choosing a candidate they can collectively organize around (to the extent they reasonably can in their lives/on the forum) to marginally improve that candidate and their progressive convictions chances of success. A reasonable minimum for having progressive convictions is identifying who that progressive nominee could be and organizing (even if it's just in using a portion of one's TL posting in this case) around them. Otherwise it is basically just "sincere" wishful thinking. I also "wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome." But in the case of people that think that voting in primaries after a nominee is practically decided is better than nothing, I disagree. It's basically exactly what I was describing earlier: If people actually want someone more progressive than Buttigieg to win the nomination (I doubt this is true based on their actions, people just like how mindlessly saying it makes them feel) they have to be able to identify them. Then they have to see something resembling a path to success. Then they have to work toward them winning (this may include pressuring them to run in the first place like happened to Bernie).
What's actually going to happen is people are going to repeatedly fall into oBlade type traps like they're Wile E Coyote until it's time to rationalize why a centrist (right-wing by my/global measure) is actually the only viable choice despite their own personal desires and/or superficial primary votes. I'm demonstrating that this is already set. The "I hope for a progressive" is functionally just empty self soothing rhetoric while they wait for the time to mindlessly spam variations of "vote blue no matter who" and "have you seen the other guy!?!" All right, I must have misunderstood when you said "organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric". Thanks for the elaboration. I'd prefer I didn't have to ask this but: How did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? I understand what you consider to be a reasonable minimum amount of effort, what more you think people ought to do, and what you think isn't good enough. That gives me more perspective and context for our future conversations, but I can't say for sure how/if it'll affect how I eventually approach the 2028 election. You do recognize the superficialness/futility (based on the system/order) in structuring ones involvement in Democrats nominating the MPVC around voting in a NJ (or similarly situated) primary then, correct? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that since New Jersey is more blue than the average state, using it as a litmus test for how well the most progressive candidate would perform across all 50 states probably isn't going to lead to accurate, generalizable results? (If that's what you mean, then: I'm aware of that. I'll still obviously be voting in New Jersey, but it could make more sense for any New Jerseyans who want to get involved to think about persuading voters in other states too. If I'm misunderstanding your point, then please clarify.) I'm saying voting in the New Jersey primary is aesthetic/superficial/performative/self-soothing due to how the primary system works (timing for one). So "I'll vote for the MPVC in ___(whatever late primary state)___" doesn't meet any reasonable threshold for being demonstrative of genuine progressive convictions. It's definitionally wishful thinking. Okay. I'm still going to vote anyway That's fine. I was just demonstrating that you're saying that because you like how it makes you feel to say/do it, not because it is relevant to actually nominating the MPVC. The intent being that you recognized that as well.
As I've said before, I think progressives voting in the Democratic primary is the best chance there is for a progressive to win the nomination. Even if the most progressive candidate ultimately loses, I'd rather have the most progressive candidate lose by a smaller margin than a larger margin, as it can send a message to the next election's progressive candidates that the interest is still there. Furthermore, since New Jersey is pretty progressive compared to the average state, there's a better-than-average chance that the most progressive candidate could at least win New Jersey (and California and New York, etc.). My perspective isn't just going through useless motions to feel good about myself.
|
On October 27 2026 09:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 09:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 07:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 07:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 07:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
We weren't talking about someone's support of a candidate being insincere if they don't do the maximum.
The "maximum" would be far more than using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their progressive goals by choosing a candidate they can collectively organize around (to the extent they reasonably can in their lives/on the forum) to marginally improve that candidate and their progressive convictions chances of success.
A reasonable minimum for having progressive convictions is identifying who that progressive nominee could be and organizing (even if it's just in using a portion of one's TL posting in this case) around them. Otherwise it is basically just "sincere" wishful thinking.
I also "wouldn't say that someone who merely votes for a candidate doesn't truly care about the election's outcome." But in the case of people that think that voting in primaries after a nominee is practically decided is better than nothing, I disagree. It's basically exactly what I was describing earlier:
[quote] All right, I must have misunderstood when you said "organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric". Thanks for the elaboration. I'd prefer I didn't have to ask this but: How did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? I understand what you consider to be a reasonable minimum amount of effort, what more you think people ought to do, and what you think isn't good enough. That gives me more perspective and context for our future conversations, but I can't say for sure how/if it'll affect how I eventually approach the 2028 election. You do recognize the superficialness/futility (based on the system/order) in structuring ones involvement in Democrats nominating the MPVC around voting in a NJ (or similarly situated) primary then, correct? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that since New Jersey is more blue than the average state, using it as a litmus test for how well the most progressive candidate would perform across all 50 states probably isn't going to lead to accurate, generalizable results? (If that's what you mean, then: I'm aware of that. I'll still obviously be voting in New Jersey, but it could make more sense for any New Jerseyans who want to get involved to think about persuading voters in other states too. If I'm misunderstanding your point, then please clarify.) I'm saying voting in the New Jersey primary is aesthetic/superficial/performative/self-soothing due to how the primary system works (timing for one). So "I'll vote for the MPVC in ___(whatever late primary state)___" doesn't meet any reasonable threshold for being demonstrative of genuine progressive convictions. It's definitionally wishful thinking. Okay. I'm still going to vote anyway That's fine. I was just demonstrating that you're saying that because you like how it makes you feel to say/do it, not because it is relevant to actually nominating the MPVC. The intent being that you recognized that as well. As I've said before, I think progressives voting in the Democratic primary is the best chance there is for a progressive to win the nomination. + Show Spoiler +Even if the most progressive candidate ultimately loses, I'd rather have the most progressive candidate lose by a smaller margin than a larger margin, as it can send a message to the next election's progressive candidates that the interest is still there. Furthermore, since New Jersey is pretty progressive compared to the average state, there's a better-than-average chance that the most progressive candidate could at least win New Jersey (and California and New York, etc.). My perspective isn't just going through useless motions to feel good about myself. Yeah, voting for (and more generally applicable to any progressive here, organizing/being organized in the interest of) the MPVC in the primary in the early states is crucial.
Voting for the MPVC in late state primaries (provided they haven't already formally withdrawn as is typical) like in NJ is statistically irrelevant self-soothing. It's absolutely critical people recognize and understand the implications of that in a way you seem intent on avoiding confronting.
|
On October 27 2026 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 09:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 09:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 07:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 07:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
All right, I must have misunderstood when you said "organizing to give them the best possible chance they can get at winning the nomination is indispensable to anyone having genuine conviction of their election based progressive rhetoric". Thanks for the elaboration. I'd prefer I didn't have to ask this but: How did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? I understand what you consider to be a reasonable minimum amount of effort, what more you think people ought to do, and what you think isn't good enough. That gives me more perspective and context for our future conversations, but I can't say for sure how/if it'll affect how I eventually approach the 2028 election. You do recognize the superficialness/futility (based on the system/order) in structuring ones involvement in Democrats nominating the MPVC around voting in a NJ (or similarly situated) primary then, correct? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that since New Jersey is more blue than the average state, using it as a litmus test for how well the most progressive candidate would perform across all 50 states probably isn't going to lead to accurate, generalizable results? (If that's what you mean, then: I'm aware of that. I'll still obviously be voting in New Jersey, but it could make more sense for any New Jerseyans who want to get involved to think about persuading voters in other states too. If I'm misunderstanding your point, then please clarify.) I'm saying voting in the New Jersey primary is aesthetic/superficial/performative/self-soothing due to how the primary system works (timing for one). So "I'll vote for the MPVC in ___(whatever late primary state)___" doesn't meet any reasonable threshold for being demonstrative of genuine progressive convictions. It's definitionally wishful thinking. Okay. I'm still going to vote anyway That's fine. I was just demonstrating that you're saying that because you like how it makes you feel to say/do it, not because it is relevant to actually nominating the MPVC. The intent being that you recognized that as well. As I've said before, I think progressives voting in the Democratic primary is the best chance there is for a progressive to win the nomination. + Show Spoiler +Even if the most progressive candidate ultimately loses, I'd rather have the most progressive candidate lose by a smaller margin than a larger margin, as it can send a message to the next election's progressive candidates that the interest is still there. Furthermore, since New Jersey is pretty progressive compared to the average state, there's a better-than-average chance that the most progressive candidate could at least win New Jersey (and California and New York, etc.). My perspective isn't just going through useless motions to feel good about myself. Yeah, voting for (and more generally applicable to any progressive here, organizing/being organized in the interest of) the MPVC in the primary in the early states is crucial. Voting for the MPVC in late state primaries (provided they haven't already formally withdrawn as is typical) like in NJ is statistically irrelevant self-soothing. It's absolutely critical people recognize and understand the implications of that in a way you seem intent on avoiding confronting.
I think the early state primaries are the most important for a current presidential election (and I wish all states had their primaries on the same day), but I still think all state primaries can have an impact on future elections (for the reasons I just stated in my last post). I can totally see why, from your perspective, you think my vote is useless and that I'm just doing it to feel good about myself, but that's not how I see it, and I think the only other option - not voting in the primary - is even less useful.
I need to call it a night now; I appreciate the dialogue!
|
On October 27 2026 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 09:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 09:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 08:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 08:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 08:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 07:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'd prefer I didn't have to ask this but: How did that move your understanding forward and toward what impetus? I understand what you consider to be a reasonable minimum amount of effort, what more you think people ought to do, and what you think isn't good enough. That gives me more perspective and context for our future conversations, but I can't say for sure how/if it'll affect how I eventually approach the 2028 election. You do recognize the superficialness/futility (based on the system/order) in structuring ones involvement in Democrats nominating the MPVC around voting in a NJ (or similarly situated) primary then, correct? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that since New Jersey is more blue than the average state, using it as a litmus test for how well the most progressive candidate would perform across all 50 states probably isn't going to lead to accurate, generalizable results? (If that's what you mean, then: I'm aware of that. I'll still obviously be voting in New Jersey, but it could make more sense for any New Jerseyans who want to get involved to think about persuading voters in other states too. If I'm misunderstanding your point, then please clarify.) I'm saying voting in the New Jersey primary is aesthetic/superficial/performative/self-soothing due to how the primary system works (timing for one). So "I'll vote for the MPVC in ___(whatever late primary state)___" doesn't meet any reasonable threshold for being demonstrative of genuine progressive convictions. It's definitionally wishful thinking. Okay. I'm still going to vote anyway That's fine. I was just demonstrating that you're saying that because you like how it makes you feel to say/do it, not because it is relevant to actually nominating the MPVC. The intent being that you recognized that as well. As I've said before, I think progressives voting in the Democratic primary is the best chance there is for a progressive to win the nomination. + Show Spoiler +Even if the most progressive candidate ultimately loses, I'd rather have the most progressive candidate lose by a smaller margin than a larger margin, as it can send a message to the next election's progressive candidates that the interest is still there. Furthermore, since New Jersey is pretty progressive compared to the average state, there's a better-than-average chance that the most progressive candidate could at least win New Jersey (and California and New York, etc.). My perspective isn't just going through useless motions to feel good about myself. Yeah, voting for (and more generally applicable to any progressive here, organizing/being organized in the interest of) the MPVC in the primary in the early states is crucial. Voting for the MPVC in late state primaries (provided they haven't already formally withdrawn as is typical) like in NJ is statistically irrelevant self-soothing. It's absolutely critical people recognize and understand the implications of that in a way you seem intent on avoiding confronting. I think the early state primaries are the most important for a current presidential election (and I wish all states had their primaries on the same day), but I still think all state primaries can have an impact on future elections (for the reasons I just stated in my last post). I can totally see why, from your perspective, you think my vote is useless and that I'm just doing it to feel good about myself, but that's not how I see it, and I think the only other option - not voting in the primary - is even less useful. I need to call it a night now; I appreciate the dialogue!
"can have an impact" is so vague its validity is benign to my point. More importantly, you're conceding its futility toward nomininating the MPVC in 2028, which is the boundary condition.
"The only other option" isn't "not voting" and I know you know that.
|
This has been an incredible exchange to read. if you're wondering why democrats are having a hard time in the US, this is exhibit A.
|
On October 27 2026 12:05 mierin wrote:
This has been an incredible exchange to read. if you're wondering why democrats are having a hard time in the US, this is exhibit A.
I wouldn't read too much into it, the tankie accelerationist demographic is overrepresented on the internet about a thousandfold compared to real life. The average voter Democrats are trying to reach are the people who literally don't watch the news and only care about gas prices.
|
On October 27 2026 12:05 mierin wrote:
This has been an incredible exchange to read. if you're wondering why democrats are having a hard time in the US, this is exhibit A.
You have a new preference for 2028 or is it still Gretchen Whitmer? EDIT: I guess I should ask if the current "consensus" MPVC, Buttigieg, would be someone you would support in the primary?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
