|
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 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 17:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 17:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 16:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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:[quote] 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. 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. I just meant that each eligible voter would dichotomously decide whether or not to vote. They either vote, or they don't vote. As negligible as late-primary voting may seem, I personally think it's still a more useful option than someone not voting at all (especially when you consider how millions of people might share the same defeatist attitude of not bothering to vote). If someone asked, "Hey, I'm looking to do some organizing and outreach for my ideal primary candidate. Any ideas?" - and they told you they lived in a late-primary state - I think it would be a great idea to first ask them if they were able to try and make a difference with voters living in early-primary states (I think for 2028, it's South Carolina first, then Nevada and New Hampshire, not the Iowa caucus for once, etc.). The importance of winning the early-primary states could be easily explained. I just worry that if this eager organizer ultimately realizes they'd rather just do outreach in their local community / state, they'd be met with something like "Oh, don't worry about getting involved at all then, since the votes you're courting probably won't matter at all". You can think its "more useful than not voting at all", but you're also acknowledging that it functionally isn't for nominating the MPVC in 2028, which was the point. I certainly wouldn't support the strawman of "Oh, don't worry about getting involved at all then, since the votes you're courting probably won't matter at all". I am however saying that organizing around voting in a late primary for a candidate that is likely to have withdrawn after there is already a presumptive (centrist/establishment favored) nominee (which is traditionally the indisputable reality for millions of voters) is just an objectively/historically futile strategy for nominating the MPVC in 2028. So you wouldn't say that late-primary state votes "probably won't matter", but you would say that voting in a late-primary state is "futile" and "performative" and "irrelevant self-soothing"? Because you did say those. I think we might be splitting hairs here. We agree that early-primary states are the most impactful, and we seem to disagree on whether or not voting in a late-primary state is worth it (or just how "worth it" it is). If that's indeed our disagreement, then I'm happy to agree to disagree. You're being silly and I think it is on purpose. If anything, you're attempting to split hairs to avoid my point. Math, history, and I would say they"probably won't matter" and you knew/know that. You also knew/know I was objecting to your strawman addition of "don't worry about getting involved at all then". That is irrefutably not what I have been saying about posters here using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their ostensible progressive convictions by choosing the MPVC 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. Mierin's right about ostensible progressives inability and outright refusal to do this rudimentary political necessity (this is common for performative online progressivism) being emblematic of a major part of why they struggle so much.
I hate it when conversations devolve into semantics arguments, because with this elaboration of yours, now I think you misinterpreted the statement that you called a strawman lol. I think the reason you called my statement a strawman is because you didn't realize that I was limiting the scope to late-primary states (ones that you/"math"/"history" have already written off), even though I specifically wrote about those + Show Spoiler +" If someone asked, "Hey, I'm looking to do some organizing and outreach for my ideal primary candidate. Any ideas?" - and they told you they lived in a late-primary state - I think it would be a great idea to first ask them if they were able to try and make a difference with voters living in early-primary states (I think for 2028, it's South Carolina first, then Nevada and New Hampshire, not the Iowa caucus for once, etc.). The importance of winning the early-primary states could be easily explained. I just worry that if this eager organizer ultimately realizes they'd rather just do outreach in their local community / state, they'd be met with something like "Oh, don't worry about getting involved at all then, since the votes you're courting probably won't matter at all". "
Based on your newest response + Show Spoiler +" You also knew/know I was objecting to your strawman addition of "don't worry about getting involved at all then". That is irrefutably not what I have been saying about posters here using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their ostensible progressive convictions by choosing the MPVC 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. "
I figured that if your perspective was that voting in late-primary states was probably useless (which is something you've already stated), then you would agree that getting involved at all in voter outreach for those same late-primary states was probably useless too (this is an inference of mine, maybe right or maybe wrong). When your response to that was how you ask people to spend some of their time "to advance their ostensible progressive convictions by choosing the MPVC they can collectively organize around" (which, notably, has nothing to do with my "late-primary states" restriction), it made me think that there's a miscommunication.
Who knows. Maybe I misunderstood your misinterpretation of my strawman of your miscommunication!
I don't like getting bogged down with this nitpicking, so I'll bow out of our chat now. I do appreciate the talk though.
|
|
|
On October 28 2026 01:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2026 23:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 17:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 17:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 16:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2026 09:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 27 2026 09:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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. I just meant that each eligible voter would dichotomously decide whether or not to vote. They either vote, or they don't vote. As negligible as late-primary voting may seem, I personally think it's still a more useful option than someone not voting at all (especially when you consider how millions of people might share the same defeatist attitude of not bothering to vote). If someone asked, "Hey, I'm looking to do some organizing and outreach for my ideal primary candidate. Any ideas?" - and they told you they lived in a late-primary state - I think it would be a great idea to first ask them if they were able to try and make a difference with voters living in early-primary states (I think for 2028, it's South Carolina first, then Nevada and New Hampshire, not the Iowa caucus for once, etc.). The importance of winning the early-primary states could be easily explained. I just worry that if this eager organizer ultimately realizes they'd rather just do outreach in their local community / state, they'd be met with something like "Oh, don't worry about getting involved at all then, since the votes you're courting probably won't matter at all". You can think its "more useful than not voting at all", but you're also acknowledging that it functionally isn't for nominating the MPVC in 2028, which was the point. I certainly wouldn't support the strawman of "Oh, don't worry about getting involved at all then, since the votes you're courting probably won't matter at all". I am however saying that organizing around voting in a late primary for a candidate that is likely to have withdrawn after there is already a presumptive (centrist/establishment favored) nominee (which is traditionally the indisputable reality for millions of voters) is just an objectively/historically futile strategy for nominating the MPVC in 2028. So you wouldn't say that late-primary state votes "probably won't matter", but you would say that voting in a late-primary state is "futile" and "performative" and "irrelevant self-soothing"? Because you did say those. I think we might be splitting hairs here. We agree that early-primary states are the most impactful, and we seem to disagree on whether or not voting in a late-primary state is worth it (or just how "worth it" it is). If that's indeed our disagreement, then I'm happy to agree to disagree. You're being silly and I think it is on purpose. If anything, you're attempting to split hairs to avoid my point. Math, history, and I would say they"probably won't matter" and you knew/know that. You also knew/know I was objecting to your strawman addition of "don't worry about getting involved at all then". That is irrefutably not what I have been saying about posters here using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their ostensible progressive convictions by choosing the MPVC 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. Mierin's right about ostensible progressives inability and outright refusal to do this rudimentary political necessity (this is common for performative online progressivism) being emblematic of a major part of why they struggle so much. I hate it when conversations devolve into semantics arguments, + Show Spoiler + because with this elaboration of yours, now I think you misinterpreted the statement that you called a strawman lol. I think the reason you called my statement a strawman is because you didn't realize that I was limiting the scope to late-primary states (ones that you/"math"/"history" have already written off), even though I specifically wrote about those + Show Spoiler +" If someone asked, "Hey, I'm looking to do some organizing and outreach for my ideal primary candidate. Any ideas?" - and they told you they lived in a late-primary state - I think it would be a great idea to first ask them if they were able to try and make a difference with voters living in early-primary states (I think for 2028, it's South Carolina first, then Nevada and New Hampshire, not the Iowa caucus for once, etc.). The importance of winning the early-primary states could be easily explained. I just worry that if this eager organizer ultimately realizes they'd rather just do outreach in their local community / state, they'd be met with something like "Oh, don't worry about getting involved at all then, since the votes you're courting probably won't matter at all". " . Based on your newest response + Show Spoiler +" You also knew/know I was objecting to your strawman addition of "don't worry about getting involved at all then". That is irrefutably not what I have been saying about posters here using a fraction of the time they already dedicate to discussing politics on a forum to advance their ostensible progressive convictions by choosing the MPVC 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. " , I think you incorrectly interpreted my "getting involved at all" as extending to early-primary states, since your recommendations to posters have not only extended to early-primary states, but in fact have clearly been focused on early-primary states (for good reasons). My hypothetical, on the other hand, was talking about whether or not we should get involved with late-primary states' voting at all. I figured that if your perspective was that voting in late-primary states was probably useless (which is something you've already stated), then you would agree that getting involved at all in voter outreach for those same late-primary states was probably useless too (this is an inference of mine, maybe right or maybe wrong). When your response to that was how you ask people to spend some of their time "to advance their ostensible progressive convictions by choosing the MPVC they can collectively organize around" (which, notably, has nothing to do with the late-primary state restriction), it made me think that there's a miscommunication afoot. Who knows. Maybe I misunderstood your misinterpretation of my strawman of your miscommunication! I don't like getting bogged down with this nitpicking, so I'll bow out of our chat now. I do appreciate the talk though.
I'm skeptical of that, particularly in this case.
I'm confident there is a fundamental disagreement here (or refusal to recognize reality) around how ostensibly "progressive" posters here are rationalizing refusing to use a fraction of the time they already dedicate to posting about politics here to collectively discuss who they identify as the MPVC they can organize/rally around to help win the primary (which mathematically/historically happens before NJ primary voters get a chance to cast a ballot).
As it sits currently, everyone has refused that and agreed to fall in line behind dyhb's pick of Buttigieg should Harris and Newsom somehow not win early (SC is like Buttigieg kryptonite btw).
It should be pretty obvious how/why that's just a piss poor strategy by any measure for nominating the MPVC, unless you think Harris or Newsom is that.
That said, and even with what sincerely feels like dishonest communication from you at times, I also appreciate this exposition even if we disagree on whether it has been demonstrative of my original point:
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!?!"
|
The midterms are looking so good for Democrats right now that even the U.S. Senate seat in Kansas is a tossup. The Democratic candidate Adam Hamilton had a great reply when asked about trans rights: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/10/red-state-democrat-praised-for-excellent-response-to-trans-rights-question-god-bless-this-man/
Hamilton, who is a pastor, replied that he does not understand all there is to know about trans people but knows we should not “take a small group of people and bully them, pick on them, and hurt them.”
“I look at people, and I understand one thing really clearly when it comes to transgender,” he continued, “and that is Jesus told me I was to love my neighbor as I love myself. So I’m gonna love the trans person as well as the straight person, as well as the male or female.”
“I just think we have to do better than picking on small groups. And what’s happened is we’ve turned a group of people into a campaign issue because it polls well. I just don’t think that’s okay. I think we have to treat people decently and humanely, and that’s what I’d say. I’m governed by what Jesus said was the second great commandment: Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
I really, really hope both him and Talarico win.
|
Me too, would be nice to have some good momentum for a change, based on people campaigning on hope instead of hate and fear.
|
On October 27 2026 00:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Meanwhile, off topic here but we don’t have threads for anywhere but the US, Europe and Canada (which is pretty sad), Bolsonaro junior lost to Lula. I guess the stakes were among the highest for humanity, as he probably would have followed in Jair footsteps and burn (the remaining) half of the Amazon forest.
Junior has reportedly fled to the USA: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/flavio-bolsonaro-leaves-brazil-us-after-election-defeat-source-media-say-2026-10-27/
Good thing we gave ICE a gazillion dollars to keep us safe from illegal immigrants, I'm sure they'll keep us safe lol
|
Wann Shiatsu das Forum wieder ganz macht ist die Frage.
Junior gotta go to hug his friends not yet in jail and there is no country better for that then the US of A. Remember, Nixon resigned, he didn't get removed, he resigned and was allowed to live is his life in dignity. Political crime doesn't get punished in the US, it never was, it never will.
|
On October 28 2026 05:27 Velr wrote:
Wann Shiatsu das Forum wieder ganz macht ist die Frage.
Junior gotta go to hug his friends not yet in jail and there is no country better for that then the US of A. Remember, Nixon resigned, he didn't get removed, he resigned and was allowed to live is his life in dignity. Political crime doesn't get punished in the US, it never was, it never will.
nah, you don't know what you are talking about. State governors have served significant federal prison sentences for corruption. Rod Blagojevich and Edwin Edwards just off the top of my head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
