I would just need it explained to me how voting that way is going to make anything the least little bit better.Explain how voting for the democrats is going to make anything better, given their recent performance? The HCR bill is nice, but now that that's done what value is there in voting for democrats? They certainly aren't going to do anything on global warming or immigration or anything else. The only thing that seems to be coming down the pipeline is the "bipartisan" "deficit commission" that's probably going to seek to get rid of social security and medicare and not raise taxes at all. Why would any liberal voter vote for that?
Sure, and I agree, but I think it's reasonable to say something along the lines of:That's not the argument. the argument is "You say you want X. I also want X and if you don't stop doing Y you're an asshole who's destroying the country!!!!" Or whatever. It's tedious.
"You profess to desire X. Your action Y make X less, not more, likely. Therefore, you should stop doing Y."
Democractic Candidate for National Office: If you don't vote for me, those Republican Thugs will Overturn Roe v. Wade! They will make Gay Lifestyles illegal! They will install wiretaps in every cell phone!It gets really tiring, y'know? The bottom of the pyramid will never have as many resources as the top of the pyramid. No one will fight for us but ourselves.
Left-wing populous: We are suspicious, but also scared!
Democratic candidate wins. Democratic officer lets all challenges to abortion rights go unremarked. Democratic officer states that he will not fight for LGBT rights. Democratic officer installs wiretaps in only half the cell phones.
Left-wing populous: WTF dude! Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
Democratic Party: You can't do anything about it because we are the better of two evils!
Here's how voters in the U.S. self identify - most recent polls: 41% Conservative; 20% Liberal; 35% Moderate.The problem with polls like that is that you're asking people not only to rate themselves, but also everyone else. How can you expect people who can only name one or two supreme court justices to be able to accurately judge the views of the rest of the country in relation to their own?
Explain how voting for the democrats is going to make anything better, given their recent performance?Uh, all you did was restate your assumption as a mathematical model. The question was to explain why voting for the democrats would make things better, not simply state that they would by 'one point', as opposed to making things 'ten points' worse.
Sure. Look, I do actually share your frustration, but if voting Democratic makes things, let's say, 1 'point' better, and voting Green means the republican wins and things get 10 'points' worse ... well, I don't like the math, but it is what it is.
But obviously they should not commit actual fraud in their attempt. Find some actual tea partiers and get people to donate to them. It shouldn't be very hard to do and it's completely reasonable. A lot of tea partiers are unhappy with the republican party."Democrats could run fake right-wing candidates as members of the 'tea party'"Why yes, they certainly could.
In the case at hand, we have Republicans pretending to be Greens in order to trick people who want to vote for Greens into voting for Republicans. The Democratic party's sense of entitlement doesn't enter into the picture, does it?Well, in a way it does come down to entitlement. Democrats feel they are entitled to those votes and that they are being stolen by some kind of dirty trick. But in actuality, there is nothing stopping them from running "Tea Party" candidates or other third-party right wingers to even things out. No one is stopping them.
Being the big tent party is not incompetence.No. But a 9.2% unemployment rate when you control the house, senate and whitehouse certainly is. The problem isn't that they are doing things I don't like. The problem is that they are sucking at running the country.
Is there something I"m being really stupid about? Because my understanding is that if in Florida those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore instead Gore would have won.The same is true of Pat Buccanan, due to a ballot printing error. The margins were so close that there are hundreds of 'factors' that would have swung the election. The republicans intentionally disenfranchised tens of thousands of minority voters by falsely claiming they were felons, then not letting them vote.
So much of this goes back to Kant vs. Bentham and deonotological ethics vs. consequentialist ethics.That's is just some ridiculous nonsense. Somewhat related: If you're playing poker and you always make the statistically 'correct' move, you will always lose. It's not an exact parallel but it illustrates the point.
I am a dyed-in-the-wool consequentialist. I simply cannot conceive of calling an action right that will predictably produce a worse result.
Then answer is primaries. But assuming that you do get your liberal candidate. What happens when s/he then proceeds to lose in the general, because s/he's out of step with where the electorate is at, even as they're in sync with your views?Studies show that people are willing to vote for candidates over a wide ideological spectrum. For example, my home state has both Tom Harkin and Chuck Grasseley as senators. Harkin is pretty far to the left for a senator, while Grasseley is pretty far to the right (Basically in the center of the republican party, I would guess)
That was the point of my linking to the 41% Conservative 20% Liberal and 35% Moderate.Do you believe that the majority of African Americans are conservative? On these types of surveys, that's how they show up. These labels have nothing to do with how people actually vote. They're meaningless.
« Older Go Where? Sex, Gender, and Toilets.... | The elegant, understated Cloth... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by waitingtoderail at 2:04 PM on September 2, 2010