an interesting adjunct to the various bits of data about trumpy swings
Another one of your unsurprising (but always welcome) graphs imo.
I think they all come back to the same sort of issue swirling around the current system whereby a changing economy has left alot of places to, well, die. And they are not very happy to be left behind by a changing world.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
This is an argument that never ever works. Because it fundamentally misunderstands how 3rd party voters think. They've already rejected the whole "but they will never actually win the election" arguments. That's why they are 3rd party voters in the first place.
They always gripe about the corruption of the two party system and how the 3rd parties will finally smash it and how if everyone just didn't use that silly argument you are using then it wouldn't be true and 3rd parties could win and would be viable. About how X candidate is bad and I won't vote for them because they are bad and practically and who can actually win and pass legislation doesn't matter.
It's because ultimately 3rd party voters are a combination of "fuck the system" and seeing a vote primarily as a statement of personal moral conviction and so voting 3rd party is sending a message or some such.
I think the only way to reach them is to give them a candidate you can convince them represents a moral stand too, or at least is charismatic enough that it seems like one.
I think that makes some sense.
That it is necessary to frame voting for one of the two-party establishment candidates as a moral stand that is courageous.
Because yeah the arguments that do not work in my experience with the particular folks I've spoken to:
A third-party Candidate has not and will never have a chance - "Yeah, not with that attitude." That particular third-party candidate says they will do things you vehemently disagree with - "Right, but since they're third-party they really need to do anything to appeal to the people who will listen to them. I don't blame them". This establishment candidate says they will do things that you vehemently agree with - "Right, but they're lying. Obviously." This other establishment candidate is saying that if they're elected they'll do things you vehemently disagree with - "Right! I'd never vote for them. If only more people would vote third-party we'd never have to deal with that sort of monster." An established candidate cannot call out the issues you think are paramount to the degree you demand without losing voters - "No, I think they'd gain a lot of voters."
I think shifting toward "I too am excited by the chance to vote for this candidate, who's really sticking it to..." is probably a way forward?
I mean people I know who absolutely dislike Clinton tend to really like Liz Warren. Whether that's because Warren has a shorter record and little foreign policy activity or because she seems to visibly take on a lot of folks they dislike or a combination I don't know, but they don't feel dirty or bad voting for her and supporting her.
But like the fact that Warren was 100% invested in Clinton becoming President didn't motivate them at all.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
"The Democratic Party will work tirelessly to implement RCV?"
Edit: the idea being growth of third parties in other offices so that we can have legitimate contention for higher offices. Also because it lets their voice be heard but still allows them to express a preference among the rest.
Implementing IRV would be a good idea, but like abolishing the electoral college, having the federal government in charge of federal elections, having non-partisan redistricting, and having a right to vote, it won't happen since the Republicans can block all that quite easily.
Unlike those things, and perhaps because of the EC, IRV can be implemented state by state. It doesn't need to function at a federal level. Incremental rollout makes it an order of magnitue more feasible.
Not in the states where it would actually matters, it won't.
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
If anything, I think white people who benefit the least from systemic racism are going to be the most difficult to talk to and convince. Whites who have grown up poor in a dead end town with little to no hope for a happy future are going to get pretty damn angry and defensive when you use terms like privilege and being advantaged. Whiteness does not benefit all white people in the same way, and those who have next to nothing and feel like they've been shit on their entire lives are going to resist the notion that they benefit simply by being white pretty fiercely.
Humor can help soften the blow. That's all I got. I generally have the most success talking about these issues when I highlight the absurdity of them.
+2
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
I never once said that we need to stop fighting against racial discrimination, and neither did anybody else.
No but the "approach" means changes in what it means to be a Democrat. Everyone seems to want to push an economic populist message. Do you think such a change comes at no cost?
If people want to change to appeal to rural, low education, whites who voted Trump, do you think there's a non-marginalized place for "identity politics"?
Nobody wants to change to appeal to all of the rural, low education whites that voted Trump. People do want to figure out how you get back the segment of the white working class vote that went for Obama but not for Clinton.
Did Obama marginalize identity politics? Did he throw minorities under the bus? Push an agenda that appealed to working class whites at the expense of the rest of the Democratic coalition?
No, he didn't. So why does it suddenly become necessary to do so now in order to win those voters back? Maybe it doesn't, and people keep setting up these false dichotomies in which Dems can appeal to minorities or some working class whites but not both. Huh.
I don't buy the "we need to sell out minorities" argument, but Obama had the advantage of the worst crisis since the Great Depression behind him. We can't expect to have that again, and trying to claim that we can win them in a boom cycle is as without evidence as the claim that we can't.
How long do you think that boom cycle will last if Republican officials actually follow through on everything they've been talking about since the election? Heck, if they actually go through with even half of what's been thrown around. I said it earlier, given 8 years of Republican leadership we wouldn't have to say much of anything - those working class voters will be more than ready for change again. The real question is whether there will have been enough negative impact on them in 4 years time to sway them, or if it will be minimal enough that they opt to stay the course.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
"The Democratic Party will work tirelessly to implement RCV?"
Edit: the idea being growth of third parties in other offices so that we can have legitimate contention for higher offices. Also because it lets their voice be heard but still allows them to express a preference among the rest.
Implementing IRV would be a good idea, but like abolishing the electoral college, having the federal government in charge of federal elections, having non-partisan redistricting, and having a right to vote, it won't happen since the Republicans can block all that quite easily.
Unlike those things, and perhaps because of the EC, IRV can be implemented state by state. It doesn't need to function at a federal level. Incremental rollout makes it an order of magnitue more feasible.
Not in the states where it would actually matters, it won't.
You don't have to start there. IRV should be a no-brainer to everyone. It increases voter choice, enourages participation, and presents a candidate that everyone is ok with. Texas libertarians seeing this work in CA for the greens are going to want it, and the Democrats will be happy to support it.
I would almost guarantee Trump would not be the nominee under that system. That is still going to resonate with Republicans.
There is also the consideration that any state, in which 51% of the vote went to losers, is home to a potential majority of IRV supporters.
Edit: I cannot seem to decide on an order in which those sentences should appear
ArbitraryDescriptor on
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
I always follow it up with "and that's the way it is until we get away from FPTP so if you want to get third parties elected, come and help me work on electoral reform."
I never once said that we need to stop fighting against racial discrimination, and neither did anybody else.
No but the "approach" means changes in what it means to be a Democrat. Everyone seems to want to push an economic populist message. Do you think such a change comes at no cost?
If people want to change to appeal to rural, low education, whites who voted Trump, do you think there's a non-marginalized place for "identity politics"?
Nobody wants to change to appeal to all of the rural, low education whites that voted Trump. People do want to figure out how you get back the segment of the white working class vote that went for Obama but not for Clinton.
Did Obama marginalize identity politics? Did he throw minorities under the bus? Push an agenda that appealed to working class whites at the expense of the rest of the Democratic coalition?
No, he didn't. So why does it suddenly become necessary to do so now in order to win those voters back? Maybe it doesn't, and people keep setting up these false dichotomies in which Dems can appeal to minorities or some working class whites but not both. Huh.
I don't buy the "we need to sell out minorities" argument, but Obama had the advantage of the worst crisis since the Great Depression behind him. We can't expect to have that again, and trying to claim that we can win them in a boom cycle is as without evidence as the claim that we can't.
How long do you think that boom cycle will last if Republican officials actually follow through on everything they've been talking about since the election? Heck, if they actually go through with even half of what's been thrown around. I said it earlier, given 8 years of Republican leadership we wouldn't have to say much of anything - those working class voters will be more than ready for change again. The real question is whether there will have been enough negative impact on them in 4 years time to sway them, or if it will be minimal enough that they opt to stay the course.
I'm not willing to wait 8 years.
And in the short term, massive reductions in taxes and big infrastructure spending will be good for the economy, even if the latter is completely bungled. We've been arguing for the latter for decades.
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Yeah, here's where I get stuck I guess. People being fucking morons and acting against their own interests even with the necessary information being presented to them is just something I don't know how to deal with.
Basically my anarchist friend that never votes for President (but votes on local politicians and measures) is more savvy about politics and strategic voting than third party voters. It's fucking maddening that somebody who sees all government as inherently evil is willing to make moral compromises for the greater good but a third party voter in Florida can't.
Again, I know a lot of smart, active, awesome people who ardently explained to me why they had no choice but to vote for Jill Stein.
I don't think "it's their fault, they suck, neener". I think they're great. I would like to know what the thing is that I missed out on saying to them that would have convinced them to vote for Clinton.
What's the appeal that the DNC can make to a person who voted Green because they believe Climate Change is an apocalyptic threat?
"The Democratic party have an actual chance of getting elected and will combat climate change" sounds like a pretty good sell
The bolded is hugely insulting to third party voters, whether it is true or not. they hate hearing it. Hell I voted for Clinton and I hate hearing it. People do not like having to pick between only two options, especially when they think both options suck. Insulting their choice isn't a good way to get them to see why they should vote for your person.
I always follow it up with "and that's the way it is until we get away from FPTP so if you want to get third parties elected, come and help me work on electoral reform."
See this is a significantly more helpful argument. But the candidate needs to be saying that too for it to really sink home.
Yeah, here's where I get stuck I guess. People being fucking morons and acting against their own interests even with the necessary information being presented to them is just something I don't know how to deal with.
Basically my anarchist friend that never votes for President (but votes on local politicians and measures) is more savvy about politics and strategic voting than third party voters. It's fucking maddening that somebody who sees all government as inherently evil is willing to make moral compromises for the greater good but a third party voter in Florida can't.
I know a FL Trump voter who made up their mind the day before because "someone said they should [vote for him]". This a grown adult who likes liberal policies.
I never once said that we need to stop fighting against racial discrimination, and neither did anybody else.
No but the "approach" means changes in what it means to be a Democrat. Everyone seems to want to push an economic populist message. Do you think such a change comes at no cost?
If people want to change to appeal to rural, low education, whites who voted Trump, do you think there's a non-marginalized place for "identity politics"?
Nobody wants to change to appeal to all of the rural, low education whites that voted Trump. People do want to figure out how you get back the segment of the white working class vote that went for Obama but not for Clinton.
Did Obama marginalize identity politics? Did he throw minorities under the bus? Push an agenda that appealed to working class whites at the expense of the rest of the Democratic coalition?
No, he didn't. So why does it suddenly become necessary to do so now in order to win those voters back? Maybe it doesn't, and people keep setting up these false dichotomies in which Dems can appeal to minorities or some working class whites but not both. Huh.
I don't buy the "we need to sell out minorities" argument, but Obama had the advantage of the worst crisis since the Great Depression behind him. We can't expect to have that again, and trying to claim that we can win them in a boom cycle is as without evidence as the claim that we can't.
How long do you think that boom cycle will last if Republican officials actually follow through on everything they've been talking about since the election? Heck, if they actually go through with even half of what's been thrown around. I said it earlier, given 8 years of Republican leadership we wouldn't have to say much of anything - those working class voters will be more than ready for change again. The real question is whether there will have been enough negative impact on them in 4 years time to sway them, or if it will be minimal enough that they opt to stay the course.
I'm not willing to wait 8 years.
And in the short term, massive reductions in taxes and big infrastructure spending will be good for the economy, even if the latter is completely bungled. We've been arguing for the latter for decades.
Bond markets are tanking on anticipation of all the fiscal stimulus which raises the question: how do you finance the stimulus? If no one wants your paper, interest rates will go up which will increase cost to service existing debt. Trump is betting on Yellen keeping rates low but who says she will oblige. The way the fed currently works is they throw water on any fire so even if fiscal stimulus is effective, they will counter it and keep growth low.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Yeah, here's where I get stuck I guess. People being fucking morons and acting against their own interests even with the necessary information being presented to them is just something I don't know how to deal with.
Basically my anarchist friend that never votes for President (but votes on local politicians and measures) is more savvy about politics and strategic voting than third party voters. It's fucking maddening that somebody who sees all government as inherently evil is willing to make moral compromises for the greater good but a third party voter in Florida can't.
I know a FL Trump voter who made up their mind the day before because "someone said they should [vote for him]". This a grown adult who likes liberal policies.
They're draining the wrong swamp.
The woman in front of me in line asked me if she should vote for DC statehood.
I never once said that we need to stop fighting against racial discrimination, and neither did anybody else.
No but the "approach" means changes in what it means to be a Democrat. Everyone seems to want to push an economic populist message. Do you think such a change comes at no cost?
If people want to change to appeal to rural, low education, whites who voted Trump, do you think there's a non-marginalized place for "identity politics"?
Nobody wants to change to appeal to all of the rural, low education whites that voted Trump. People do want to figure out how you get back the segment of the white working class vote that went for Obama but not for Clinton.
Did Obama marginalize identity politics? Did he throw minorities under the bus? Push an agenda that appealed to working class whites at the expense of the rest of the Democratic coalition?
No, he didn't. So why does it suddenly become necessary to do so now in order to win those voters back? Maybe it doesn't, and people keep setting up these false dichotomies in which Dems can appeal to minorities or some working class whites but not both. Huh.
I don't buy the "we need to sell out minorities" argument, but Obama had the advantage of the worst crisis since the Great Depression behind him. We can't expect to have that again, and trying to claim that we can win them in a boom cycle is as without evidence as the claim that we can't.
How long do you think that boom cycle will last if Republican officials actually follow through on everything they've been talking about since the election? Heck, if they actually go through with even half of what's been thrown around. I said it earlier, given 8 years of Republican leadership we wouldn't have to say much of anything - those working class voters will be more than ready for change again. The real question is whether there will have been enough negative impact on them in 4 years time to sway them, or if it will be minimal enough that they opt to stay the course.
I'm not willing to wait 8 years.
And in the short term, massive reductions in taxes and big infrastructure spending will be good for the economy, even if the latter is completely bungled. We've been arguing for the latter for decades.
Bond markets are tanking on anticipation of all the fiscal stimulus which raises the question: how do you finance the stimulus? If no one wants your paper, interest rates will go up which will increase cost to service existing debt. Trump is betting on Yellen keeping rates low but who says she will oblige. The way the fed currently works is they throw water on any fire so even if fiscal stimulus is effective, they will counter it and keep growth low.
Fed's going to hike rates soon due to the moderate economic growth. Republicans want high rates, though, despite high rates being bad for stocks and bonds and good pretty much only for banks and people holding lots of liquid assets.
I never once said that we need to stop fighting against racial discrimination, and neither did anybody else.
No but the "approach" means changes in what it means to be a Democrat. Everyone seems to want to push an economic populist message. Do you think such a change comes at no cost?
If people want to change to appeal to rural, low education, whites who voted Trump, do you think there's a non-marginalized place for "identity politics"?
Nobody wants to change to appeal to all of the rural, low education whites that voted Trump. People do want to figure out how you get back the segment of the white working class vote that went for Obama but not for Clinton.
Did Obama marginalize identity politics? Did he throw minorities under the bus? Push an agenda that appealed to working class whites at the expense of the rest of the Democratic coalition?
No, he didn't. So why does it suddenly become necessary to do so now in order to win those voters back? Maybe it doesn't, and people keep setting up these false dichotomies in which Dems can appeal to minorities or some working class whites but not both. Huh.
I don't buy the "we need to sell out minorities" argument, but Obama had the advantage of the worst crisis since the Great Depression behind him. We can't expect to have that again, and trying to claim that we can win them in a boom cycle is as without evidence as the claim that we can't.
How long do you think that boom cycle will last if Republican officials actually follow through on everything they've been talking about since the election? Heck, if they actually go through with even half of what's been thrown around. I said it earlier, given 8 years of Republican leadership we wouldn't have to say much of anything - those working class voters will be more than ready for change again. The real question is whether there will have been enough negative impact on them in 4 years time to sway them, or if it will be minimal enough that they opt to stay the course.
I'm not willing to wait 8 years.
And in the short term, massive reductions in taxes and big infrastructure spending will be good for the economy, even if the latter is completely bungled. We've been arguing for the latter for decades.
Bond markets are tanking on anticipation of all the fiscal stimulus which raises the question: how do you finance the stimulus? If no one wants your paper, interest rates will go up which will increase cost to service existing debt. Trump is betting on Yellen keeping rates low but who says she will oblige. The way the fed currently works is they throw water on any fire so even if fiscal stimulus is effective, they will counter it and keep growth low.
Cost to service new debt will go up. Presumably old debt is still in the old terms and AFAIK treasury coupons, when they exist at all, aren't tied to interest rates though there may be some practicality I'm overlooking.
I highly doubt the Fed will hike rates high enough to collapse the economy on their own. The only reasonable outlook is that things will be roughly the same as they are now, and in that condition people voted for the racist. Hopefully by then enough of them will think of Republicans as the establishment and vote for more change but the incumbency advantage is huge.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
It would be ironic if a Trump supporter said it. Coming from us it is actually a pretty normal approach, no?
And if a Trump supporter said it you could say hey, that'd what political correctness is, maybe you aren't as against it as you thought.
Said it in the other thread, but make sure to call your Senator re: everything, but especially Sessions.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
i wonder how genuinely bannon believes this.. it certainly isnt the version of the plan trump is talking about or the version congress would let anywhere near the world...
i wonder how genuinely bannon believes this.. it certainly isnt the version of the plan trump is talking about or the version congress would let anywhere near the world...
there aren't a lot of negative interest rates though
the 1930s was the rise of fascism so thanks for making the comparison easy
the fuck is ship yards and iron works going to do for us. this isn't an industrializing nation, we don't need those anymore
this guy is just giving fodder for future economic historians now
+7
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
i wonder how genuinely bannon believes this.. it certainly isnt the version of the plan trump is talking about or the version congress would let anywhere near the world...
there aren't a lot of negative interest rates though
the 1930s was the rise of fascism so thanks for making the comparison easy
the fuck is ship yards and iron works going to do for us. this isn't an industrializing nation, we don't need those anymore
this guy is just giving fodder for future economic historians now
hes not getting this anyway
current trump version is 1 trillion of ppps and is ostensibly revenue neutral ie its a huge fucking waste of time and nothing like that bannon version there
unless of course the repubs in congress and senate have a huge spasm and trump changes the plan
Ralph Nader's vote collapsed between 2000 and 2004.
I'm hoping the same thing happens to the other third parties in 2020.
Why? Bush won by a larger margin in 2004.
Way too much time is wasted worrying about third party candidates. Focus on bringing folks in where you can, not chastising people for 'throwing away their vote.' The mistake is looking at Jill Stein voters and pretending they're all misguided Democrats.
i wonder how genuinely bannon believes this.. it certainly isnt the version of the plan trump is talking about or the version congress would let anywhere near the world...
it's the basic wehraboo fantasy routine: we'll solve all our economic problems with industry! And it'll all be conformist and vaguely militaristic, because that's what national pride looks like! And then it'll be openly militaristic, but like, in a good way! And then we kick out all the minorities!
(normally this kind of thing stops somewhere around 'openly militaristic', but yanno, Bannon's the type to go whole hog with it)
there's so many basic economic/historical problems with it that it's barely worth the time to deconstruct properly
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Here's one of the problem's with the question on whether or not to appease white voters right now: Trump's DOJ pick will do everything in his power to prevent minorities from voting, which means that converting the white vote is the only choice we have right now.
And you can't do that if you come across as hostile.
Here's one of the problem's with the question on whether or not to appease white voters right now: Trump's DOJ pick will do everything in his power to prevent minorities from voting, which means that converting the white vote is the only choice we have right now.
And you can't do that if you come across as hostile.
I'm not saying DO be hostile, but if they're going to press this voter ID shit on minorities, and we can't stop it, then we get them IDs. Like, that's the correct solution to that problem.
I'm still not convinced that they want national voter ID.
Half the power of the ID law is that they can constantly change what is acceptable and what isn't at the state level without publicizing it. If everyone needs the same paperwork to vote, someone in NY or Philly can write up an explanation for how to do it in Albequerque or Madison. Confusion is their ally, they don't want us all playing from the same book.
I'm still not convinced that they want national voter ID.
Half the power of the ID law is that they can constantly change what is acceptable and what isn't at the state level without publicizing it. If everyone needs the same paperwork to vote, someone in NY or Philly can write up an explanation for how to do it in Albequerque or Madison. Confusion is their ally, they don't want us all playing from the same book.
No, they definitely don't. What they want is a federal government that eagerly enables the states to do it.
+1
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Posts
Another one of your unsurprising (but always welcome) graphs imo.
I think they all come back to the same sort of issue swirling around the current system whereby a changing economy has left alot of places to, well, die. And they are not very happy to be left behind by a changing world.
I think that makes some sense.
That it is necessary to frame voting for one of the two-party establishment candidates as a moral stand that is courageous.
Because yeah the arguments that do not work in my experience with the particular folks I've spoken to:
A third-party Candidate has not and will never have a chance - "Yeah, not with that attitude."
That particular third-party candidate says they will do things you vehemently disagree with - "Right, but since they're third-party they really need to do anything to appeal to the people who will listen to them. I don't blame them".
This establishment candidate says they will do things that you vehemently agree with - "Right, but they're lying. Obviously."
This other establishment candidate is saying that if they're elected they'll do things you vehemently disagree with - "Right! I'd never vote for them. If only more people would vote third-party we'd never have to deal with that sort of monster."
An established candidate cannot call out the issues you think are paramount to the degree you demand without losing voters - "No, I think they'd gain a lot of voters."
I think shifting toward "I too am excited by the chance to vote for this candidate, who's really sticking it to..." is probably a way forward?
I mean people I know who absolutely dislike Clinton tend to really like Liz Warren. Whether that's because Warren has a shorter record and little foreign policy activity or because she seems to visibly take on a lot of folks they dislike or a combination I don't know, but they don't feel dirty or bad voting for her and supporting her.
But like the fact that Warren was 100% invested in Clinton becoming President didn't motivate them at all.
Not in the states where it would actually matters, it won't.
Humor can help soften the blow. That's all I got. I generally have the most success talking about these issues when I highlight the absurdity of them.
How long do you think that boom cycle will last if Republican officials actually follow through on everything they've been talking about since the election? Heck, if they actually go through with even half of what's been thrown around. I said it earlier, given 8 years of Republican leadership we wouldn't have to say much of anything - those working class voters will be more than ready for change again. The real question is whether there will have been enough negative impact on them in 4 years time to sway them, or if it will be minimal enough that they opt to stay the course.
You don't have to start there. IRV should be a no-brainer to everyone. It increases voter choice, enourages participation, and presents a candidate that everyone is ok with. Texas libertarians seeing this work in CA for the greens are going to want it, and the Democrats will be happy to support it.
I would almost guarantee Trump would not be the nominee under that system. That is still going to resonate with Republicans.
There is also the consideration that any state, in which 51% of the vote went to losers, is home to a potential majority of IRV supporters.
Edit: I cannot seem to decide on an order in which those sentences should appear
I always follow it up with "and that's the way it is until we get away from FPTP so if you want to get third parties elected, come and help me work on electoral reform."
I'm hoping the same thing happens to the other third parties in 2020.
I'm not willing to wait 8 years.
And in the short term, massive reductions in taxes and big infrastructure spending will be good for the economy, even if the latter is completely bungled. We've been arguing for the latter for decades.
Basically my anarchist friend that never votes for President (but votes on local politicians and measures) is more savvy about politics and strategic voting than third party voters. It's fucking maddening that somebody who sees all government as inherently evil is willing to make moral compromises for the greater good but a third party voter in Florida can't.
See this is a significantly more helpful argument. But the candidate needs to be saying that too for it to really sink home.
Many of the ones who live through "both sides are the same" learn their lesson.
And then 16 years later a whole new generation gets to learn.
Is there any other qualification that seems to matter to the party at this point?
I know a FL Trump voter who made up their mind the day before because "someone said they should [vote for him]". This a grown adult who likes liberal policies.
They're draining the wrong swamp.
righto
Bond markets are tanking on anticipation of all the fiscal stimulus which raises the question: how do you finance the stimulus? If no one wants your paper, interest rates will go up which will increase cost to service existing debt. Trump is betting on Yellen keeping rates low but who says she will oblige. The way the fed currently works is they throw water on any fire so even if fiscal stimulus is effective, they will counter it and keep growth low.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
The woman in front of me in line asked me if she should vote for DC statehood.
Fed's going to hike rates soon due to the moderate economic growth. Republicans want high rates, though, despite high rates being bad for stocks and bonds and good pretty much only for banks and people holding lots of liquid assets.
Cost to service new debt will go up. Presumably old debt is still in the old terms and AFAIK treasury coupons, when they exist at all, aren't tied to interest rates though there may be some practicality I'm overlooking.
I highly doubt the Fed will hike rates high enough to collapse the economy on their own. The only reasonable outlook is that things will be roughly the same as they are now, and in that condition people voted for the racist. Hopefully by then enough of them will think of Republicans as the establishment and vote for more change but the incumbency advantage is huge.
It would be ironic if a Trump supporter said it. Coming from us it is actually a pretty normal approach, no?
And if a Trump supporter said it you could say hey, that'd what political correctness is, maybe you aren't as against it as you thought.
there aren't a lot of negative interest rates though
the 1930s was the rise of fascism so thanks for making the comparison easy
the fuck is ship yards and iron works going to do for us. this isn't an industrializing nation, we don't need those anymore
this guy is just giving fodder for future economic historians now
hes not getting this anyway
current trump version is 1 trillion of ppps and is ostensibly revenue neutral ie its a huge fucking waste of time and nothing like that bannon version there
unless of course the repubs in congress and senate have a huge spasm and trump changes the plan
Why? Bush won by a larger margin in 2004.
Way too much time is wasted worrying about third party candidates. Focus on bringing folks in where you can, not chastising people for 'throwing away their vote.' The mistake is looking at Jill Stein voters and pretending they're all misguided Democrats.
it's the basic wehraboo fantasy routine: we'll solve all our economic problems with industry! And it'll all be conformist and vaguely militaristic, because that's what national pride looks like! And then it'll be openly militaristic, but like, in a good way! And then we kick out all the minorities!
(normally this kind of thing stops somewhere around 'openly militaristic', but yanno, Bannon's the type to go whole hog with it)
there's so many basic economic/historical problems with it that it's barely worth the time to deconstruct properly
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
And you can't do that if you come across as hostile.
I'm not saying DO be hostile, but if they're going to press this voter ID shit on minorities, and we can't stop it, then we get them IDs. Like, that's the correct solution to that problem.
www.alcu.org
www.voteriders.org (Or something similar)
Half the power of the ID law is that they can constantly change what is acceptable and what isn't at the state level without publicizing it. If everyone needs the same paperwork to vote, someone in NY or Philly can write up an explanation for how to do it in Albequerque or Madison. Confusion is their ally, they don't want us all playing from the same book.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
No, they definitely don't. What they want is a federal government that eagerly enables the states to do it.