"Anti-war voters in battleground states should vote for Harris to prevent a Trump victory.
-
@evan I'm asking for evidence backing up your statement.
-
-
@weyoun6 well, as a unit, every single vote conveys information to election officials about your preferences for who should govern and which policies should be in place. Voting is communications.
In their aggregate, vote counts convey information to political analysts, journalists, strategists, activists, and policy makers at home and abroad.
-
@weyoun6 it sounds like you think "sending a message" means sending a message to a very specific set of people and having a very specific outcome. I think that's a pretty narrow way to think about voting.
-
@evan I have not ever seen that be the case. The winner of an election never alters course in favor of the losers. Now, if those voters engage the political system after the election, that can be effective communication. But the votes themselves have no value outside choosing the winner, again, in my experience.
-
@weyoun6 you don't think Perot's agenda had any influence whatsoever on the 1990s political trend on spending cuts? Contract With America, welfare cuts, etc.? Just coincidentally aligned?
-
@weyoun6 you have just given an example, citing Perot's 19%. We are aware of it today and think about it as a way to understand American politics of the time. At least one message was sent and received.
-
@evan it is likely we have different meanings for "sending a message". If voting "sends a message" that does not affect politics or policy I would not consider that communication.
-
@weyoun6 @evan I sent a message in 2016. My message was, "Hey, Minnesota is a really close state and Clinton only won by 10k votes, which is shockingly close for a liberal state, and you Democrats should really pay attention and start listening to the left wing of your base unless you want to keep losing elections."
You know what "message" the DNC got from that?
Russia hacked our elections, and it's all the fault of those damned Bernie Bros.
Notice how my message was nuanced, and would have required the Dems to do literally any introspection at all, and make changes to their behavior, to the status quo?
Notice how the message they took from my contextless vote made it someone else's fault, and required them to make absolutely no changes at all and in fact they pushed themselves farther to the Right?
That's what happens.
The truth is, you can't control what message you send with a vote at all.
-
Oliphantom Menacereplied to Oliphantom Menace last edited by
-
Democrats have shamed me and attacked me for years because I vote Green. They have done this as Dems marched to the right, alienating me further each election cycle. I have had close friends tell me what a disappointment I am to them for not VBNMW. Meanwhile, I grew up in a democratic family who are now 75% Republican.
Dems are the new Republicans. We need a strong left, strong unions, and anti corporate anti fash sentiment to mainstream.
-
Yep. The left has stayed in the same place but the GOP has marched so far to the far right that they are now a Nazi party. Democrats have always (in my 55 year lifetime) cozied up to corporate interests, prioritizing capitalism over the well-being of human beings.
Both parties have lost sight of people. Neither offers healthcare. Both support more jails and prisons, not cheap housing. Both parties take us to a dark place.
-
@evan yes, but strongly disagree (the majority) might mean two very opposite answers
-
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:replied to Jonathan Glick last edited by
@Jonathanglick @evan
One of the statements that I don't like in this poll is the assumption that Harris is not an anti-war candidate.She and Biden are now literally trying to forcibly deescalate the situation in Israel/Gaza, while Netanyahu is holding out for a Trump victory so he can ignore whatever demands Biden makes.
-
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:replied to Evan Prodromou last edited by
@evan @weyoun6
As someone who worked in politics, I can tell you this is a misconception. Political candidates don't really know who is voting for the third party, or whether there is even a way to get those people to vote for them: many people vote for third parties on the basis of straight up misinformation, or general dissatisfaction with the two-party system (which we really do need to get rid of, and which we will be able to undermine under Kamala Harris but not under Trump), so it isn't seen as viable to chase those voters at this point.To give an example of misinformation, Putin has poured a huge amount of money into Jill Stein, who has been actively and purposefully misrepresenting the Biden/Harris policy on Gaza in an attempt to get Trump elected for what seems to be nothing more than narcissism?
People shouldn't vote for Jill Stein. Her own party allies are demanding she stepped down at this point, and she really doesn't deserve any more attention than that.
-
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:replied to Oliphantom Menace last edited by
@oliphant @mishi @weyoun6 @evan
I also want to note that there are a lot of Democrats who have been trying to get us things like cheaper housing and healthcare, and that those things are now in a politically viable state: it's pretty reasonable to assume that Harris will go after these things as they are right now at the forefront of issues.The big difference between the Democrats and Republicans right now is that, with the democrats, we can pressure them for things, and we can make gains for a less partisan system. With the republicans, we are looking at an all-in attempt to literally dismantle our democracy.
-
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:replied to Oliphantom Menace last edited by
@oliphant @weyoun6 @evan
Conversely, this caused a schism in the Democratic party that we saw the results of in 2018 and 2020, where the group that rigged the 2016 primary for Hillary Clinton was kind of pushed out of power (Pelosi resigned), and the group that took prominence was the group that kept telling Hillary Clinton to shut up and accept the fact that she had thrown the election by being stupid.We definitely need to get rid of the two-party system, but let's give credit where credit is due: the Democrats have been the better party for a while now, and they've made improvements in recent years.
-
Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon:replied to Raccoon at TechHub :mastodon: last edited by
@oliphant @mishi @weyoun6 @evan
Also, people forget the kind of gains that we make under Democrats, in terms of civil rights and economic policies.Yeah, they are too busy hesitating to give us any sort of socialized medicine, but they did give us Obamacare, which did get a lot of people healthcare, especially those of us with pre-existing conditions or who couldn't afford it before.
Yeah, they sometimes want to keep quiet on queer issues, but let's not forget that it was Obama who got us gay marriage and Biden who got us an openly transgender surgeon general.
Yeah, they have dragged their feet on ending the drug war, but let's be clear: electing Kamala Harris will legalize marijuana.
And yeah, the majority of them won't talk about UBI, no matter how many of us in the economics field openly supported, but Republicans literally want to legislate preemptively to get rid of it, and pretty much any other economically stabilizing social program.
As I keep saying, the difference is night and day.
