Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

I mean. That would show like 70% don't, though? That's not how you drag someone towards you, that's how you signal quite loudly you're dependent on the majority to get bugger all you want done and most folks are better off listening to whatever that 70% is saying.

If you had some kind of actual weight behind that minority (a similar amount of congress seats, some kind of evidence your shtick is actually able to win significant down ballot elections, etc.) you'd be talking some pull, but so far as I'm aware the US left has been kinda' fucking failing on that point, so far, barring the general leftward drift the democrats have been doing for a while now. It'll hopefully change in another couple of election cycles but the shift ain't here, yet. And until it is, th'shit in question is how you lose in a good chunk of the country

In any case, in some states there's no getting off the ballot once you're on it -- iirc we've had people literally die prior to the vote and still get a majority, or crap close to that. Bernie's apparently ceasing the campaign and conceeding, but he'll procedurally be on ballots regardless. I guess it's worth sticking in anyway just in case the crow plague gives biden a last c-caw or somethin'.

[Reelya]

Sander's political advantage wasn't that 'the left' would vote for him. Who are you going to switch to, Trump? They know you can't switch so they'll always not care about that.

Sander's advantage was always that the independents also liked him, pulling additional undecided people into the camp.

[Doomblade187]

Sander's political advantage wasn't that 'the left' would vote for him. Who are you going to switch to, Trump? They know you can't switch so they'll always not care about that.

Sander's advantage was always that the independents also liked him, pulling additional undecided people into the camp.

Sanders being around means that the actual political left actually votes tho lol. Instead of staying home because there's nobody representing them. Turnout matters.

And yes, the progressive wing has been working hard to get down-ballot elections and representative seats, making good progress recently.

[Frumple]

Have they, though? From what I've understood, they've been getting beat by more moderate candidates in most cases, and only sorta' making inroads in safe blue seats (though fairness where it's due, primarying shitty dem candidates in safe seats is basically goddamn ideal for progressive efforts, so long as it's not costing general elections in the process). Probably some exceptions, but that's seemed to be the last couple elections' trend.

There's some progress, but it's not good progress. Just some, and a fair amount of repudiation at the ballot box to go with it

[Reelya]

Sander's political advantage wasn't that 'the left' would vote for him. Who are you going to switch to, Trump? They know you can't switch so they'll always not care about that.

Sander's advantage was always that the independents also liked him, pulling additional undecided people into the camp.

Sanders being around means that the actual political left actually votes tho lol. Instead of staying home because there's nobody representing them. Turnout matters.

And yes, the progressive wing has been working hard to get down-ballot elections and representative seats, making good progress recently.

It's very hard to say.

For example, quite a few Sanders voters in the primaries ended up voting for Trump, enough to swing the election. And it's fucking idiotic to be angry at them. It's called democracy. You have to appeal to who actually exists, not be angry at them existing and demand they toe some party line.

However, if you put Sanders up instead of Clinton, to fix that, then a bunch of people who would have voted for Clinton over Trump would now vote Trump over Sanders: There are some people who would vote either of the other two over Trump, some people who would vote either of the other two over Sanders, and some people who would vote either of the other two over Clinton.

Surely a bunch of people who liked Clinton would look at the pair-up of Sanders or Trump, decide they like neither of those options and not turn up to vote, too. So it's not like putting Sanders up is an instant-win for turnout that won't drop turnout somewhere else.

You always have to look at opportunity costs as well as direct gains.

[Doomblade187]

(Quick note: if anyone has a source for the Bernie voters to Trump voters claim, that would be nice, I keep hearing it repeated)

What makes the politics more complicated is our asinine winner takes all method of elections for president - unlike with house/Senate seats, where it kinda makes sense based on popular vote percentage per state, gerrymandering aside, the electoral college means that certain turnout groups in a fee select diverse states decide the whole election, while Republicans in NY get no voice, and Democrats in Mississippi get no voice. I say turnout, because there are no undecideds. Not really - everyone has their personal preferences, which don't really change on a macro scale.

[Reelya]

It really wouldn't take a big change to see positive results there. No need for a constitutional change. If every state went for proportional allocation of EC votes then there wouldn't be any such thing as swing states.

The effect after a couple of election cycles would be that every candidate would have to have broad appeal rather than targeted appeal, since for example no Republican could say "fuck New York and California" and still expect to win. It would cut into the value of divisive rhetoric quite a bit. Entire states allocating all their votes as a single bloc is by far the biggest issue in the US system. Much more than the EC itself.

[McTraveller]

I think the "problem" with the EC occurred when we switched from states' governments choosing the electors to a popular vote choosing the electors.  This changed the system from the president representing the states to the president representing a bizarre convolution of the general population and the states.

I'd personally rather go back to the original scheme instead of the popular vote.

[Iduno]

If you had some kind of actual weight behind that minority (a similar amount of congress seats, some kind of evidence your shtick is actually able to win significant down ballot elections, etc.) you'd be talking some pull, but so far as I'm aware the US left has been kinda' fucking failing on that point, so far, barring the general leftward drift the democrats have been doing for a while now.

Leftward?

Sander's political advantage wasn't that 'the left' would vote for him. Who are you going to switch to, Trump? They know you can't switch so they'll always not care about that.

Sander's advantage was always that the independents also liked him, pulling additional undecided people into the camp.

Sanders being around means that the actual political left actually votes tho lol. Instead of staying home because there's nobody representing them. Turnout matters.

Yeah, that's why I'm telling everyone to vote for a third party. Remind them that we're here, and we'll vote for someone who is actually willing to represent us, instead of disenfranchising voters. Instead of actually saying out loud that they won't support our policies no matter what, and to go vote for someone else if that's what we want. I will take their advice and vote against them, every chance I get, and I'll bring everyone I know with me.

(Quick note: if anyone has a source for the Bernie voters to Trump voters claim, that would be nice, I keep hearing it repeated)

What makes the politics more complicated is our asinine winner takes all method of elections for president - unlike with house/Senate seats, where it kinda makes sense based on popular vote percentage per state, gerrymandering aside, the electoral college means that certain turnout groups in a fee select diverse states decide the whole election, while Republicans in NY get no voice, and Democrats in Mississippi get no voice. I say turnout, because there are no undecideds. Not really - everyone has their personal preferences, which don't really change on a macro scale.

The source is Hillary Clinton, and it's been repeatedly disproven.

And New York isn't a good example of Republicans not getting a voice. It's produced right-wingers like Trump, Cuomo, and Bloomberg.

[SalmonGod]

I mean. That would show like 70% don't, though? That's not how you drag someone towards you, that's how you signal quite loudly you're dependent on the majority to get bugger all you want done and most folks are better off listening to whatever that 70% is saying.

So what I'm reading is.... when they lose, we shouldn't be blamed?

[Reelya]

(Quick note: if anyone has a source for the Bernie voters to Trump voters claim, that would be nice, I keep hearing it repeated)

It was easy to check. Google "Bernie voters turnout 2016" and you get a bunch of mainstream articles citing survey results. The first search result was this:
https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

According to the analysis of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, fewer than 80 percent of those who voted for Sanders, an independent, in the Democratic primary did the same for Clinton when she faced off against Trump a few months later. What's more, 12 percent of those who backed Sanders actually cast a vote for Trump.

Sanders -> Trump voters…
WI: 51k
MI: 47k
PA: 116k

Trump win margin…
WI: 22k
MI: 10k
PA: 44k

One relevant graphic is here:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DH7GmdyW0AEL6ny
Note how small the "did not vote" category was. People who wanted Sanders but didn't get him as a choice were much more likely to go vote for Trump over Clinton instead of abstaining.

EDIT: but of course, this is hindsight logic, and it's also excluding opportunity costs as I said before. It's definitely not a given without evidence that people in WI, MI and PA would have turned out in greater numbers to vote for Sanders than they did Clinton, we just know that if the ones who went Sanders->Trump didn't do that, and everyone else voted exactly the same* then the Democrats would have won.

*it's definitely not a given that everyone else would have voted the same in those states had the pairing been different to start with. That's why it's faulty logic to only look at if *some* people had acted different how things would have turned out. Maybe if it was Clinton vs Trump then more people in Wisconsin who voted Clinton would have switched to Trump because they don't like Sanders, and probably a fair few of those people who went from Sanders in the primaries to Trump in the general election would still have gone for Trump in any case.

[McTraveller]

Incidentally, I would be in favor of delayed reporting of election results.  There are very real effects due to east-coast results being posted while west-coast voting is still taking place.

I think that all voting should be done on day A, and then the results all reported simultaneously on day A+1 or whatever.

[Lord Shonus]

As with every other case where the 24-hour news cycle and media saturation are proven to have a harmful effect, the news will never give up the airtime and you can't legislate it because of the First Amendment.

[Iduno]

According to the analysis of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, fewer than 80 percent of those who voted for Sanders, an independent, in the Democratic primary did the same for Clinton when she faced off against Trump a few months later. What's more, 12 percent of those who backed Sanders actually cast a vote for Trump.

So 20% of Bernie Voters voted for Clinton vs voting for Trump (and 68% voted third party, or they wouldn't have been part of the survey). That's not what you might call a landslide. It also seems like the 68% that represents the largest portion would be the ones you'd go for.

As with every other case where the 24-hour news cycle and media saturation are proven to have a harmful effect, the news will never give up the airtime and you can't legislate it because of the First Amendment.

You can, however, legislate a time when the electioneers can give the results to the media.

[Lord Shonus]

You can, however, legislate a time when the electioneers can give the results to the media.

True, but you can't stop news services from running their own exit polls. Which would have the same effect, but be based on less accurate data.