Print

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

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

(I can assure you, the Right does not bother to ask this question. Ever.)

Ever stop to think that there are a significant number of people, left (not precisely applicable here, but to general sentiments) and right, who vote for their candidate out of spite explicitly because of this sorta statement?

[dragdeler]

-

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I mean, it's not really any great revelation. If Harris was popular, she'd have at least made it to the primaries intact. Even CIA Pete is more popular than her, and he's held in contempt by everyone who's not a white suburban centrist with a hard-on for butchering indigenous people and stray dogs.

[dragdeler]

-

[RedKing]

And the numbers for the Senate....

Not a whole lot of change.

Safe Dem seats:
Coons (DE)
Durbin (IL)
Markey (MA)
Shaheen (NH)
Booker (NJ)
Lujan (NM)
Merkley (OR)
Reed (RI)
Warner (VA)

That's 9 of 12 accounted for.

Safe Republican seats:
Tuberville (AL) -- currently held by Doug Jones (D), who is trailing Tuberville by an average of 10.5
Cotton (AR)
Risch (ID)
McConnell (KY) -- despite the massive hate-boner Democrats have nationally for Mitch McConnell, he's leading by 9.5.
Cassidy (LA)
Sasse (NE)
Inhofe (OK)
Rounds (SD)
Hagerty (TN)
Capito (WV)
Lummis (WY)

Likely Dem Seats:
Peters (MI) -- up by 6
Hickenlooper (CO) -- currently held by Cory Gardner (R), who is trailing Hickenlooper by an average of 9.8
Smith (MN) -- up by 5.8
Gideon (ME) -- currently held by Susan Collins (R), who is trailing Gideon by 4.4

Likely Rep Seats:
Cornyn (TX) -- up by 6.8

Lean Dem:
Kelly (AZ) -- currently held by Martha McSally (R), who is trailing Kelly by 2.6. This one has tightened up considerably over the last couple of weeks.
Cunningham (NC) -- currently held by Thom Tillis (R), who is trailing Cunningham by 3.3. While there's still nearly 10% undecided in this race, no recent poll shows Tillis with anything better than a tie.

Lean Rep:
Hyde-Smith (MS) -- hampered by lack of polling data. Cindy Hyde-Smith was up by 10 way back in the spring, but the only recent poll (at the end of August) had her up by only 1. Given the lack of data,
and the fact that it's fucking Mississippi, I'm reluctant to call this one a true toss-up.

Tossups:
Ossoff (GA) -- currently held by David Perdue (R), who trails by 0.6, after leading by 2.8 a few weeks ago. Perdue's deliberate mangling of Kamala Harris' name brought Ossoff a whopping $2 million in 2 days.
Daines (MT) -- leads by 0.8, after leading by 3.3 a few weeks ago
Greenfield (IA) -- currently held by Joni Ernst, who trails by 0.7, after trailing by 4.8 a few weeks ago. This one has tightened up dramatically.
Sullivan (AK) -- leads by 2
Marshall (KS) -- leads by 3
Graham (SC) -- leads by 0.2, after being a dead heat a few weeks ago. Dems have been pouring an absolutely metric fuckton of cash into this race. Jaime Harrison has raised over $100 million now including $2 million from 10/22-10/24 alone, which has prompted Lindsey Graham to call for an investigation into Harrison's fundraising, saying it's coming from "shadowy figures" (They prefer to be called African-American, Lindsey.)

OMGWTFBBQ:
The Georgia special election is almost certain to go to a runoff between Warnock and Loeffler/Collins (no daylight between them, but I'd give the slight edge to Loeffler).

So the overall calculus hasn't changed much. Dems are virtually guaranteed to offset the loss in AL with the win in CO, then likely add to their total with wins in NC, ME and AZ, which would put them at 50-50. Taking either of the Georgia races or SC or IA would be extra insurance from DINOs like Joe Manchin.
Picking up the seat in MT would be overachieving, but quite possible.
Picking up Alaska, Kansas and/or Mississippi would be 4th Vince McMahon-tier orgasm for the DNC.
Picking up ALL of the above would also likely mean a Biden blowout and usher in a glorious age of gulags and re-wokeucation camps, since it would mean a 58-42 Senate with another favorable Senate cycle coming up in 2 years. Though, to be fair the Dems had 58 Senators in 2009 and still couldn't seem to do jackshit with it, as the Republicans abused the hell out of the filibuster.



EDIT:

(I can assure you, the Right does not bother to ask this question. Ever.)

Ever stop to think that there are a significant number of people, left (not precisely applicable here, but to general sentiments) and right, who vote for their candidate out of spite explicitly because of this sorta statement?

For a moment. Then I give zero fucks because if their primary voting behavior is driven by spite, then they're already a lost cause.

And before some clever Trumpet jumps in with "But aren't you voting against Trump because you hate him?? Checkmate liberal!", there's an important distinction there. I'm voting for Biden because I hate Trump with the fury of a thousand suns (and because I think he has been detrimental to this country in ways that we will be recovering from for decades), *not* because one of his supporters said something mean to me once. I frankly could care less what his supporters say or think because they're fleas on the belly of the beast -- an inconsequential irritant that will soon be looking for a new beast to nest on.

[Doomblade187]

(I can assure you, the Right does not bother to ask this question. Ever.)

Ever stop to think that there are a significant number of people, left (not precisely applicable here, but to general sentiments) and right, who vote for their candidate out of spite explicitly because of this sorta statement?

I'm not saying people need "good" reasons to vote, but maybe voting for a guy who enables nazis out of spite is a bad idea

[nenjin]

(I can assure you, the Right does not bother to ask this question. Ever.)

Ever stop to think that there are a significant number of people, left (not precisely applicable here, but to general sentiments) and right, who vote for their candidate out of spite explicitly because of this sorta statement?

This is the literally definition of cutting off the nose to spite the face. Why would I take anyone who votes that way seriously?

[Il Palazzo]

This is the literally definition of cutting off the nose to spite the face. Why would I take anyone who votes that way seriously?

Because their vote counts just as much as yours? And by not taking them seriously you're throwing yours away by ensuring they'll vote the opposite?

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Suppose I should be a bit clearer.  Those that vote purely out of spite are fairly rare.  I was referring to those that were fence sitters that get pushed over because they encounter people making those statements on one side and the other side doesn't really have people like that.  This can naturally go either way and variable on personal experience, but would make up a fair number.

Edit: And then once they start to get pushed that way, 'under seige' mentality begins to build more and more, and so on.

[RedKing]

This is the literally definition of cutting off the nose to spite the face. Why would I take anyone who votes that way seriously?

Because their vote counts just as much as yours? And by not taking them seriously you're throwing yours away by ensuring they'll vote the opposite?

This gets back to the question of cost-benefit analysis of "reasoned, lengthy engagement with an opposition voter" vs. just telling them to FOAD. Someone who is ready to spite-vote for Trump because I dared imply something negative about their "side" already had a 99.9% chance of voting for Trump. Tiptoeing through a minefield to prevent that 0.1% increase is not a Pareto-optimal use of my time, and is typically an argument invoked by people who in no way are being equally careful with their words. It's a disingenuous attempt to shut up critics, or tamp down criticism into mealy-mouthed "both sides" false equivalences.

It's the same bullshit argument that they've been using against the media for 30+ years, for fuck's sake.

1. Do bad things.
2. Complain that media reports bad things.
3. Do more bad things.
4. "Wow, the media only ever reports bad things about us, and never as many bad things about the OTHER, they must be biased!" 

I was referring to those that were fence sitters that get pushed over because they encounter people making those statements on one side and the other side doesn't really have people like that.  This can naturally go either way and variable on personal experience, but would make up a fair number.

If it worked that way, the Democrats would have enjoyed a massive electoral advantage since at least the 1990's. Right-wing talk radio has never been one to mince their words, and there's pretty much nothing equivalent to that on the Left. Trump brought about the rise of the left-wing troll, and now the Right is playing this bullshit concern trolling about "civility" because they're discovering they don't have a monopoly on being an asshole (and because like all cowards, they know they're about to be on the short end of the stick and don't want to reap what they have sown).

Trump and the MAGA movement killed civility and pissed on its corpse. And it's been immensely.....liberating. (Also toxic and corrosive to the bonds of civil society, but incredibly liberating for some of us.)

EDIT: To be fair, civility was already on life support after 8 years of "you're with us or you're against us" Bush-ism, and another 8 years of Birtherism, even more unhinged right-wing radio, Alex Jones, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, "Kenyan secret Muslim", "Michelle is a tranny", etc. etc. ad nauseum. Trump just made it fully clear that it was acceptable for even the highest office in the land to sink to those depths as well.

[SOLDIER First]

Because their vote counts just as much as yours? And by not taking them seriously you're throwing yours away by ensuring they'll vote the opposite?

What kind of logic is that? It's not throwing away your own vote just because some moron wants to spite you. If our votes count the same, it's irrelevant whether they choose out of spite like petty children or not.

[Starver]

I frankly could care less[...]

...or couldn't care less.

'Correcting' you, with that old beauty, because I don't want to be accused of only nitpicking people I disagree with.

[RedKing]

I frankly could care less[...]

...or couldn't care less.

'Correcting' you, with that old beauty, because I don't want to be accused of only nitpicking people I disagree with.

FOAD 
j/k

[Il Palazzo]

I would like to say I'm surprised by the responses I'm getting here to the outrageous idea that talking to your fellow human beings about your differences is better than the alternative. But I'm not.

[wierd]

I would frame it this way Palazzo:

Communication requires at least two people, who have ideas they would like to convey, and who presumably would like to have those ideas conveyed to each other.
When either party "Is not listening", and or, when either party is not interested if the other party is listening, you no longer have communication.

In the case of "Left & Right trying to communicate", the people on the right are unwilling to listen, and the people on the left have stopped caring that the people on the right are unwilling to listen.


Communication cannot be accomplished under those conditions.  Trying to cheerlead for communication under such conditions is nonsensical to the point of absurdity; Neither party wants to communicate with the other anymore, because no value is derived from the effort.  Both parties wish to simply nullify the other instead.


To at least throw a bone to the Left, they have tried the "Compromise" route so much, that they no longer have anything to compromise. The Right has been stalwart in refusing to listen to anything the Left has had to say since the McCarthy administration, and just gotten more and more brazen about it.

The Left no longer wants to play that game, and no longer cares that the Right does not want to listen.