it's good to look in the mirror and understand the material outcomes of voter behavior
it's good to look in the mirror and understand the material outcomes of voter behavior
I have problems with people who abstained. The hard thing is, how do you change voter behavior?
You're viewing part of a thread.
Well then, our troubles are deeper than we know.
On the right as long as you talk a good game on lowering taxes they'll put aside any and all espoused convictions. See how quiet the Libertarians got when Roe v. Wade was overturned. Turns out any time I spent debating the preeminence of personal liberty and the NAP was a big fat waste of my time. Alas.
On the left we have an electorate that "...would rather be right than president," and it turns out they get to be neither.
Most Americans align closer with progressives than any other group when it comes to policy. But messaging has been coopted by the Republicans to make people instinctively hate "socialism" because of the Red Scare Propaganda.
But Democrats block progressive policy because it makes their donors angry.
So really there's nobody willing to represent the majority
I've become pretty skeptical we know where the majority is. The question determines the outcome of the survey. The measuring stick is flawed and error bars are many times larger than the difference being measured. Frankly, the thing being measured has more dimensions than are being measured.
And it's worth remembering how the party got here. The left and labor coalition failed to beat Nixon twice, Ford's losing had little to do with the left, and it utterly fell apart against Reagan. The Democrats only started to get traction at the national level by going to the center, using the DLC playbook. I'm as angry about the abandonment of labor by the Democratic party as anyone, but the reason for it is not a mystery. By the same token if the left doesn't build the structure for a more left leaning Democratic party to operate no one should expect the party to move.
The hard thing is, I don't know what that structure looks like, but it's not enough to be "correct".
YOU'RE skeptical.
Stop projecting because you are too lazy to go learn about the world around you.
I've read it. Many times from many outlets reporting on more than one survey. The first time I found it comforting.
However it's not hard to find conflicting data. Methodology determines outcomes of these surveys, every time.
Today I'm less comforted. But ultimately, for what it's worth, I don't think we're that far apart.
And yet they would not turn out to nominate Bernie... Talk about lazy.
They did vote for him
So much so that the DNC threatened him into dropping out. The emails from the DNC got out and it caused the head of the DNC to resign in shame.
This is public information that you should probably have already known.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html
They did vote for him
Certainly not in numbers that got him nominated. And of course the DNC boogyman that is fronted here had nothing to do with that turn out whatsoever. The superdelegates didn't even matter his numbers were so low and she beat him by a factor of two in Texas. So much for the canard of progressiveness in red states.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html
Hey look it's old info that came out before all the stuff I linked!
Cool find, but there's the entire rigging of the primary by the DNC (who don't legally have to show legitimate vote counts) that you seem to have missed.
Go read my links and catch up with the rest of us.
If you don't feel like engaging with reality and whining at me then I'm done here
I did read your links, they reflect the reality that Bernie didn't have enough votes, particularly in red states. Conspiracy theories and upset delegates simply cannot paper over that.
Ok bye
Hey I know the feeling and voted for the guy; it's a damn shame Clinton doubled his vote share here.
Saving. That survey is hard to find if you don’t search the right terms.