Then you’re putting the cart before the horse. Superdelegates reflect fhe will of the party establishment, not the people.
No, I’m not “putting the cart before the horse”. I’m trying to help you understand what someone else is saying, because it’s fairly simple and you seem to be going out of your way not to understand.
What’s being criticized is exactly the will of the party establishment (TWOTPE). Your interlocutor is saying: “TWOTPE is wrong and stupid; Clinton is not a good candidate in a race against Trump (or at all) and Sanders is. TWOTPE should change to endorse more liberal candidates. This would probably increase voter turnout since the left end of the Democratic party is so lukewarm about most of their candidates.”
Note that I personally am not arguing whether that’s true or false, but it is a completely valid opinion as far as I can tell.
1 Like
Yes, I’m saying expecting them to act out of their personal interest is folly.
Do you know what “begging the question” means?
If a person is arguing “it is in X’s best personal interest to do Y”, and you say “well Y is not in X’s best personal interest” then this is what you’re doing:
You may disagree that it is in the DNC’s interest to endorse more liberal candidates. But if someone else thinks that it is in their interest then either:
a) You adopt an argumentative strategy that is likely to convince them otherwise.
b) You agree to disagree.
c) You are trolling them.
You’re clearly not agreeing to disagree. Is your argumentative strategy (stating your opinion without offering any justifying arguments) likely to convince anyone?
Consider what that means about your approach.
1 Like
Why does their desire have to match that of the lay? Why do they have to care? You have a high opinion of the level of concern the DNC/DLC leadership holds for populist movements.
I am most certainly not trolling, I am offering my perspective on why the superdelegate system is neither going to change nor alter from the current bent of candidates to support. There’s no evidence that the Bernie has changed the party from within, even as he energized many in the base.
You are operating from the assumption that something has changed substantially, I do not believe that this is the case. Certainly both opinions are strongly held, but my expression is no more trolling than yours? I was angling more to explain why I may have been mistaken but I see that it leads to a more nuh-uh ya huh situation and I’ll certainly agree to disagree on the party’s current and near-future goals.
Please allow me to quote myself in response:
There are obvious benefits to choosing candidates for whom your constituency is actually eager to vote. These may not outweigh the drawbacks. As before, I am not taking any position on whether you are correct about this, or your interlocutor is.
All I’m saying is that if you believe X and the other guy believes not X, then you have to actually compare the benefits and drawbacks if anyone is going to convince anyone else. It’s not enough to say “not X” over and over again. In fact, it comes across a whole lot like driving trollies.
I’m not taking a position on the object level debate at all. I’m pointing out that you’re not justifying your disagreement with an argument. I’m also justifying what I’m saying by going into great detail about what I’m saying and why. That is not in any way driving trollies.
Whereas responding to someone saying “X because Y” with “no, not X” over and over again does come across as driving trollies.
1 Like
I am discussing the status quo, the excitement of the base has completely unswayed superdelegates. The burden of evidence is upon persons who believe the party establishment is changed or will change to offer something other than “the DNC must respect the will of the people” or similar. They don’t have to, power isn’t usually ceded without a fight or at the very least a causal factor.
This is not a rhetorical tactic, nor a trolley.
Anyway, piece stated.
But the other person is not arguing it is changed or will change, but that it should change! You haven’t provided any argument why it shouldn’t change, and they have provided an argument why it should change! (Two arguments actually: that it better reflects the will of the constituency, and that it might increase voter turnout.)
Ignoring what the other person is actually saying and repeating yourself in response comes across as driving trollies, Maybe it is not actually driving trollies, but it looks a lot like it. Thought you should know.
1 Like
Well, this is why we’re discussing past one another! I agree with the why it would be good for them to do so, just not on the inevitability or their perception of necessity. I loathe the DLC third-wayers and corporatists and would love to see them ousted. I am not arguing that it shouldn’t change, just that these aren’t the sort of people who see leftists/populists in their party and suddenly abdicate. I’m not arguing against a change of guard, I just don’t see how that would be done without a specifically concerted grassroots-and-establishment working together coup to uproot.
We’ll see what happens in the aftermath of the election, but if Clinton wins, I see it as even less likely.
I can see how that may come off as Debbie Downer-ish but I’m not so much a cynic as I would rather look for specific causal factors and direct action versus expecting a sea change to occur “naturally”. Power maintains power.
Or appreciated.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
