I’m sorry if I gave the impression I think they’re a conspiracy. I think they are a flawed concept, that people oppose changing for a variety of reasons, some of which are selfish.
Maybe I don’t want to help? Maybe I think the people in power only make changes when they are in fear. I believe people operate in response to incentives, and without major incentives they regress.
Though I hope the primaries play out differently this time around, and the powers that be understand that a positive populist rather than “what-are-you-going-to-do-divorce-me” is the winning approach.
The problem with the smug “what are you doing to do? vote for him?” politicing, is people are human, and they can and will vote out of spite.
That’s fine. But then you don’t get to complain about it later.
How’s that working out so far with the Dems?
It takes a long time for complacent people who hold power in a duopoly party to make changes out of fear. “The worse, the better” doesn’t work in that situation, either.
You apologised for mischaracterising it as a conspiracy approx. 2-minutes after I made the comment quoted. You’ve made it clear you were wrong in that response so no-one will be harping it.
So I ask again: how many elections must progressives “bite the pillow and think of England” in before they would have your blessing to consider voting for other parties?
Please cite, quoting fully, the comment where I came close to even implying that.
Why do you care? You’re not interested in helping to change the party or elevate a new one to duopoly status (which involves more than just voting for a third party).
Just pointing out the concept of chronological ordering. You’ve said you were wrong in your characterisation of it as any sort of “conspiracy” and I agree with your conclusion (and that the superdelegate system needs to go away).
As many elections as it takes to either get more progressive candidates running for the Democratic party than there are neoliberal-lite establishment ones. The Boomers are dying off and the buzz is with the Sanders wing, so I’m putting my own efforts of support in party reform.
You don’t know my background or my political activities. I have done just that, and it makes people feel upset when put in a catch 22: show up and try to reform the party, cries of “NOT A DEMOCRAT” ring out. Operate outside (say, with the democratic socialists) you’re shouted down as well.
Personally I think the current approach (have democratic socialists be a group, but not a party, and endorse candidates in the primary to vote en masse for) is a pretty good approach.
And to be honest, this discussion is mostly academic. I’ll most likely vote yet again for the milquetoast democrat, but I’d appreciate if you could at least admit that’s an unearned favor
I’m going by your own words. You said you’re not interested in helping to change the party, or at least presenting not helping to change it as a productive response.
You’re talking to someone who left the Presidential ballot line blank in 2016 because he had the strategic luxury of doing so. I understand who Clinton is and who the Dem establishment are in terms of their sense of entitlement. But I also know who their opponents are, which is why if I had voted in a backwards or swing state in 2016 I would have held my nose and given them that unearned favour.
I was talking about the context of voting. That’s a very narrow context,
And I don’t have the luxury of giving details about my geographic location, specific political activities, etc.
In fact, I’ll probably abandon this nym soon - I’ve had such severe cyberstalking incidents over the years I don’t normally let my handles last this long but Boing Boing is remarkably well run. (*tips hat to @orenwolf *)
I will say that I correctly predicted the outcome of 16 well in advance, and I voted for Hillary regardless of the composition of my location, and I think that this sort of “ride the razor’s edge of polling” mentality has caused a lot of problems in our country - when you try to calculate exactly how much you can “get away with”, well, eventually you’re wrong
The GOP must be destroyed. I’d say it in Latin if I knew how. Electorally, that’s what’s important, right now.
I’m sure I’ll get disagreement here, but I so strongly believe that the GOP must be destroyed, and so utter do I want that destruction to be, that I would fall silent to any dirty tricks played on them (unless I believe such tricks presented a bigger strategic error.)
I’d settle for a competent Dem party. Forget their expertise ratf*cking, the real power of the modern GOP has been to put in place a structure that identifies and fosters candidates who speak to the (twisted) needs of their base, and take them from first campaign for dog catcher all the way to cushy wingnut welfare retirement.
The national party has little-to-no control over who runs in state elections under the name. The national party organizations can make a decision over whom to funnel national party resources to, and the state parties can vote endorse or not endorse candidates (cf Feinstein). This is true for both the Democrats and the Republicans (hence Trump’s candidacy). Smaller parties like the Libertarians and the Greens operate as centralized autocracies, so have more control in this respect.
I don’t see any way it would work. Should the national party come to state party conventions and tell us that our candidates shouldn’t be allowed to run? That’s the kind of interference decried as undemocratic by all the people who thought the DNC actions during the primary were so bad.
i was being very restrained in my choice of words because i wanted a more complete explication of your intent. now that i’ve seen it and more (given your various exchanges with gracchus above) i find your position to be immoral in the extreme. now that you have had two years of this administration coupled with the behavior of the republican party, your vacant threat to either not vote or vote for some third party places the responsibility of what happens on you to an even larger extent than those who outright vote republican.
i appreciate that you say you voted for a candidate you didn’t care much for to try to forestall the evil that has befallen our land. to then go on to say that you would act in a manner to prolong that evil for a further four years if your wishes are not made flesh is an evil unto itself.
edited to add i know many who would counsel that “shouting” at people is a poor form of persuasion. i tend to agree, but i’ve had it with people like you who know better and threaten to allow things to go on the way they are. people like you are telling me that majesty of their vote is worth more than millions of lives that have been made worse so far.
The national party should make its core values clear enough so that no Senator would vote for the likes of Kavanaugh or give any credence to the opposition’s nativism.
The party did it during the Civil rights struggle, and while it took a few years the Dixiecrats left and took party-sanctioned racism with them.
