KillingTimeItself

well yeah, you can’t just try, you need to actually do it.

Stupid title, grammatically at least.

Less a proposal and more of a fact: People won’t vote for a candidate who does not support the issues that they support. You can’t expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.

it’s not a fact, it’s a statement, arguably a fallacy. The whole point of running as a candidate is to appeal to the most voters, you’re going to lose some here and there, but the general idea is to appeal most broadly to as many as you can. This is why we have a two party system, if this wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t have one. We wouldn’t have a multi party system either, we would have a single party system based purely on only pushing legislation that everyone agrees with.

Idk where the misunderstanding is happening here, but if you don’t want to vote for kamala that’s fine, you’re legally allowed to do so, and morally encouraged to vote for whoever you want. However that doesn’t make you decision sound or logical, nor does it make you entitled to any particular representation.

You can’t expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.

i don’t believe i have ever said this, i just said that MI might not vote for kamala, who cares, it’s an arguably stupid choice to do, but that’s a choice they can make. Like i said it’s most effective to focus on the moderates in literally every other state.

If Kamala supports fracking and the majority of voters do not, it is up to her to change, not the voters.

ok so, no, technically not, it’s only to the extent that support is required, and that people require direct representation on that issue. Things like kamala not being 80 years old, and being a woman, are gong to be more impactful than things like “actually i think we should continue with current energy policy”

Also to be clear, you’re arguing for an absolutist democracy here, a state where the people opt to elect a fascist, thus a fascist gets in power, and the end of democracy happens. I think most people would agree that this shouldn’t be possible. Sometimes popular sentiment is just wrong this is why the founding fathers constructed the government the way it is, with the electoral college, and the three branches. It’s intended to operate in a mostly isolated fashion from the public. Even the directly representative people within it, are not directly representative. They’re not meant to be. That’s why we still have a government.

And just so we’re on the same page here, if this does dock her enough public support that she is going to lose, she should dock this point, and move forward. However i don’t see that happening because i don’t think people care at all. And even if they did, it’s secondary, either locally, state level, or not at any government level.

Yeah… Democrats want to blame the voters so they can continue to court wealthy donors. If everyone in Michigan promises to “Vote Blue No Matter Who” then they can continue arming Israel without losing any Muslim votes. Unfortunately that’s not how things work.

it’s just basic game theory. We have the option between losing 100000 dollars, or losing 1000 dollars, you’re going to choose 1000 dollars every time. You could choose 100000 dollars in protest, but that would be stupid. Granted this isn’t a direct analogy here. You still see the same forces operating here, trump if elected, at the loss of MI in this weird hypothetical. Would lead to a scenario in which muslim MI voters literally caused more death and destruction to palestine, lebanon or whatever.

This is kind of like if every farmer held a national strike. It would fuck everything up. Generally essential industries are immune from organized strikes for this particular reason.

It can go both ways here, democratic voters can vote for things against their ideals, and also be responsible for voting for things against their ideals. If you’re a muslim living in MI and you don’t vote or vote someone other than kamala, there is a non insignificant chance that you will directly influence the potential for a trump victory. While to be clear you are allowed to do this, it would be very silly. This just doesn’t make sense. It might make sense if like, primaries were running, and kamala didn’t have the popular support she currently does, but that’s not what’s happening.

idk maybe you just consider going against basic game theory and self preservation to be “courting the wealthy donors” but you’ve provided no evidence of the sort other than “kamala harris like oil as evidenced by the fracking” which is maybe evident. Regardless, this would still be a separate issue, something to do with campaign finance laws and legality of donating money to super pacs and what not, this is irrelevant in any of these cases, and arguably another fallacy.

Conservative voters are not anti-war, they are anti-Russian war, and the Republican ticket already addresses that. These people don’t historically vote for left wing parties, nor are they in this case.

it depends. Some of them are anti-war because they’re isolationist, and they don’t want to be a part of the ongoing global politics thingy. Some of them as you said, are anti russian war, which is absolutely true. A lot of these same republicans also support israel, although that might be construed differently since they are technically an ally of the US. But that is pretty the case there.

The green party’s base is pot smokers and college students who haven’t gotten wise to the green grift yet.

it’s either stupid people who don’t know anything about politics, or people who think the green party is a real political party lol.

actually you dont even have to download shit, just appear on the fucking ip leech list, leech that shit yourself, and then fucking spam them to the ISP and music industry. See how long it takes them to respond lmao

You’re begging the question here. If Democrats paid attention to their voters we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Generally, critics of Dem strategy believe that they are too beholden to wealthy donors.

are you proposing that a candidate should work to appeal to 100% of their voter base, rather than the most broad constituent beliefs of it? The wealthy donor thing is a problem, over party lines, that’s an interesting one to solve so i’m not really surprised there.

But to be fair, if we did stop fracking, it might be detrimental to the oil market right now, considering the position that the global oil industry is in, is, less than ideal. So there is also a reason to push for fracking given the current global market at the moment.

Democrats blame Jill Stein for Clinton’s loss. But Dems can’t force her not to run again, or people not to vote for her. If Kamala doesn’t win, it will be because she didn’t convince enough people to vote for her, not because Jill Stein is running.

i consider this a voter skill issue, rather than a candidate issue, just vote for the better person lmao. Voting for stein is like voting for a brick wall, except one that wastes money.

i would hope not, but idk why else you would be running lmao

yeah np, i try to make people more educated where i can, or at least push them to knowing that you can educate yourself on this stuff given enough time.

It’s better for society lol. Unfortunately it takes a shit ton of time though.

yeah, my 10% figure was probably generous, but i think i would probably stand by it in most cases, as unless you’re polling 20% at bare minimum you’re probably dropping out of primaries anyway out of fears of “siphoning” votes. Realistically the outcome between the two alternatives here is probably marginal, if at all.

this is assuming that the voter split isn’t roughly at random. Jill stein is running on either extremely far left anti war sentiment, which we see among the right as well, along with cozying up to russia apparently, which only tankies and farther right people want.

That alone is pretty mixed.

Generally unless the candidate is going to pull a large enough share of the votes to the point where it enact a significant draw from the candidate hence my 20-30% figure, it really won’t do anything to the voter turnout. Like i said, as we saw with RFK, it was roughly split down the middle.

Jill stein might pull more far lefties, but that’s only because they refuse to vote in their best interest lmao. They wouldn’t vote anyway.

Uhh… No. Fracking isn’t even popular as a majority position in PA where she’s pushing it. But she’s gonna anyways cause for some reason the minority is the “better” place to scrape votes from?

oh im sorry i didn’t realize kamala was running for the federal presidential role of PA specifically.

And in a 2 party system if one side is “literally evil” the other basically knows they have a blank check to run on as long as it’s not the same policy as the evil side or else why would voters swap sides when evil wasn’t a disqualifier?

this is sort of true, but a substantial chunk of US voters believe that kamala harris is the “evil” not donald trump. so this isn’t exactly a bull in a china shop situation here. This is more like a bull vaguely around a china shop.

We have polls that literally tell us what the popular positions are. Harris is not listening to those so whatever the reason is its not popularity.

i mean that’s a fair statement, but she wouldn’t be running on fracking if she thought it was detrimental, so it’s either not a huge concern for most voters, or there is something more than being let on in the rhetoric here.

At the very least we know kamala will more than likely support a real EPA, so maybe the idea is to push environmental concerns from fracking into the territory of the EPA and local areas, rather than doing a federal ban on fracking. Which i would be fully in support of. The EPA should absolutely have more power.

yeah maybe. It might not do anything either.

Could do anything, Michigan may not even matter at all. It’s probably more impactful to mobilize moderate voters nationally (there are more of them) than to mobilize a single subset of a Michigan voters.

jesus christ this thread is a fucking nightmare bro

i feel like i’ve done three pounds of ketamine just scrolling through these comments.

we could do what maine is doing, i think it’s either RCV or IRV. Whatever the difference is, if there is one.

listen bro, it’s the will of the voters, if they decide to do that, and they end up with trump being elected, that’s not my problem.

Idk why the harris campaign has to specifically cater towards the muslim population of MI here, seems rather odd to me.

bro what the fuck is this thread, am i on fucking benzos what is happening

I’m amazed that anyone is still buying the “moderate voters” bullshit. Just try to picture an actual human being who’s politics have left them scratching their heads between Harris and Trump. “If only Harris would do a little more for corporations. Oh well, I guess I’ll stick with the racist orange insurrectionist.”

that’s not how moderate voters work, you’re ascribing 100s of years of politics onto the one weird 8 year period, the only moderate voting for trump is a republican. And that’s only because they’re stupid and don’t do research.

Like to be clear, moderates are not swing voters, and swing voters are not moderates, there is no “scratching your head” here. This isn’t a real scenario.

Just to expand upon this a bit, moderate dem voters are voting for kamala, moderate republicans could probably go either way, depends on how much they care about the parties or how much research they’ve done.

Independents will do as they have always done, voting weirdly for no particular reason.

Republicans may have screwed themselves so badly that even establishment Democrats can beat them. Let’s hope.

this is completely true, republicans have basically fractured themselves in half, if not thirds, if trump gets out of the running, the party collapses, simple as that. Dems are in a massive position right now since the harris campaign is pushing for more moderate voters (the majority of the party, and independents as well as straggler moderates on the other side) and in some significant capacity, farther lefties who would literally rather vote for anyone other than trump.

in defense of not her, she did make a pretty fucking stupid statement. It was worded like ass and not very clear on the message. Idk why she was surprised by the response she garnered.

You can’t just show up on the internet, make a vague political statement to hundreds of thousands of people, and then expect every single one of them to understand it lmao.

What kills me about this is if the neolib dems had taken just a moment at the primary to cast their vote for undecided to show the Dem leadership that genocide was a non negotiable issue they should do the right thing on, it might have worked.

wait, what’s stopping them? Not voting because it’s not important to them? Sounds like democracy working as intended to me.

Maybe someday we’ll have people blame the DNC for choosing to back unpopular opinions/policies losing the popularity contest against

the DNC is choosing unpopular policy? Brother this is a representative democracy. If harris wins, it’s because it was the popular policy/stances. There is literally no alternative here unless you thing there is a deep state rigging the elections or that the majority of the american populous isn’t real or something lmao.

The spoiler candidate logic has always been sketchy.

it depends on how popular third party is. If they’re getting 20-30% of the vote but no more it’s extremely common for them to drop out to support the primary instead.

Anything lower than 10% and it probably doesn’t matter much. RFK jr is a decent exmaple of this, although he was more “bipartisan” in terms of support, apparently.