I think what's going to happen is the formation of a 3rd party that frightens democrats, and in one election they'll co opt part of their platform and lose, then they'll co opt the whole thing and win, and then they'll start a slide back towards doing whatever bankers tell them
Myfanwy posted:
this election is over. The republicans know that they can't win, because as bad as things are, they've converted themselves into an angry opposition party that has no ideas except to dismantle the government and to have a war with the newest person who scared Israel. They realized that and are just waiting for 20`16 to win by any means necessary, althhough it's hard to say how willing they are to use fraud to win, since they seemingly have the ability to change vote totals at a whim in several states.
I think what's going to happen is the formation of a 3rd party that frightens democrats, and in one election they'll co opt part of their platform and lose, then they'll co opt the whole thing and win, and then they'll start a slide back towards doing whatever bankers tell them
ya pretty much. occupy wall street is the left's tea party. i dont know how that will actually affect things but thats basically the situation right now
discipline posted:
why not NOT vote for obama and then when turnout is low or obama tanks the democrats should in theory be able to tailor their next candidate more towards your liking? for god's sake...
Let's say a Progressive candidate wins 7% of the vote against a Democrat with 45% and a Republican (winner) at 48%. The Progressive candidate gets their matching funds and the Republican is now the incumbent. What would you do as a Democrat in that situation? Well, the math is not "go left" - for every one person on your left there are about seven on the right who will harden for the Republicans and probably one Democrat who is now thinking of switching if you move too far left. More importantly, the money isn't there on the left. If you move left you will lose huge amounts of money and large numbers of elected Democrats, a majority of which only win their own districts by tacking to the center themselves. You can only tack left if you have a dividing line issue that you need to build your campaign around, like Dean against the war, but that's not enough to win the Presidency, certainly not for a Democrat.
The only reason the Democrats would move left is if the center does, by which I mean the incredible mass of money, votes and officials out there. There are various ways to move the center, including major progressive candidates staking out the margins of issues, or bankrolling progressive candidates in open seats, or writing smart articles that people read, or whatever. Voting is probably the least likely thing to change anything except incrementally and at the center.
getfiscal posted:discipline posted:
why not NOT vote for obama and then when turnout is low or obama tanks the democrats should in theory be able to tailor their next candidate more towards your liking? for god's sake...Let's say a Progressive candidate wins 7% of the vote against a Democrat with 45% and a Republican (winner) at 48%. The Progressive candidate gets their matching funds and the Republican is now the incumbent. What would you do as a Democrat in that situation? Well, the math is not "go left" - for every one person on your left there are about seven on the right who will harden for the Republicans and probably one Democrat who is now thinking of switching if you move too far left. More importantly, the money isn't there on the left. If you move left you will lose huge amounts of money and large numbers of elected Democrats, a majority of which only win their own districts by tacking to the center themselves. You can only tack left if you have a dividing line issue that you need to build your campaign around, like Dean against the war, but that's not enough to win the Presidency, certainly not for a Democrat.
The only reason the Democrats would move left is if the center does, by which I mean the incredible mass of money, votes and officials out there. There are various ways to move the center, including major progressive candidates staking out the margins of issues, or bankrolling progressive candidates in open seats, or writing smart articles that people read, or whatever. Voting is probably the least likely thing to change anything except incrementally and at the center.
Um the math is go left, because people aren't retarded, they know we have a 2 party system. So if you go left you get those people who voted out of a desire to really have the goals of the third party achieved, but knowing they were really voting to advertise the amount of people who desired these things to the party most receptive to them. So the democrats adopt them, those people vote for them, they win. This is what happened with the progressive party. This is what happened with the non free trade part of Ross Perot's ideas and the republican party
Myfanwy posted:
Um the math is go left, because people aren't retarded, they know we have a 2 party system. So if you go left you get those people who voted out of a desire to really have the goals of the third party achieved, but knowing they were really voting to advertise the amount of people who desired these things to the party most receptive to them. So the democrats adopt them, those people vote for them, they win. This is what happened with the progressive party. This is what happened with the non free trade part of Ross Perot's ideas and the republican party
When have the Democrats won by going left from 1950 onward. 1964 is the only one i can think of that you can plausibly say they went left and won, but that was a landslide against a terrible opponent. I mean it'd be cool if Nader made it so Kerry had to pull left, but that's not obviously true and he still lost.
getfiscal posted:Myfanwy posted:
Um the math is go left, because people aren't retarded, they know we have a 2 party system. So if you go left you get those people who voted out of a desire to really have the goals of the third party achieved, but knowing they were really voting to advertise the amount of people who desired these things to the party most receptive to them. So the democrats adopt them, those people vote for them, they win. This is what happened with the progressive party. This is what happened with the non free trade part of Ross Perot's ideas and the republican partyWhen have the Democrats won by going left from 1950 onward. 1964 is the only one i can think of that you can plausibly say they went left and won, but that was a landslide against a terrible opponent. I mean it'd be cool if Nader made it so Kerry had to pull left, but that's not obviously true and he still lost.
When has there been a left party that got more than 2% of the vote?
Myfanwy posted:
When has there been a left party that got more than 2% of the vote?
A group big enough to get, say, 7% or more of the vote, is a group that could force fundamental changes in the Democratic Party from the inside, too.
getfiscal posted:Myfanwy posted:
When has there been a left party that got more than 2% of the vote?A group big enough to get, say, 7% or more of the vote, is a group that could force fundamental changes in the Democratic Party from the inside, too.
you're thinking too much in terms of deriving power in terms of vote-count. power doesn't work in terms of votes.
germanjoey posted:
you're thinking too far in terms of absolute votes. power doesn't work in terms of votes.
well yes individual voters don't matter much. but the democratic nominee will never win by going around soothing all the far left voters, because they could always spend that time raking in donations and institutional support and then buying ads that convince people who vote based on far less fickle preferences, those at the center and center-right. had obama even been consistently left on all issues he would have lost in a landslide.
lungfish posted:
Why vote Obama, when you can vote for the first black president?
ollol
lungfish posted:
Why vote Obama, when you can vote for the first black president?
all i see is a lightsaber
getfiscal posted:
Let's say a Progressive candidate wins 7% of the vote against a Democrat with 45% and a Republican (winner) at 48%. The Progressive candidate gets their matching funds and the Republican is now the incumbent. What would you do as a Democrat in that situation? Well, the math is not "go left" - for every one person on your left there are about seven on the right who will harden for the Republicans and probably one Democrat who is now thinking of switching if you move too far left. More importantly, the money isn't there on the left. If you move left you will lose huge amounts of money and large numbers of elected Democrats, a majority of which only win their own districts by tacking to the center themselves. You can only tack left if you have a dividing line issue that you need to build your campaign around, like Dean against the war, but that's not enough to win the Presidency, certainly not for a Democrat.
The only reason the Democrats would move left is if the center does, by which I mean the incredible mass of money, votes and officials out there. There are various ways to move the center, including major progressive candidates staking out the margins of issues, or bankrolling progressive candidates in open seats, or writing smart articles that people read, or whatever. Voting is probably the least likely thing to change anything except incrementally and at the center.
that's the dumbest thing i've ever heard
getfiscal posted:
discipline posted:
why not NOT vote for obama and then when turnout is low or obama tanks the democrats should in theory be able to tailor their next candidate more towards your liking? for god's sake...
Let's say a Progressive candidate wins 7% of the vote against a Democrat with 45% and a Republican (winner) at 48%. The Progressive candidate gets their matching funds and the Republican is now the incumbent. What would you do as a Democrat in that situation? Well, the math is not "go left" - for every one person on your left there are about seven on the right who will harden for the Republicans and probably one Democrat who is now thinking of switching if you move too far left. More importantly, the money isn't there on the left. If you move left you will lose huge amounts of money and large numbers of elected Democrats, a majority of which only win their own districts by tacking to the center themselves. You can only tack left if you have a dividing line issue that you need to build your campaign around, like Dean against the war, but that's not enough to win the Presidency, certainly not for a Democrat.
The only reason the Democrats would move left is if the center does, by which I mean the incredible mass of money, votes and officials out there. There are various ways to move the center, including major progressive candidates staking out the margins of issues, or bankrolling progressive candidates in open seats, or writing smart articles that people read, or whatever. Voting is probably the least likely thing to change anything except incrementally and at the center.
"Corporations are people, my friend ... course they are!" - Mitt Romney
Troll harder nigga, thats some we33k sh444t
sheeeeeeit
don't think so tim
getfiscal posted:
a literal crow: "i know more about politics than obama"
sheeeeeeit
don't think so tim
sorry since when did that coward and i share the same goals?
Ohh noooo what will happen to me if i i prosecute crimminalsss http://my.firedoglake.com/rogershuler/2011/09/07/obama-advisors-feared-a-coup-if-the-administration-prosecuted-war-crimes/ Ohh 
better play Money Making Game..
i'm going to cream so much that may '68 will happen every day and people will be lactose intolerant
"political power, yeah, you better believe that's a paddling" - mao z.
Lessons posted:
progressive politics don't work because seven out of eight voters is more conservative than the average democrat, according to these statistics i just pulled out of my ass. the only way politics can change is to shift the radical centrist independent overton window. if you liked this post, please visit my blog, www.nytimes.com/tomfriedman.html
discipline posted:when I vote for someone I am implicitly expecting them to do what it takes even if it's gonna make them steer clear of dallas for a while
sounds like you need
~lowered expectations~