• notabot@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    That’s a fair point, which is why I keep saying that they actually need to hear people’s voices. Enough people to affect the election need to be making a clear statement that they need to see things change in a particular way for parties to get their vote to make anything change. That needs to happen early enough to give the parties time to change their tune without scaring off the rest of their voters though, and I do not think there is time before November for the either party to reinvent themselves.

    I can understand, and share, the anger at the Dems for how Biden’s governed, though they currently control neither the legislative branch nor the judiciary. The question isn’t whether they’re good, it’s whether the only other possible option is worse, and that sucks, but probably not as much as living through that other option.

    • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      So what’s the window between presidential, state, and local elections, plus run-offs, school districts, sherriff, and all the others that ‘is the time’?

      And how many do you need to convince?

      Half the voters for an entire party in a matter of weeks, every four years? Does this seem realistic to you?

      And why would the party actually respond to those demands if you could organise the magic number of people in the exact right window of time?

      I’m genuinely curious…

      • notabot@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        So what’s the window between presidential, state, and local elections, plus run-offs, school districts, sherriff, and all the others that ‘is the time’?

        The presidential elections, along with the other positions elected then, are the highest stakes, so it’s probably best not to try to upset them. That means starting in December and going for the next 3.5 years or so. This particular election seems more risky than most because of trump’s position on may things, including his stated desire to be a dictator and his intention to fully support the worst things the dems have done and push them even further. Were it almost anyone else with the republican nomination I’d be less concerned.

        And how many do you need to convince?

        What’s the margin between the first and second place parties? You probably need to convince around that number of the leading parties voters. It’s a straight numbers matter. Figure out how many are needed to swing the election, and that’s how many you need to convince.

        Half the voters for an entire party in a matter of weeks, every four years? Does this seem realistic to you?

        It’s probably a lot less than that. As I said, it only needs to be enough to swing the election away from them. As to time frame, it needs to be all the time, not just for a few weeks. The party/candidate needs enough time to react to your demands and change it’s position without scaring away the rest of it’s voters.

        And why would the party actually respond to those demands if you could organise the magic number of people in the exact right window of time?

        They’d have to respond if they wanted to win the next election. Ultimately politicians need to keep wining to stay in their job. Imperil that and they have to listen or lose their job.

        • MolotovHalfEmpty [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          This is very silly. It’s just another list of contradictions and wishful thinking without any demonstratable evidence.

          The presidential elections, along with the other positions elected then, are the highest stakes

          Elsewhere you say that movements should be grassroots first. Elsewhere in the thread you then state that down-ticket races won’t have much effect. Elsewhere still you argue that presidents taking executive action and pressuring them to do so is largely worthless because they don’t control the other houses. All of these points seem strangely contradicatory, almost as if you’re full of shit thinkin-lenin

          starting in December and going for the next 3.5 years or so

          But that will affect down-ballot races! School boards! Run-offs! Blah blah blah…

          Also, if you think a presidential election cycle as defined by the parties is only six months long then you haven’t been paying attention.

          including his stated desire to be a dictator

          Dictators famously require being voted in and run on that ambition.

          They also famously do that, succeed, and then insist four years later that in order to do it, they’ll need a second term.

          If you think Trump is a unique threat then you haven’t read basically any American history whatsoever.

          Nor do you understand how political power in the US works.

          And if you believe he is a unique threat why don’t you support any and all options to ensure he never again occupies the presidency?

          What’s the margin between the first and second place parties? You probably need to convince around that number of the leading parties voters. It’s a straight numbers matter. Figure out how many are needed to swing the election, and that’s how many you need to convince.

          Without threatening to withold votes, within an incredibly narrow electoral only parameter, in a tiny time frame where anything less than total guarunteed success means its not worth doing. This is what you’ve asserted here and throughout this thread.

          Also, as I’ve asked multiple times elsewhere (funny how you don’t respond to those) please provide some examples of the Democrats making an about face on policy within one election cycle, based purely on electoralism. Bonus points if you can provide some examples of that without even threatening to withhold votes.

          As to time frame, it needs to be all the time, not just for a few weeks.

          Except during the build up to elections for that party, which, in America, is essentially all of the time. See below and keep in mind it doesn’t include any kind of local elections for councillers, governers, state positions etc:

          And if you don’t achieve that magic number in that tiny window, then you have to vote for a party that will make it even harder to do next time and start again by your logic.

          They’d have to respond if they wanted to win the next election.

          But you assert that if they refuse to change their position, you have to vote for them anyway. So there is no threat of them losing an election, because you advocating for voting for them no matter what, and having not using any leverage you might have. (This is another key point you never address whenever it’s put to you) So why would they change their position? Do you see your circular logic yet?

          Ultimately politicians need to keep wining to stay in their job. Imperil that and they have to listen or lose their job.

          They don’t care about losing their job. They care about not going against the wants of donors who will provide them their next job. They’ll become lobbyists, or sit on boards, or even just be given cushy party positions that aren’t voted on in exchange for their loyalty to the donor class.

          And the donor class and party sure as shit don’t care about candidates losing their positions. They can just drop another one in, usually at less cost than the previous one since they’re not established and have no leverage of their own.

          In fact, the people who run the party machinary often stand to benefit from their candidates losing elections, as it increases donations which give them power, keep them employed, increase their salaries and comissions etc.

          For your assertion to be true you’d have to believe that the only political apparatus is the candidate themselves, independent of the party structure or donors, and that each of them is a purely motivated being of pure civic duty with no other options or oppurtunities.

          Again, you know that’s not the case so your arguement is either disingenuous bullshit or you don’t have literally any understand of the electoral process that you profess to be so confident in your opinions of how its the only option.