They can worry about the spoiler effect… Or they can worry about the massive amount of people who don’t vote because they feel it’s pointless or barely muster enough care to do it.
The fact that these experienced politicians whose judgment you appear to trust, have both decided to work within the existing system should probably sway your opinion of what the optimal strategy is at least a bit more.
There are usually two parties because the game-theoretic dynamic of this electoral system has a significant channelizing effect on the likeliest outcomes. Once you’ve accepted that reality, the (admittedly unsatisfying) optimal strategy becomes apparent.
I say this all with zero rancor - I do not like these arguments either, but the logic of it is difficult to see past. I would prefer the system be overthrown entirely but, and this is key, you go into the revolution with the populace that exists - and they’re going to have their own ideas for what comes next. I’m not so sure I’d like what they bring to the table.
The fact that these experienced politicians whose judgment you appear to trust, have both decided to work within the existing system should probably sway your opinion of what the optimal strategy is at least a bit more.
I like them but would I don’t think I would consider them that successful in respective of their peers. This system is literally against them being successful.
A career in politics hasn’t attracted much high quality talent in general, I think they’d be more successful if there was more of a sense of politics being a good option for good people. It mainly attracts scum these days.
If they follow that logic they’ll never win, because the number of people who will unconditionally vote Dem is demonstrably not enough to win an election.
They court voters all the time. They don’t court nonvoters.
They conveniently designate those they don’t want to listen to as nonvoters, and pay no actual attention to whether the demographics they ignore are voters or not. “They don’t vote” is a pretext and has never been anything else.
Are you fucking serious? I have better things to do than engage with whatever this is, but you should really think hard about a lot of things if you really believe what you just said.
Ok. So don’t gripe when the groups you don’t pursue because “they don’t vote” don’t vote. And especially don’t gripe when they prove you wrong by voting for your second choice.
They can worry about the spoiler effect… Or they can worry about the massive amount of people who don’t vote because they feel it’s pointless or barely muster enough care to do it.
The fact that these experienced politicians whose judgment you appear to trust, have both decided to work within the existing system should probably sway your opinion of what the optimal strategy is at least a bit more.
There are usually two parties because the game-theoretic dynamic of this electoral system has a significant channelizing effect on the likeliest outcomes. Once you’ve accepted that reality, the (admittedly unsatisfying) optimal strategy becomes apparent.
I say this all with zero rancor - I do not like these arguments either, but the logic of it is difficult to see past. I would prefer the system be overthrown entirely but, and this is key, you go into the revolution with the populace that exists - and they’re going to have their own ideas for what comes next. I’m not so sure I’d like what they bring to the table.
I like them but would I don’t think I would consider them that successful in respective of their peers. This system is literally against them being successful.
That’s so.
A career in politics hasn’t attracted much high quality talent in general, I think they’d be more successful if there was more of a sense of politics being a good option for good people. It mainly attracts scum these days.
Unfortunately, you are correct. Politicians [in general, not all of them] suck.
Nobody needs to worry about people who don’t vote.
“You don’t vote” is what Democrats say to anyone they don’t want to listen to, regardless of whether they actually vote.
Democrats need to listen to people who vote.
But the person I replied to said they also need to worry about nonvoters. They don’t. Nonvoters don’t matter.
If they follow that logic they’ll never win, because the number of people who will unconditionally vote Dem is demonstrably not enough to win an election.
They don’t care about winning if it means lowering themselves to the level of trying to court voters.
They court voters all the time. They don’t court nonvoters.
For the same reason, campaigns don’t depend on getting youth to finally turn out to vote. It’s a strategy that has never worked.
They conveniently designate those they don’t want to listen to as nonvoters, and pay no actual attention to whether the demographics they ignore are voters or not. “They don’t vote” is a pretext and has never been anything else.
They don’t have to “designate” people as nonvoters. A nonvoter is someone who doesn’t vote. Nonvoters designate themselves.
Democrats won over 200 federal elections last month. Believe it or not, Harris was not the only Democrat on the ballot.
That 200 wasn’t enough to keep the Senate or win the House so I’m not sure what your point is.
The point is that “Democrats will never win” is obviously false, since many of them win every year.
Are you fucking serious? I have better things to do than engage with whatever this is, but you should really think hard about a lot of things if you really believe what you just said.
When it’s time to decide on policy, they don’t. When assigning blame, they’re the only thing that matters.
But they are always conveniently whoever the party doesn’t want to listen to.
The vast majority of nonvoters are politically disengaged, and there’s no evidence that their opinions differ significantly from those of voters.
Ok. So don’t gripe when the groups you don’t pursue because “they don’t vote” don’t vote. And especially don’t gripe when they prove you wrong by voting for your second choice.
If they vote for my second choice, then by definition they aren’t nonvoters.