Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 2 hours ago, Kyoshi said: in other news, 13% of the vote came back as uncommitted. That's 100k voters. Didn't Biden win the state (Michigan) by 150k votes in 2020? If Trump wins Michigan that’s a very, very, very, bad thing. Prince of the North 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: If Trump wins Michigan that’s a very, very, very, bad thing. Protesting to make things worse for those you're protesting to support. Galaxy brain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hmmm Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 (edited) 22 minutes ago, karaddin said: You disagreeing with the interpretation I was clearing reading doesn't make my usage of the phrase wrong, it means you disagree with me. And hey look at how I replied to polishgenius, I'm capable of listening to differing viewpoints and conceding points when someone doesn't act like a jackass. On an international forum you frequently run into English as second language individuals, or merely people from another country that doesn't use a particular phrase that you take for granted. When someone replies to my usage of a phrase saying nothing but repeating the phrase with a question mark I assume this is what happened, and try to explain in good faith. Okay. You still used it wrong. He was even helpful enough to give an explicit example of what he thought, by mentioning Hamas' massacre of hundreds of Israeli youths at the Nova Music Festival (including multiple cases of rapes and torture, one might add), and saying that it was wrong to condemn that because the Israelis in question were colonisers who were taunting Hamas by having a festival near the border. Your tendency to explain away or, actually, muddy the waters around such statements is more troubling than my use of one liners. Edited February 28 by Hmmm Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: Protesting to make things worse for those you're protesting to support. Galaxy brain! Isn't this what primaries are for? They sent Biden a message. Who knows whether or not they'll vote for him. I'd never vote for Joe Biden in a primary but I'll vote for him over whatever psycho the GOP throws out there. Biden now knows his position is a problem for [some] voters. DNC brain! Edited February 28 by Larry of the Lawn horangi 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 Just now, Larry of the Lawn said: Isn't this what primaries are for? They sent Biden a message. Who knows whether or not they'll vote for him. I'd never vote for Joe Biden in a primary but I'll vote for him over whatever psycho the GOP throws out there. Biden now knows his position is a problem for voters. DNC brain! So… is it your position staying home in the general, voting for Republicans in the general, or voting for the anti-vaxxer candidate in the general “to send the DNC a message” is a good idea? Larry of the Lawn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: So… is it your position staying home in the general, voting for Republicans in the general, or voting for the anti-vaxxer candidate in the general “to send the DNC a message” is a good idea? Yeah my position is that, something completely fucking different from everything I've ever said on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 (edited) 1 minute ago, Larry of the Lawn said: Yeah my position is that, something completely fucking different from everything I've ever said on this board. Then how is weaking the only viable candidate against Trump a good idea now? Edited February 28 by Ser Scot A Ellison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 10 minutes ago, Hmmm said: Okay. You still used it wrong. He was even helpful enough to give an explicit example of what he thought, by mentioning Hamas' massacre of hundreds of Israeli youths at the Nova Music Festival (including multiple cases of rapes and torture, one might add), and saying that it was wrong to condemn that because the Israelis in question were colonisers who were taunting Hamas by having a festival near the border. Your tendency to explain away or, actually, muddy the waters around such statements is more troubling than my use of one liners. I don't think you're going to get a more courteous and earnest acceptance of a correction than you just got on the Internet. The phrasing confused her. It muddied the waters for her. And then after some discussion she realized the dudes wording was more clear than she initially read it. What more do you want? karaddin and straits 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Then how is weaking the only viable candidate against Trump a good idea now? How does this weaken Biden? These people could all well vote for him in the general. If he's weakened it's by the fact he's out of step with with a chunk of his base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 I'm actually pretty happy with the uncommitted vote movement in Michigan. It demonstrates opposition to Biden on one key stance, and is done in such a way that doesn't hand power to Trump. If I were in Michigan, I would have voted uncommitted and I'm sure my wife would have too (and we certainly would vote for him in November). Primaries are meant to show the differences of opinion within the party, and they managed to do that in spite of an uncompetitive race. horangi, DMC, Prince of the North and 5 others 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said: How does this weaken Biden? These people could all well vote for him in the general. If he's weakened it's by the fact he's out of step with with a chunk of his base. Politics is perception. Always has been. If Biden is perceived as weak in a swing State it hurts his chances in the general. Further Michigan is somewhat unique in its demographics compared to the rest of the US… yes? Edited February 28 by Ser Scot A Ellison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 1 minute ago, Maithanet said: I'm actually pretty happy with the uncommitted vote movement in Michigan. It demonstrates opposition to Biden on one key stance, and is done in such a way that doesn't hand power to Trump. If I were in Michigan, I would have voted uncommitted and I'm sure my wife would have too (and we certainly would vote for him in November). Primaries are meant to show the differences of opinion within the party, and they managed to do that in spite of an uncompetitive race. Doesn’t hand power to Trump… yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said: How does this weaken Biden? These people could all well vote for him in the general. If he's weakened it's by the fact he's out of step with with a chunk of his base. But in step with another chunk. This is the basic problem. TrackerNeil and Ser Scot A Ellison 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underfoot Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 3 minutes ago, Maithanet said: I'm actually pretty happy with the uncommitted vote movement in Michigan. It demonstrates opposition to Biden on one key stance, and is done in such a way that doesn't hand power to Trump. If I were in Michigan, I would have voted uncommitted and I'm sure my wife would have too (and we certainly would vote for him in November). Primaries are meant to show the differences of opinion within the party, and they managed to do that in spite of an uncompetitive race. Agreed. As someone who voted uncommitted yesterday, I do have every intention of voting for Biden over Trump in November. I'm sure I'm not alone (just like I'm sure there are some who voted uncommitted and actually are/actually won't vote for biden). But what better way to get a message across right now? Self immolation? There is a chance Biden takes this seriously and does something to rein in Netanyahu's actions. Maithanet, Mudguard and Larry of the Lawn 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 13 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said: Isn't this what primaries are for? They sent Biden a message. Who knows whether or not they'll vote for him. I'd never vote for Joe Biden in a primary but I'll vote for him over whatever psycho the GOP throws out there. Biden now knows his position is a problem for [some] voters. DNC brain! Tell yourself they sent a message to Biden. More likely they're sending one to each other and further entrenching their view they shouldn't vote for him, or worse, voting for Trump out of spite. 7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Then how is weaking the only viable candidate against Trump a good idea now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liffguard Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 9 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said: Isn't this what primaries are for? This articulates an aspect of the discussion around lesser-evil voting that doesn't seem to get brought up enough. Namely, it's not election day yet. On the actual day, you have to weigh the binary option of whether or not to vote, then weigh the limited candidate options and make whatever choice, at that time, you think results in the best (or least bad) outcome. But before the election? You still have the ability to influence the candidates. One of the ways of doing that is if enough people threaten to withhold their votes over a particular issue, in the hopes of convincing (or at least just pressuring) the candidate into a different position. I mean, this framing is obviously both naive and ultra-simplified. But threatening to withhold votes to force a position change is still a legitimate political tactic.* In some respects it's the only leverage lots of people have. It's one thing to insist on lesser-evil harm reduction on the election day itself. It's another to insist that everyone must promise to back the candidate to the hilt before the election. * Alternatively, for many people it isn't a tactic, they're just genuinely disgusted/exhausted/exasperated with the candidate's positions and can't stomach supporting them. Irrational? Counter-productive? Maybe. And yet, if you rely on those voters for victory, it's no use decrying their irrationality. You still need to convince them to support you, even if it irks you. And I'm not sure how effective a tactic it is to shame and hector voters into supporting you. horangi, Larry of the Lawn and Underfoot 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hmmm Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said: I don't think you're going to get a more courteous and earnest acceptance of a correction than you just got on the Internet. The phrasing confused her. It muddied the waters for her. And then after some discussion she realized the dudes wording was more clear than she initially read it. What more do you want? Fair enough. Though I also kept replying because I believe a lot more people than her agreed with her initial post. The main problem as I see it is a broader tendency on both the left and the right wing to not hold a firm line against extremism and entryism any longer. As long as some person appears to broadly be part of the same "team", many people try to make excuses for them even when it should be quite clear that this is not someone you should want to associate yourself or your movement with. What then happens over time is that those opinions and values get legitimized. In the USA you can see the toxic effects of this on both sides of the aisle, though of course more with the Republicans where the MAGA people have managed to become the dominant faction. Edited February 28 by Hmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 12 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said: I don't think you're going to get a more courteous and earnest acceptance of a correction than you just got on the Internet. The phrasing confused her. It muddied the waters for her. And then after some discussion she realized the dudes wording was more clear than she initially read it. What more do you want? Thanks. I clicked through to read that tweet the first time having already read polish's first comment about it, immediately thought he'd misread it and read the rest of the comment with blinders on for that perspective. When polish responded to me I read it again without the blinders and think it's a pretty fair read on the comment. Larry of the Lawn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, mormont said: But in step with another chunk. This is the basic problem. Fair enough. I'd suggest that Biden's position on Gaza involves stronger support of [Israel than] where the electorate is at. But that's not voters fault. Expecting people to just swallow Gaza without some kind of reaction is unrealistic. There are limited options that people have to affect government policy. What's driving my commenting [on] the issue is the implication that people aren't allowed to exercise their civil rights unless it's exactly how, for lack of a better phrase, Mainstream Dems see fit. What I'm getting from Ty and Scot is that it's stupid and wrong to voice dissent with Joe Biden on anything. I think it's pretty foolish to try to stop fascism by demanding people stop doing the things that a participatory democracy demands. Edited February 28 by Larry of the Lawn Kyoshi and Maithanet 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 I wouldn't disagree with any of that. I just think there's a narrative sometimes that suggests that a switch on this issue would be net positive for Biden, that fails to understand there's a cost to him electorally that is bound to be part of the explanation of why he isn't moving as far and as fast as they would like. TrackerNeil, Ser Scot A Ellison and DMC 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts