2020 election cycle thread

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by AgelessDrifter, Dec 31, 2018.

  1. Sear

    Sear TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    31,700
    How so? Because they have to take half of a sick day once every 4 years to go vote?

    The hispanic voting turnout is frustrating as hell, especially where I'm at. Even a 50% turnout from them would likely turn the state blue.
     
  2. Utumno

    Utumno Administrator Staff Member

    Post Count:
    40,578
    More flexible middle/upper class jerbs that let you take half a day to go, having a car that will get you to the polling place, not having the GOP actively closing down polling places in predominantly minority neighborhoods and making sure you wait at least several hours before you can cast your vote, etc. etc.
     
  3. Sear

    Sear TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    31,700
    Yeah I hear that, but I voted when I worked at walmart and didn't own a car. I think a lot of people simply don't give enough of a shit to vote. If it's not a high priority for people after 4 years of Trump, then it never will be.
     
  4. Kanmuk_Sealclubber

    Kanmuk_Sealclubber Yes

    Post Count:
    8,982
    Why would people be enthusiastic to turn out and support a strategy that gives them nominal consideration and expects them to happily fall in line with old, white guy centrism in the name of "lesser of two evils" pragmatism? That's just enabling a party to take their vote for granted. I wouldn't get mad at disenfranchised populations because they don't want to be warm bodies for centrists.

    Having said that, in the US, the parties are so far apart that the difference between Democratic centrism and GOP dumbfuckery isn't really "nominal". I am able to idealistically protest vote because I am not likely to lose my health care, university subsidies (fully) or have wars be started because I don't vote Liberal in one election. I'm also not likely going to have abortion bans on the docket like you guys now have. So subordinate pragmatism is a bit more necessary in your shithole country.

    Nevertheless, if you want certain groups to vote for you, encourage them to vote for you.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2019
    Czer likes this.
  5. Skars

    Skars I never troll

    Post Count:
    41,666
    I think its part apathy, part laziness, part despair and then the wider demographic type things. Both of you are correct i reckon.

    You say that theyre wildly apart Kanmuk and while I agree they are in many ways, if youre not middle class to upper class they probably dont feel that different.
     
  6. Fais

    Fais TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    6,174
    You guys live in a magical fairy land where the poor are well educated, well informed, and believe you are not as much of the problem as the GOP.
     
  7. Agrul

    Agrul TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    45,414
    i dont think anyone here believes that. if anything i think most tzt posters would say the fact that that is not true is the primary problem folks like Bernie and Warren face

    and it is also why packaging & explaining things in a way that is accessible and compelling but not condescending or untrue is super important
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  8. Fais

    Fais TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    6,174
    They won't access it, they won't find anything you say compelling, and will assume most of it is lies. They will recognize that Biden was Obama's VP, and they might recognize Bernie as the old white guy that tried to stop the evil Hillary from loosing to Trump. Oh and they will see that kamala is black...
     
  9. Sear

    Sear TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    31,700
    Because it directly affects them? That must be clearer now after watching Trump wall off their native country and deport immigrants, with absolutely no chance of universal health care or a higher minimum wage.

    I actually would expect them to fall in line with "lesser of two evils" pragmatism in this case. I'd love to see a candidate who can reach out to every demographic in an ideal fashion, but I expect people to vote regardless. By not voting, they choose to get stabbed in the gut instead of pinched. People don't need to be excited about it (since that's a luxury we can't always have) - just understanding of the consequences involved.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  10. Red

    Red TZT Neckbeard

    Post Count:
    15,701
    Why do the poors even get a vote? I mean they are so poor.
     
  11. Agrul

    Agrul TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    45,414
    i think Trump's supreme court nominees + the lovely trade war he's started w/ china are likely to be two of his more dramatically negative impacts
     
  12. Kanmuk_Sealclubber

    Kanmuk_Sealclubber Yes

    Post Count:
    8,982
    Firstly, I didn't mean to sound cunty with that rhetorical question, so sorry for that.

    The problem is that if disenfranchised populations keep turning out to vote Dem on the basis of "lesser of two evils", the Dems aren't incentivized to appeal to them beyond offering them enough table scraps to be slightly better than the GOP. Conversely, it encourages Dems to over-emphasize blue collarism and centrism in order to win over the 10,000 dipshits in the midwest who actually may NOT support the party unless they get their goodie bags (or the illusion of them). So all the classical lib-bros shout "up with centrism/blue collarism, down with progressivism" because, why wouldn't they? Why appeal to different interest groups if they are going to vote for you anyway?

    That's an absurd oversimplification, obviously. Because:

    A) Progressive politics and white blue collarism have a lot of overlap. A lot of blue collarists aren't exactly centrists (e.g. Bernie Sanders).

    B) I don't think the Dems *DO* totally ignore progressives and minority groups, which is why there is lot of crying about GOING TOO FAR. I think dems have learned that it's hard to make the math work without appealing to "fringe" groups in *some* way. But they can do a better job of it.

    C) As you just pointed out, and as I suggested in my previous post, there's a point where the gap in the two-party system is so big that even relative centrism can't be dismissed as "table scraps" or "nominal concessions". And you just had a record turnout for midterms, because I think people are realizing it (along with the historically diverse field of candidates).



    But at the end of the day, it's the Dems job to generate enthusiasm among the people that they want to vote for them. Not the job of disenfranchised groups to turnout and be warm body slaves for centrists to use to beat the GOP.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  13. Sear

    Sear TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    31,700
    I'm sure there's a psychological reason for why someone who is already disenfranchised might be less likely to vote for "the lesser of two evils" who doesn't check all of their boxes.

    My hope is that there's also a psychological effect for not voting resulting in 4 years of Donald Trump, and this realization will override any apathy over voting for a less-than-ideal candidate.

    The fact that anyone needs extra motivation or appeal just to vote is really lame, but perhaps we can get them to the voting booths next year by utilizing some good old fashioned multiethnic American marketing. I think a breadcrumb trail of McNuggets that leads to the voting booths would get the job done.
     
  14. Sear

    Sear TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    31,700
    It is decided. We'll team up with McDonalds to reach out to the non-voting population.

    If we pump at least $100M into the marketing, some of these fine Americans may just take that two hours of their day to vote for the next president of the country. There's a free monopoly game piece in it for you.
     
  15. Kanmuk_Sealclubber

    Kanmuk_Sealclubber Yes

    Post Count:
    8,982
    The psychological/utility reason is that if you don't turn out to vote unless they make a greater effort to appeal to you, then they might make a greater effort to appeal to you if they want your vote. Whereas if you capitulate to the "lesser-of-two evils" game, then Dems have no reason to do anything other than over-appeal to centrists and donors, because progressives and minorities will vote for them anyway.

    The cost-benefit of doing that when losing saddles you with Trump is probably not worth it. You don't want to enable the GOP to run more and more batshit insane candidates either.

    I'd prefer people showed up and voted third-party. But I'm fine with people abstaining. Abstinence is just another way to potentially force a party's hand.
     
  16. Fais

    Fais TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    6,174
    All you need is Biden to marry Beyonce.
     
  17. Sear

    Sear TZT Neckbeard Lord

    Post Count:
    31,700

    I assumed as much, but I feel like that mentality is akin to an irresponsible child's mindset. I voted for Hilary even though nothing about her appealed to me, because I'm a grown adult who understood what was at stake.

    I know you want to just get into the details of how Democrats should corral those votes, so I'll stop my tangent there. It's just depressing to me that we have to do targeted marketing just to get people to vote. There's a cultural symptom in there that is rooted in some blend of shitty American values.
     
  18. Kanmuk_Sealclubber

    Kanmuk_Sealclubber Yes

    Post Count:
    8,982
    I mean, in theory, voting during the primary is a way to push the party left. But I don't know how primary voting actually works because nobody on TZT has ever talked about it and this is where I get all my information.

    I need to back out of this thread, in general, because I'm going too far down the rabbit hole of theoretical masturbation and I don't actually know the candidate's policies very well at this point. Maybe Buttigieg will end up being ridiculous, and Biden will end up being left of where we thought.
     
  19. Samassi Abou

    Samassi Abou TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    5,555
    Uh, Labor in Australia loses an unloseable election after promising the most progressive and ambitious agenda in a generation.

    This is how it'll feel when Trump unexpectedly wins re-election in 2020.
     
  20. Kanmuk_Sealclubber

    Kanmuk_Sealclubber Yes

    Post Count:
    8,982
    So you're down to thinking only Biden can win? Because Bernie would probably be the most progressive candidate, both economically and possibly socially as well (constitutional abortion rights, felon voting rights, Green New Deal, Dove foreign policy, guaranteeing jobs for the disabled, gun control, etc). That is a legitimate question, I'm not trying a "gotcha" or anything.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2019 at 8:02 AM