Leo

Well-known member
but if people don't want to vote for someone, they shouldn't be chastised for it

if Dems/Labour wanna win they should have better candidates and run better campaigns

easier said than done, but that's politics. and life.
not advocating people be chastised, stating the choice at hand for splintered voting blocks: at the moment of truth, either set differences aside and coalesce as a way to potentially get some or maybe even most of what you want, or remain unmoved and probably get none of it. to be clear, that's not a starting point, it's an end point, once a debate or campaign has played out and it's become clear which side has advanced.

there are also cases where people who take the my-way-or-the-highway approach aren't directly affected by the bad shit that can come as a result of a GOP/Tory administration, they have the luxury of not having to compromise because it ultimately won't impact their lives. they'll still be able to afford quality healthcare come what may, so they don't feel compelled to put differences aside and do what it takes in the homestretch to defeat a GOP legislature that's trying to eliminate Obamacare/coverage of pre-existing conditions, etc. some call it "coming from a place of privilege", a notion I know you're a big fan of. /s

sure, dems/labour should run better candidates/campaigns. my point is in cases where they don't, some compromises among voters once the process has played out can result in a not-ideal-but-best-possible outcome.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
it's an end point
yeah I mean, I understood you. it's not a complicated point.

it's politics, of course people are going to have to make decisions about what to compromise on

I disagree about the degree to which voters should be expected to suck it up and support/vote for candidates they don't want to support

the blaming (chastisement) of voters is implicit in placing the onus on them for not compromising enough

there's no single right answer, it's a matter of belief

pawning it off on affluence is an unequivocally bad look, though
 

Leo

Well-known member
I disagree about the degree to which voters should be expected to suck it up and support/vote for candidates they don't want to support

pawning it off on affluence is an unequivocally bad look, though
like I said, the GOP has a track record of expecting that to happen and it often does, to the party's benefit. I'm just referring to the choice and consequences. some people don't consider or care about the ramifications. if someone was a genuine Jill stein fan, then more power to 'em for voting for her in 2016. but anyone in, say, Wisconsin or Michigan who cast a protest vote for her last time clearly didn't consider or care about the ramifications.

And i said there are also cases where affluence is a factor, didn't think I needed to spell out further that it's not all or even a majority. I'm surely not the only one who's experienced it in conversations or social posting.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
anyone in, say, Wisconsin or Michigan who cast a protest vote for her last time clearly didn't consider or care about the ramifications
but you don't know that. you're just assuming. that's the point.

it's possible to know and care about things and still make a decision not to compromise.

the whole point of voting is individual agency (limited tho it may be). you don't get to tell people they were wrong. no one does.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I'm not denying that sometimes people vote against their own interests, or communal interests. of course they do.

but you think at the ultimate moment of truth voters are obligated to compromise. I don't think they are.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
that the right is usually more cohesive than the left I wouldn't deny. that's true anywhere. there are plenty of reasons for it.

it's easier to coalesce around the anger and fear than hope and empathy. the right is less concerned (or not concerned) with the ethics of power. etc.

it's not like that's going to change

especially here as the GOP is so completely tied to the wrong side of demographics, its base will only become more cohesive
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo

Leo

Well-known member
sorry I'm not being clear, we're more in agreement than it seems. except I never said voters are obligated to compromise. I said at the end of a race. compromising or not compromising at the ballot box can have profound ramifications in some elections.
 
Top