• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

BabyMurloc

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,890
But that's not the reality, so what significance does it have?

I dunno, might convince someone to vote for Biden? I guess I just don't like this entitlement to votes the big parties feel like they have. I'm lucky enough to live in a sane country though.

edit: oh, and the refusal to accept responsibility it all implies. No matter the shit we offer, it's the disgusted voter's fault if the real bad guy wins.
 

shamanick

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,072
I'm not single-handedly blaming Nader for Al Gore's loss and the eight years that followed, but it's ridiculous to ignore that Nader voters were a decisive factor in that election. Obviously there were many issues with Gore and the race in general that went beyond Nader that brought the election down to just a hundred votes in Florida, in the same way that Hillary Clinton lost 2016 for reasons beyond just the volume of Jill Stein voters that year. But at the same time, if those Nader votes had cast ballots for Gore instead, then the course of history is completely changed. It's one factor of many, but they are all consequential ones.

The simple fact is no third-party presidential nominee is viable, so their candidacies are by default spoiler campaigns and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

You're assuming that if Nader wasn't running those voters would automatically go to Gore which is not an assumption you can make. Maybe they would have voted for Bush, or stayed home, or spoiled their ballot. It makes a lot more sense to blame the registered Dems who voted for Bush.
 

Tetra-Grammaton-Cleric

user requested ban
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
8,958
I'm not single-handedly blaming Nader for Al Gore's loss and the eight years that followed, but it's ridiculous to ignore that Nader voters were a decisive factor in that election. Obviously there were many issues with Gore and the race in general that went beyond Nader that brought the election down to just a hundred votes in Florida, in the same way that Hillary Clinton lost 2016 for reasons beyond just the volume of Jill Stein voters that year. But at the same time, if those Nader votes had cast ballots for Gore instead, then the course of history is completely changed. It's one factor of many, but they are all consequential ones.

The simple fact is no third-party presidential nominee is viable, so their candidacies are by default spoiler campaigns and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

So you're comfortable with our current political duopoly existing in perpetuity?

Because I'm not.

FYI, third party candidates aren't viable because everyone has effectively decided this via the same manner of propagandist blather I alluded to earlier. While not easy, there is a pathway to create a viable third party and in truth our inability to understand and embrace this is what will lead to our collective downfall.
 

TSM

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,823
Just the fact that it'd be hard for the Democrats to nominate someone that was as historically disliked as Clinton should be enough not to lose the swing states by the tiny margins they did in 2016. Overcoming that dislike was it's own hurdle outside of any policy standards.
 

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,121
I don't understand the argument that "it wasn't Corbyn or his leftist policies, it was the right wing media smearing Corbyn because he has leftist policies that lead to his unpopularity."

Newsflash: We've got a right wing media machine problem over here too. Possibly worse. Seems like a losing tact to take when arguing the UK results don't apply here.
 

BobLoblaw

This Guy Helps
Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,302
I just want to point out that even if this was literally your life savings this is a huge amount to have saved up by American standards
I'm in my late 30s. Having $15k in savings isn't unusual when you're a single working professional that's been working since age 16. Even if it was, I'm not some rich asshole who doesn't give a shit about other people's struggles, especially when I had my own growing up.
 

FeliciaFelix

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,778
I just want to point out that even if this was literally your life savings this is a huge amount to have saved up by American standards

Are we so really so petty to resent anyone even a slightly better off than you? 15k is hardly Bezos money. And unlike Bezos, guy doesn't seen to want to horde it.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,620
You're assuming that if Nader wasn't running those voters would automatically go to Gore which is not an assumption you can make. Maybe they would have voted for Bush, or stayed home, or spoiled their ballot. It makes a lot more sense to blame the registered Dems who voted for Bush.
I mean yes I do assume that people who lean toward Ralph Nader and/or the Green Party are ideologically closer to Democrats than Republicans. In real life it might not break down as neatly as that, but I also know that Republican voters are much more likely to come home than Democratic voters are.

And again I'm not pinning it all on Nader voters, there is a lot of blame to go around in that election, particularly to Gore himself and Rehnquist for deciding it was the Supreme Court's prerogative to throw the election to the majority's party. But certainly if the people who voted for Nader had voted for Gore, then that would've been the end of that, and it's impossible to argue otherwise.

So you're comfortable with our current political duopoly existing in perpetuity?

Because I'm not.

FYI, third party candidates aren't viable because everyone has effectively decided this via the same manner of propagandist blather I alluded to earlier. While not easy, there is a pathway to create a viable third party and in truth our inability to understand and embrace this is what will lead to our collective downfall.
tbh I would probably be more comfortable with the current duopoly than a system where the left-of-center vote is constantly split between more than one party. I'm not exactly envious of the enduring conservative parliamentary rule in places like the UK and Israel.

And third-party candidates aren't viable because a first past the post system isn't designed for it, not because of anti-Green propaganda.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
Are we so really so petty to resent anyone even a slightly better off than you? 15k is hardly Bezos money. And unlike Bezos, guy doesn't seen to want to horde it.

I'm not saying the donation of 15K is a bad thing.
I'm saying that this is a substantial financial cushion that most of the country doesn't have, which is why the leftist push, seen especially with the youth, is important and needs to be cultivated. GoFundMe is not a health insurance plan.
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
Watching the centrist vultures throw up takes like this while ignoring the fact that centrists got owned the hardest in the UK election sure is going to get obnoxious fast.

Yep.

People like Joe will cuddle up to the Toxic Right every time so long as it means stopping actual progressive action that threatens the status quo rotting the system from within
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,620
I don't understand the argument that "it wasn't Corbyn or his leftist policies, it was the right wing media smearing Corbyn because he has leftist policies that lead to his unpopularity."

Newsflash: We've got a right wing media machine problem over here too. Possibly worse. Seems like a losing tact to take when arguing the UK results don't apply here.

yes, the "it's not that Corbyn is unpopular, it's that the right-wing propaganda machines made him unpopular" counterargument still doesn't disprove the issue of Corbyn's unpopularity as a problem.
 

FeliciaFelix

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,778
I'm not saying the donation of 15K is a bad thing.
I'm saying that this is a substantial financial cushion that most of the country doesn't have, which is why the leftist push, seen especially with the youth, is important and needs to be cultivated. GoFundMe is not a health insurance plan.

You probably didnt mean to, but it read to me like pitting the fucked against the slightly less fucked. That's what I'm saying we must unite the poor and the so-called centrist to get anywhere.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
You probably didnt mean to, but it read to me like pitting the fucked against the slightly less fucked. That's what I'm saying we must unite the poor and the so-called centrist to get anywhere.

Will the centrists actually move left as part of this uniting process though? Almost always this prospect of divisiveness seems to be used as a cudgel, like in the rather basal sophistry of Biden this very thread is about. Leftists going left always seems to be how we get Trump according to the punditverse, never centrists willing to realize the gap they straddle is wider than they claim.
 

Googleplex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
747
So you're comfortable with our current political duopoly existing in perpetuity?

Because I'm not.

FYI, third party candidates aren't viable because everyone has effectively decided this via the same manner of propagandist blather I alluded to earlier. While not easy, there is a pathway to create a viable third party and in truth our inability to understand and embrace this is what will lead to our collective downfall.

No Thrid party Candidates aren't viable because we have a first-past-the-post voting system. the math just doesn't work out for third-party candidates in this country because of the way the Constitution is written.

Anyone still selling the idea of a third party in this day and age is either willfully ignorant or simply trying to spoil the election with someone else.

 

AnnoyinSwami

Member
Oct 30, 2017
166
Anyone who was paying attention to the UK result can tell you that it wasn't a vote against socialist policies. People didn't vote for Labour for 2 reasons: Brexit and Corbyn. Labour had taken a rather soft stance towards Brexit which meant they hadn't the support of those strongly for or against it. Corbyn has a ton of baggage that the electorate clearly focused on but this mainly came down to issues like the IRA and antisemitism, not the manifesto itself. People voted against Corbyn not the manifesto. It would be easier to swallow the argument that a more center-left manifesto + hard remain stance would've led to more Labour seats if the Lib Dems hadn't explicitly positioned themsevles as that party and consequently got fuck all this election.
 

bye

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,424
Phoenix, AZ
Anyone who was paying attention to the UK result can tell you that it wasn't a vote against socialist policies. People didn't vote for Labour for 2 reasons: Brexit and Corbyn. Labour had taken a rather soft stance towards Brexit which meant they hadn't the support of those strongly for or against it. Corbyn has a ton of baggage that the electorate clearly focused on but this mainly came down to issues like the IRA and antisemitism, not the manifesto itself. People voted against Corbyn not the manifesto. It would be easier to swallow the argument that a more center-left manifesto + hard remain stance would've led to more Labour seats if the Lib Dems hadn't explicitly positioned themsevles as that party and consequently got fuck all this election.

so you're saying being neither strongly for or against something was probably a bad idea? 🤔
 

fhqwhgads

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,535
Centerism means nothing gets better for the minorities, the status quo is mostly upheld and an old white guy who shows no signs of being progressive is just going to fill his cabinet with other old white guys who think just like him. The most lefty things you'll get out of Biden is the typical Neoliberal dribble, like promoting a women's only branch of ICE.
 

Fallout-NL

Member
Oct 30, 2017
6,723
Except you forgot that I (along with many others) helped to save the life of someone around here who didn't have healthcare in his country. I even floated $15k of my own money in order to make sure he got his treatment started asap. Get some fucking perspective.

Good for you, but eh, if you have that much fucking money to give to a stranger (good on you, srsly), perspective on the severity of the need for structural change is maybe something you lack.

It can't be a drastic thing

In the way Trump wasn't a drastic thing?
 
Last edited:

FeliciaFelix

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,778
Will the centrists actually move left as part of this uniting process though? Almost always this prospect of divisiveness seems to be used as a cudgel, like in the rather basal sophistry of Biden this very thread is about. Leftists going left always seems to be how we get Trump according to the punditverse, never centrists willing to realize the gap they straddle is wider than they claim.

I think the leftist ideas as a whole dont really offer anything to well off centrist (based on nothing, I think being well off tends to make you centrist). You can appeal to hearts to a certain extent, but in those groups, cash incentives work best. They have health care that's ok, can do payments on loans ok (if they have any) and could easily withstand 4 more years of Trump with no worries, even if they find him theoretically disgusting.

And if they are racists? Gone forever. But assuming their sense of dignity is strong enough, you can get their vote on Trump hate alone.
 

AnnoyinSwami

Member
Oct 30, 2017
166
so you're saying being neither strongly for or against something was probably a bad idea? 🤔
Pretty much yeah. I liked Labours manifesto, I wanted them to win. Clearly their Brexit policy was a huge part of why they didn't. While I am pro-remain in hindsight maybe it would've actually been better for them to have pushed a pro-brexit policy, giving a socialist argument for why it would be a good idea. It's honestly difficult to say. But I think that for Labour its not going to be as simple as pursuing a center-left New Labour policy plan from now on.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
I think the leftist ideas as a whole dont really offer anything to well off centrist (based on nothing, I think being well off tends to make you centrist). You can appeal to hearts to a certain extent, but in those groups, cash incentives work best. They have health care that's ok, can do payments on loans ok (if they have any) and could easily withstand 4 more years of Trump with no worries, even if they find him theoretically disgusting.

And if they are racists? Gone forever. But assuming their sense of dignity is strong enough, you can get their vote on Trump hate alone.

I mean you're not wrong exactly, which is the reason historically leftist groups deal with moderate obstruction in, uh, the ways they have
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,261
Biden showing how little he knows about UK politics as usual. Labour didn't lose northern leave seats because they had a left wing manifesto.
 

Kcannon

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,663
I don't understand the argument that "it wasn't Corbyn or his leftist policies, it was the right wing media smearing Corbyn because he has leftist policies that lead to his unpopularity."

Newsflash: We've got a right wing media machine problem over here too. Possibly worse. Seems like a losing tact to take when arguing the UK results don't apply here.

My impression is that the US media doesn't protect Trump as much as the UK does for Johnson, Fox News aside.

Although they don't go hard on him either, which is bad. Just not bulshit BBC bad.
 
Last edited:

FeliciaFelix

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,778
I mean you're not wrong exactly, which is the reason historically leftist groups deal with moderate obstruction in, uh, the ways they have

I feel that's gotten the left no real results and only inches of progress. You can try to appeal to their conscience, or finger wag, but the GOP has figured out cold hard cash/tax cuts works best.
 

BobLoblaw

This Guy Helps
Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,302
Good for you, but eh, if you have that much fucking money to give to a stranger (good on you, srsly), perspective on the severity of the need for structural change is maybe something you lack.
Except I never said there shouldn't be structural changes. Everyone should be entitled to coverage without exception. My main concern was how we went about doing that because some candidates are apparently ok with millions of people (either in the industry or tied to it) losing their jobs and just considering that the cost of doing business. If you're going to change something that's been in place as long as it has, you need to have a plan to address the fallout and none of them have even mentioned it.

In the way Trump wasn't a drastic thing?
Except millions more people voted against him than for him. That proves the point regardless of some outdated electoral college bullshit.
 

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,121
My impression is that the US media doesn't protect Trump as much as the UK does for Johnson, Fox News aside.
They don't need to. What they do is regurgitate right wing smear until no one is thinking of the source, only that the story exists, no matter how true or false it may be. Our electoral issue is an apathetic public that is easily electorally depressed. Yeah, our media will air bad stuff about Trump, but the Right doesn't care, they're going to go out and vote for everyone with an R next to their name. The left, on the other hand, is reliant on some very large, very fickle demographics and some relatively small, super consistent ones to turn out. Meanwhile, our swing voters are the most fickle of all.

If the argument is "Corbyn wasn't unpopular, the right made him unpopular through smears" that's not a refutation of the UK election being relevant to the upcoming US election.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
Except I never said there shouldn't be structural changes. Everyone should be entitled to coverage without exception. My main concern was how we went about doing that because some candidates are apparently ok with millions of people (either in the industry or tied to it) losing their jobs and just considering that the cost of doing business. If you're going to change something that's been in place as long as it has, you need to have a plan to address the fallout and none of them have even mentioned it.

The problem with this is that the whole point of Sanders' reforms is to make losing one's job not a death sentence.
Someone getting medicare and having 15K saved up, even if they are currently unemployed, is doing way, way better than someone making minimum wage on a part-time retail job and buying a plan of the ACA exchange.

Besides a lot of those jobs are going to have to go to the public sector anyway, because the medicare expansion means needing more staff to handle it.

I can understand being scared that a compromised solution for these reforms would be devastating due to the massive social drawbacks coming without this cushion of guaranteed benefits, but that's why so many of us are fed up with the notion of needing to compromise on human decency.
 

Sumio Mondo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,935
United Kingdom
Did this guy fail to see that the centrist party just got absolutely thrashed in the UK as well, or is he just seeing what he wants to see to move along his narrative?
 

BobLoblaw

This Guy Helps
Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,302
The problem with this is that the whole point of Sanders' reforms is to make losing one's job not a death sentence.
Someone getting medicare and having 15K saved up, even if they are currently unemployed, is doing way, way better than someone making minimum wage on a part-time retail job and buying a plan of the ACA exchange.

Besides a lot of those jobs are going to have to go to the public sector anyway, because the medicare expansion means needing more staff to handle it.

I can understand being scared that a compromised solution for these reforms would be devastating due to the massive social drawbacks coming without this cushion of guaranteed benefits, but that's why so many of us are fed up with the notion of needing to compromise on human decency.
So, I get to keep my insurance when losing my job. That's great, but none of my non-medical bills go away. I still have to pay rent and buy groceries. Can you point me to a plan from Bernie or even Warren (the person I'm currently supporting) when they specify how they'll deal with the fallout? I haven't seen it. And someone having saved $15k after working for 20+ years is not some mythical, impossible thing.
 

Fallout-NL

Member
Oct 30, 2017
6,723
So, I get to keep my insurance when losing my job. That's great, but none of my non-medical bills go away. I still have to pay rent and buy groceries. Can you point me to a plan from Bernie or even Warren (the person I'm currently supporting) when they specify how they'll deal with the fallout? I haven't seen it.

Just so long as you're getting yours right? I mean I get it, I want to pay my bills too, but to give you another example: as a copywriter I'm making most of my living from writing for car dealerships. If however, my government would finally get off its ass and ban cars to combat climate change, that would probably lose me a significant chunk of my assignments. I'd welcome it though if someone finally were to do something about an issue I feel is far more important than something as inconsequential (comparatively) as how I make my living.

You, as a person, should be able to admit that the job you're doing is utterly fucking pointless and perhaps even detrimental to the human experience. Don't blame you for doing it. But If I can admit that, so can you.

And someone having saved $15k after working for 20+ years is not some mythical, impossible thing.

No, but I assume that 15k did not represent 100% of your savings. Not 50% or 25% either.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 25600

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,701
For anyone that claims that Brexit and not Corby was the problem, Opinium have just released a new poll:

ELrVznsWkAAJPXD


It 100% was Corbyn and his crew that was so utterly unappealing that some voters went to BoJo of all people.

Biden is right, the same thing will happen if Bernie and his crew get the nomination.
mGyjIwS.jpg
 

darz1

Member
Dec 18, 2017
7,093
Well this is the dame arguement that both his and Butti supports spout all the time
 

Ryoku

Member
Oct 28, 2017
460
I hate how the idea of everyone having healthcare and education are considered "far-left". It's a fucking travesty that these things get framed as extreme ideas. Oh well. Maybe the American people are that gullible...
 

Mansa Mufasa

Member
Jun 17, 2019
1,354
Toronto
Morally. Yes everyone here is right. It's a horrible thing and a response far from the one you would like. But more of you need to read Dale Carneige's How to Win People and Influence friends. There's a part in there that talks about people not being able to view themselves as Villains.

"I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man."
That's Al Capone speaking. Yes, America's most notorious Public Enemy -- the most sinister gang leader who ever shot up Chicago. Capone didn't condemn himself. He actually regarded himself as a public benefactor -- an unappreciated and misunderstood public benefactor."

If a Notorious-Cocaine sniffing murderer never saw himself as a Villain, you think someone as a moderate voter with all the nuances and possibly privlege of being unaware of why they are in the morally wrong is going to respond well to calling them Racists pieces of shit?

I say this as a Black man. I say this as vocal Black Canadian that calls a Spade a Spade. Ya'll are talking activism, Joe is talking Politics. He's right. You can't win people over by calling them pieces of shit. You have to win them to your side and keep them while you make your moves. That's what Dems need to take from Trump. Foster a Cult of Personality that will ride for you no matter what the other side says about you.

It's not what you know. It's not what you can prove. It's what you can convince people is more beneficial to them without making them compromise on their ego. If we're morally right when they come to our side they'll figure out they were on the wrong side of history.

But until then. Fix up. There's too much on the line for Dems NOT to think strategically.
 

andymoogle

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,312
I hate how the idea of everyone having healthcare and education are considered "far-left". It's a fucking travesty that these things get framed as extreme ideas. Oh well. Maybe the American people are that gullible...
Yup. It works everywhere else in the world, but for some reason the richest country in the world can't handle it. People are falling so hard for this framing by neo-liberals. They want nothing but your money. They don't care about you. Stop listening to their bullshit.
 
Oct 25, 2017
19,105
It pains me to say, but he's right, and Era is in for one hell of a shock.

Unfortunately minorities like myself don't have the convenience of being picky. If he ends up on the ticket, he gets my vote. Supreme Court Justice seat is on the line.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
It pains me to say, but he's right, and Era is in for one hell of a shock.

Unfortunately minorities like myself don't have the convenience of being picky. If he ends up on the ticket, he gets my vote. Supreme Court Justice seat is on the line.
The difference is if Biden is elected and is facing a 4 year Republican Senate who don't confirm any of his appointments he won't do shit.

The supreme court in general is on the line and anyone who would keep the court to favor the Republicans is not someone we should be championing for

Also for the 500th time, he's dead wrong about Labour losing by moving too far to the left and it's annoying seeing other people carry water for that statement
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,695
He's right unfortunately, but you can bridge the gap. You can come off as more moderate, but actually have a plan to implement social democratic reforms (rebuilding welfare state, etc.) once in power.

I think Warren is the best contender exactly in this sort of space. I just wish she got her shit together with regards to advanced nuclear energy because she and Bernie clearly have no fucking idea what they are talking about in that space.
 

Seeya

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,984
He's is correct.

You need the centrist votes to win the election and you lose the centrist votes by proposing far left policy for your platform.

Especially in America where Socialism is "Un-american"

Centrist voters don't actually exist. They are a fraction of a fraction of whatever they once were and are so 'all over the map' on a per issue basis that appealing to any one fragment it a waste of time.

You win by the mobilisation of your voters by making a clear and simple EMOTIONAL message that engages everyone. Not by playing but for the middle.