Most people "doing their own research" fall in to the latter category.
Did you Google that?
Ephoron
joined 2 weeks ago
Ahh... So now the whataboutism... I'm beginning to get the picture.
Taking that attitude you're showing you're not here in good faith.
If you want good faith arguments perhaps don't start with condescending comments about "kindergarten" level civics and have enough charity to at least start from the premise that it might actually be you who's wrong rather than just assuming that any argument you don't agree with must be the result of your interlocutor being kindergarten level dumb.
You construct a twisted, narrow interpretation so that you can walk out on it and say look at this very narrow interpretation, explain this narrow interpretation.
Followed by...
Do they lose? Do they win?
Broad and wide-ranging narrative ... anyone?
And then you go on to tell a story about what each president 'would have done' which, I presume you must have gained from direct personal conversations with them, unless... Oh, you're not just believing things they tell the newspapers... You sweet summer child...
what would happen if they won consistently and overwhelmingly? They'd move left. They could do left things, without losing the next election. This is pretty simple.
It might seem simple to you. But it contains two hidden premises and two logical flaws.
The first hidden premise is that they actually want to move left (and so would take an opportunity to do so). You've not yet made a case that they do. A scattering of slightly-left-of-neocon policies is not very convincing.
The second premise is that each event is a response to the last and not to any of the hundred other factors in American politics at the time. Again, just showing one thing followed another does not prove it was caused by it.
The first logical flaw is that you've still not provided a mechanism by which successive democratic campaign teams know somehow why they lost, that it was their slightly leftist policies and not, again one of the other hundred factors in politics at the time.
The second logical flaw is that you've still not explained why democrats need an actual election to find out that lots of leftists will vote for them. Why can't they just poll, like everyone else does? They presumably rely on polls to tell them what policies these non-voters want, so why do they need an actual election victory to learn that in four year's time these people will likely vote for them. Why can't they just ask? That's the normal way all other political strategies are worked out - focus groups, polls, town meetings... You're singling out willingness to vote as a fact about potential voters which is somehow inaccessible to the democrat strategists without the proof of an actual election win, but assuming other facts, like the policies they'd like, can be ascertained. Why?
Oh. And whilst I've got such a golden opportunity to have "kindergarten" level civics so patiently explained to me...
How do the Democrats find out the political leanings of the voters who won them the vote in order to reward? them next time with policies they like? Is there some magic poll they can access, but only after an election? Because any poll which they could access before an election would obviously tell them in advance what a willing and committed set of voters they'd have if only they put in some more left wing policies.
You're suggesting polling subtle enough to determine policy preferences among different demographics, but somehow incapable of determining voting commitment/apathy. Apparently an actual election is the only way anyone can find that information out. But once done they magically know exactly why everyone voted the way they did.
If the left voters show up, then guess what? More left policies will be adopted.
Why? A left vote is worth 1 (because they wouldn't have otherwise voted right), a centre vote is worth 2 (because it's also a vote away from the other party). So it doesn't matter how many on the left "show up" their votes simply aren't worth as much as centre voters.
That's the argument given. Centre votes are worth double. The corollary is that they'll always be the target demographic.
And also the fact that all arms manufacturers are public companies, invested in by global hedge funds which any wealthy investor from Tehran, to Moscow, to Washington will be heavily invested in.
We live in a global economy of asset management. It doesn't matter which government invests the tax dollars in which firms, as long as the money flows in the wealthy investors profit, then use those profits to promote more wars (among other things) to drive more profits.
If a centre vote is worth double, then it doesn't make any difference if the left are mobilised to vote or not.
With a mobilised left it's left-vote=1 centre-vote=2
With an apathetic left it's left-vote=0 centre-vote=2
Either way the centre vote is worth more so the party moves to the centre.
But if this is wrong, and the left vote is indeed worth more, then why change policies to court the centre, why not have openly leftist policies to attract this game-changing leftist vote?
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that the democrats have to hide their leftist agenda to gain votes and also claim that the leftist voting block is the make or break of electoral success.
But in a vacuum it wouldn't be required. It's about making choices regarding those issues we allow to take media attention, and more importantly, play the role of the 'enemy', literally the 'bringer of death' in this meme. Not poverty, not corporate greed, not the pathological indifference to suffering of the Big Mac munching consumer...
No. One bloke who's probably not even calling all the shots and will be dead and gone in a few decades whilst the whole bloody monstrosity carries on because everyone's attention is just on the next Disneyfied super villain.
Proving my point. You're even actually proud of your blind fawning obsequiousness. Its sickening.