The process I am describing is the way in which primary voters over the last thirty years were successful in reshaping the Republican party while still showing up in general elections, a dynamic that, for example, led to Roe being repealed, one of the top goals of base voters for decades. If you want to look at the Trump administration, you could point to the Ryan tax cuts, which as Ryan himself said was a kind of extremist dream that would have been viewed as a political longshot 40 years ago.
LOL, as opposed to the way Team D rigs its primaries?
For that matter, a lot of American politics has shifted to a more openly oligarchical cast. Witness how Obama campaigned on the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, then, once he took office with a huge majority in both houses of Congress, Wall Street begging for rescue on any terms and a national MSM unironically comparing him to Neo from The Matrix and also Jesus Christ, decided to make those tax cuts permanent.
I'm not sure what we're arguing about a this point but if you think voting in primaries is useless and not voting in general elections is a good instrumentalist strategy to move politicians to the left, I disagree--but I hear you, and we all gotta just vote or not the way we think is best.
I am saying that the process is rigged, at least for Team D, and pointing to rightwing success in political accomplishments isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of whether rightwing strategy is effective.
OK. I *think* you're saying that withholding votes for Democrats in a general election would be an effective strategy, and I just don't really agree with you there--but who knows, it's hard to predict the future.
True. Bad idea IMO. If GOP had supedelegates, for example, they would 100% have blocked Trump on electability grounds. Oops! And of course the superdelegates backed Hillary, and I absolutely promise you they all thought they were savvy, thoughtful, and using the evidence to pick the right horse to win. I'm satisfied we've plowed these fields as much as we can, appreciate your thoughts--I think at this point I would just refer back to what I've already explained in detail elsewhere in this thread. Thanks for the talk, have a great one!
OK. They certainly love to talk about it, can't disagree with you there. They seem to be shit at predicting it, though, whereas as I have literally never faltered by predicting on election day that in an election when very recent, very robust polling shows third parties polling near zero, an R or D would win the presidency. Good night!
Have you seen the Team R civil wars?
Hell, last time they had Congress and the presidency, they couldn't even repeal Obamaccare.
The process I am describing is the way in which primary voters over the last thirty years were successful in reshaping the Republican party while still showing up in general elections, a dynamic that, for example, led to Roe being repealed, one of the top goals of base voters for decades. If you want to look at the Trump administration, you could point to the Ryan tax cuts, which as Ryan himself said was a kind of extremist dream that would have been viewed as a political longshot 40 years ago.
LOL, as opposed to the way Team D rigs its primaries?
For that matter, a lot of American politics has shifted to a more openly oligarchical cast. Witness how Obama campaigned on the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, then, once he took office with a huge majority in both houses of Congress, Wall Street begging for rescue on any terms and a national MSM unironically comparing him to Neo from The Matrix and also Jesus Christ, decided to make those tax cuts permanent.
I'm not sure what we're arguing about a this point but if you think voting in primaries is useless and not voting in general elections is a good instrumentalist strategy to move politicians to the left, I disagree--but I hear you, and we all gotta just vote or not the way we think is best.
I am saying that the process is rigged, at least for Team D, and pointing to rightwing success in political accomplishments isn't necessarily a reliable indicator of whether rightwing strategy is effective.
OK. I *think* you're saying that withholding votes for Democrats in a general election would be an effective strategy, and I just don't really agree with you there--but who knows, it's hard to predict the future.
Team D has superdelegates, which are there to pull the trigger when electability concerns become paramount.
True. Bad idea IMO. If GOP had supedelegates, for example, they would 100% have blocked Trump on electability grounds. Oops! And of course the superdelegates backed Hillary, and I absolutely promise you they all thought they were savvy, thoughtful, and using the evidence to pick the right horse to win. I'm satisfied we've plowed these fields as much as we can, appreciate your thoughts--I think at this point I would just refer back to what I've already explained in detail elsewhere in this thread. Thanks for the talk, have a great one!
The point being that "electability" actually matters to the people at the highest levels of power, regardless of what the average voter wants.
OK. They certainly love to talk about it, can't disagree with you there. They seem to be shit at predicting it, though, whereas as I have literally never faltered by predicting on election day that in an election when very recent, very robust polling shows third parties polling near zero, an R or D would win the presidency. Good night!
I hate to tell you this, but any moron can predict the easy stuff. You seem to think that's somehow meaningful but I have no idea why.
Again, what if Trump is the overwhelming favorite in November due to a recession hitting this summer? What relevance does your point have then?