Dems Rebuild

[RedDenver]

Why?

 

A vote for the Green Party presidential candidate is a vote trashed. Such voters often cite 'purity' as their justification for throwing their vote away. He's not targeting the Green platform in any way, though he may well disagree with it. But these two comments seem consistent to me for his argument for voting pragmatically rather than idealistically.

You don't see how Savage is doing the same thing of ostracizing people who aren't in his camp?

 

You are making a pretty giant leap to conclude that a Green vote is a trash vote. By that logic, can't I say that a vote for Clinton was a trash vote because she didn't win?

 

And if you are truly a practical voter, then shouldn't all the practical liberals join the "pure" voters on the left as that's the best chance to win? That's what being practical means, right?

[zoogs]

If we're to accept the logic of your protest, sharp criticism of any position isn't possible because it would be ostracizing and therefore hypocritical.

 

And if you are truly a practical voter, then shouldn't all the practical liberals join the "pure" voters on the left as that's the best chance to win? That's what being practical means, right?

 

I'm not sure how to respond to this. In what 'practical' Earth was voting for Ralph Nader or Jill Stein the "best" chance to win the Presidency? We often agree, and I respect that you don't like what Savage has to say, but I can't even begin the see the 'logic' in any of your three paragraphs. It feels pretty analogous to the saying that goes, "People who condemn close-mindedness are just being close-minded themselves".

 

To be clear, Savage is arguing this: there exist two camps, and opting out of either of them is self-defeating if you actually would rather one camp over the other. Put another way, "United we stand, divided they conquer." The latter is what happened in 2016: first in the Republican primaries, and then in the National election. We're now enduring the consequences of that conquering, although 'consequences' may be too negative a term depending on one's stance on this presidency.

[BigRedBuster]

This is an interesting development.

 

[knapplc]

It doesn't matter as long as he does what's best for the citizens of his state. Sadly, that's not likely why he's making this switch.

 

Party over people. It's just so dumb.

[zoogs]

It's West Virginia. Deep, deep, deep red territory. He was probably not a very ideological guy to begin with (this is a neutral statement), but this'll make his life a lot easier there, for sure. I see this as maybe a people over party kind of thing, but who knows?

 

I'm glad, personally, that their Democratic Senator seems to be a bit more solid of a Democrat.

[commando]

he has flipped before

 

[Lil' Red]

 

Why?

 

A vote for the Green Party presidential candidate is a vote trashed. Such voters often cite 'purity' as their justification for throwing their vote away. He's not targeting the Green platform in any way, though he may well disagree with it. But these two comments seem consistent to me for his argument for voting pragmatically rather than idealistically.

You don't see how Savage is doing the same thing of ostracizing people who aren't in his camp?

 

You are making a pretty giant leap to conclude that a Green vote is a trash vote. By that logic, can't I say that a vote for Clinton was a trash vote because she didn't win?

 

And if you are truly a practical voter, then shouldn't all the practical liberals join the "pure" voters on the left as that's the best chance to win? That's what being practical means, right?

 

 

Even if all the voters that preferred the Green candidate to the Republican candidate voted for the Green candidate, they still wouldn't win. I'm pretty far left and I probably wouldn't vote for Jill Stein over someone like Romney.

[NM11046]

he has flipped before

 

He's the Jamire Calvin of politics.

[RedDenver]

If we're to accept the logic of your protest, sharp criticism of any position isn't possible because it would be ostracizing and therefore hypocritical.

I'm not saying that. Savage is saying that and I'm pointing out that's hypocritical. He's saying the other guys aren't allowed to criticize my side but then criticizes the other side.

 

 

And if you are truly a practical voter, then shouldn't all the practical liberals join the "pure" voters on the left as that's the best chance to win? That's what being practical means, right?[/size]

I'm not sure how to respond to this. In what 'practical' Earth was voting for Ralph Nader or Jill Stein the "best" chance to win the Presidency? We often agree, and I respect that you don't like what Savage has to say, but I can't even begin the see the 'logic' in any of your three paragraphs. It feels pretty analogous to the saying that goes, "People who condemn close-mindedness are just being close-minded themselves".[/size]

 

If we're only allowed to vote for the "best" chance to win, that means we should have all voted for Trump. Saying someone shouldn't vote a particular way because of chance of winning is nonsense. For example, I voted for Stein because the 2016 candidates were a sh*tshow, and I want to break the hold of the two party system. My goal was to get the Green Party to 5% of the vote so that they would get federally funding for the next election. I was voting for future elections.

 

Additionally, even if all the Stein voters had voted for Clinton (or vice versa), Trump still would have won. Neither of our votes ended up mattering in the end.

 

And my logic is pointing out that if we want to unite, and one side is "pure" or ideological and the other side is practical, then by definition the practical side should capitulate because that's the practical thing to do. I doubt that will happen - my guess is that it's not really about being practical.

 

To be clear, Savage is arguing this: there exist two camps, and opting out of either of them is self-defeating if you actually would rather one camp over the other. Put another way, "United we stand, divided they conquer." The latter is what happened in 2016: first in the Republican primaries, and then in the National election. We're now enduring the consequences of that conquering, although 'consequences' may be too negative a term depending on one's stance on this presidency. [/size]

No where in the article does Savage say that.

[zoogs]

"I'm not saying that. Savage is saying that and I'm pointing out that's hypocritical. He's saying the other guys aren't allowed to criticize my side but then criticizes the other side."

No, he's not. He's saying using total alignment or purity as a voting criteria is self-defeating and wrongheaded. This may be unfair, this may be mean, but it's not hypocritical.

 

If you think he's saying "it's wrong to criticize another side", I think you're really missing the point. I suspect you disagree with Savage on his actual point, so that's where the discussion should be.

 

If we're only allowed to vote for the "best" chance to win, that means we should have all voted for Trump.

Again, this is *seriously* missing his argument, which is this: there are 2 options. You should vote for the closest one rather than neither.

 

...

 

How does the "practical" side "compromise" towards ideology? You're not making any sense. It doesn't happen because that's the opposite direction of how compromise works. It's a lot more unreasonable to ask everyone to move a great distance to your particular wing than it is to ask everyone to shuffle a much smaller mean and median distance towards the center of the big tent.

 

I understand you're a Stein guy and a Green Party guy. I understand that you would disagree or even take offense to these suggestions. But I don't see how you can have such a different take on what he's even saying, or what the logical constructs are here.

[Lil' Red]

Additionally, even if all the Stein voters had voted for Clinton (or vice versa), Trump still would have won. Neither of our votes ended up mattering in the end.

 

Actually, that's not true. Stein had more votes than Trump's margin of victory in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

[RedDenver]

Here's the entire question and answer from the article:

Alexander Bisley

What’s your general political advice for liberals?

Dan Savage

There is a strain of the left that is really invested in show trials and purity testing and virtue signaling. And would rather lose surrounded by perfect allies than win with an army that includes imperfect allies. And it is self-defeating and it is exhausting and it is a real problem for the left.

Show the f-ck up and vote. Voting is not a platform on which you perform or call attention to your purity. You’re giving away your vote; you’re not giving away your f'ing hymen.

Don’t drive people out by attacking them for not being as pure and woke as you are. The less evil you have at the top, the better direction the country is going to go in. The lie the Greens peddle every four years, “If we can just election Ralph Nader or Jill Stein everything will be glorious and wonderful tomorrow.” That’s just not how things play out politically.

The part I've bolded is a strawman attack. The part in red is where he doesn't think the other side should attack his side.

 

Notice how it reads if I turn it around:

There is a strain of the left that is really invested in donor and corporate money. And would rather lose surrounded by their donors than win with an army that includes progressives. And it is self-defeating and it is exhausting and it is a real problem for the left.

Don’t drive people out by attacking them for not being as establishment as you are.

 

 

If Savage doesn't want people to be driven, then maybe he should compromise or identify with them instead of attacking them.

[zoogs]

To clarify: you're allowed to vote however you like. For example, if you are indifferent to Trump vs Clinton, voting another way makes sense. But if you're not, then I'd ask you to consider whether your stated preferences match your actual ones. Isn't that how we should all inform our decisions?

 

Similarly, if other issues simply overrode, fine. For example, if federal funding for the GP was more important than healthcare direction or staying in the Paris treaty (Green Party, though?...), okay, vote for the GP.

 

For me, it's incomprehensible that there could be /anything/ important enough to level Trump vs Anybody in the race for U.S. President, but I respect that people can just have very different priorities. If in the final analysis of decisions vs. priorities we're still different, that's fine. We look at things differently and it's good, and healthy, for both sides of our debate on the relative "bad"-ness of the Trump presidency to engage each other.

 

By the way, I don't believe in "I live in X state, so my vote doesn't matter". Geography doesn't give any of us a pass on a decision we can't defend universally on its own. We are all part of the political conversation. We all contribute to the national barometer. How resolutely red or blue one state is, that shapes things. We influence each other through our conversations and the arguments we make, repeat, agree with, disagree with. It's a participatory democracy in so many more ways than one, and we own the positions we stake out -- regardless of the (probably unfortunate?) systemic limitations in place.

[RedDenver]

 

Additionally, even if all the Stein voters had voted for Clinton (or vice versa), Trump still would have won. Neither of our votes ended up mattering in the end.

 

Actually, that's not true. Stein had more votes than Trump's margin of victory in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

 

Unless there's more up-to-date numbers I'm not seeing, Stein's votes to Clinton would have only swung Wisconsin and Michigan but not Pennsylvania, which would have been a 52 electoral vote swing, but Trump won by 74.

[Enhance]

 

From an interview I posted in Trump's America about sex education policy; Dan Savage also has this spot on bit of advice that sums up how I feel about voting and coalitions:

 

 

 

There is a strain of the left that is really invested in show trials and purity testing and virtue signaling. And would rather lose surrounded by perfect allies than win with an army that includes imperfect allies. And it is self-defeating and it is exhausting and it is a real problem for the left.

 

(...)Voting is not a platform on which you perform or call attention to your purity. (...)

 

Don’t drive people out by attacking them for not being as pure and woke as you are. The less evil you have at the top, the better direction the country is going to go in. The lie the Greens peddle every four years, “If we can just election Ralph Nader or Jill Stein everything will be glorious and wonderful tomorrow.” That’s just not how things play out politically.

 

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/8/3/16078980/dan-savage-trump-pence-abstinence-sex-education

 

 

It is so self-defeating. The answer is so clear to me, and in a nation of diverse wants and needs you'll never have exactly your total set of views in power. However, the stark choice presented to us is 'which fights are possible to have in this proposed world'. Currently our eleventh hour political upsets are over not destroying healthcare, for crying out loud. We have a chance to keep going slowly in reasonable directions if we stop voting such that we're instead dominated by questions of "Should we completely blackslide?" and "Hey, maybe all this lying is OK and normal?"

Maybe I'm misinterpreting or misunderstanding this, but it seems to suggest that a vote for anything but one of the major party candidates is a wasted vote, of which I'd passionately disagree. Sometimes not voting in a presidential election is a statement in and of itself, though people should still go to the polls to consider candidates for positions like district judge.

 

Edit - just saw your post #553. I understand the position better now.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Enhance89