a candidate should work to appeal to 100% of their voter base
Less a proposal and more of a fact: People won’t vote for a candidate who does not support the issues that they support. You can’t expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.
If Kamala supports fracking and the majority of voters do not, it is up to her to change, not the voters.
i consider this a voter skill issue
Yeah… Democrats want to blame the voters so they can continue to court wealthy donors. If everyone in Michigan promises to “Vote Blue No Matter Who” then they can continue arming Israel without losing any Muslim votes. Unfortunately that’s not how things work.
Less a proposal and more of a fact: People won’t vote for a candidate who does not support the issues that they support. You can’t expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.
it’s not a fact, it’s a statement, arguably a fallacy. The whole point of running as a candidate is to appeal to the most voters, you’re going to lose some here and there, but the general idea is to appeal most broadly to as many as you can. This is why we have a two party system, if this wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t have one. We wouldn’t have a multi party system either, we would have a single party system based purely on only pushing legislation that everyone agrees with.
Idk where the misunderstanding is happening here, but if you don’t want to vote for kamala that’s fine, you’re legally allowed to do so, and morally encouraged to vote for whoever you want. However that doesn’t make you decision sound or logical, nor does it make you entitled to any particular representation.
You can’t expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.
i don’t believe i have ever said this, i just said that MI might not vote for kamala, who cares, it’s an arguably stupid choice to do, but that’s a choice they can make. Like i said it’s most effective to focus on the moderates in literally every other state.
If Kamala supports fracking and the majority of voters do not, it is up to her to change, not the voters.
ok so, no, technically not, it’s only to the extent that support is required, and that people require direct representation on that issue. Things like kamala not being 80 years old, and being a woman, are gong to be more impactful than things like “actually i think we should continue with current energy policy”
Also to be clear, you’re arguing for an absolutist democracy here, a state where the people opt to elect a fascist, thus a fascist gets in power, and the end of democracy happens. I think most people would agree that this shouldn’t be possible. Sometimes popular sentiment is just wrong this is why the founding fathers constructed the government the way it is, with the electoral college, and the three branches. It’s intended to operate in a mostly isolated fashion from the public. Even the directly representative people within it, are not directly representative. They’re not meant to be. That’s why we still have a government.
And just so we’re on the same page here, if this does dock her enough public support that she is going to lose, she should dock this point, and move forward. However i don’t see that happening because i don’t think people care at all. And even if they did, it’s secondary, either locally, state level, or not at any government level.
Yeah… Democrats want to blame the voters so they can continue to court wealthy donors. If everyone in Michigan promises to “Vote Blue No Matter Who” then they can continue arming Israel without losing any Muslim votes. Unfortunately that’s not how things work.
it’s just basic game theory. We have the option between losing 100000 dollars, or losing 1000 dollars, you’re going to choose 1000 dollars every time. You could choose 100000 dollars in protest, but that would be stupid. Granted this isn’t a direct analogy here. You still see the same forces operating here, trump if elected, at the loss of MI in this weird hypothetical. Would lead to a scenario in which muslim MI voters literally caused more death and destruction to palestine, lebanon or whatever.
This is kind of like if every farmer held a national strike. It would fuck everything up. Generally essential industries are immune from organized strikes for this particular reason.
It can go both ways here, democratic voters can vote for things against their ideals, and also be responsible for voting for things against their ideals. If you’re a muslim living in MI and you don’t vote or vote someone other than kamala, there is a non insignificant chance that you will directly influence the potential for a trump victory. While to be clear you are allowed to do this, it would be very silly. This just doesn’t make sense. It might make sense if like, primaries were running, and kamala didn’t have the popular support she currently does, but that’s not what’s happening.
idk maybe you just consider going against basic game theory and self preservation to be “courting the wealthy donors” but you’ve provided no evidence of the sort other than “kamala harris like oil as evidenced by the fracking” which is maybe evident. Regardless, this would still be a separate issue, something to do with campaign finance laws and legality of donating money to super pacs and what not, this is irrelevant in any of these cases, and arguably another fallacy.
Less a proposal and more of a fact: People won’t vote for a candidate who does not support the issues that they support. You can’t expect a voter who is against fracking to vote for a candidate who supports fracking.
If Kamala supports fracking and the majority of voters do not, it is up to her to change, not the voters.
Yeah… Democrats want to blame the voters so they can continue to court wealthy donors. If everyone in Michigan promises to “Vote Blue No Matter Who” then they can continue arming Israel without losing any Muslim votes. Unfortunately that’s not how things work.
it’s not a fact, it’s a statement, arguably a fallacy. The whole point of running as a candidate is to appeal to the most voters, you’re going to lose some here and there, but the general idea is to appeal most broadly to as many as you can. This is why we have a two party system, if this wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t have one. We wouldn’t have a multi party system either, we would have a single party system based purely on only pushing legislation that everyone agrees with.
Idk where the misunderstanding is happening here, but if you don’t want to vote for kamala that’s fine, you’re legally allowed to do so, and morally encouraged to vote for whoever you want. However that doesn’t make you decision sound or logical, nor does it make you entitled to any particular representation.
i don’t believe i have ever said this, i just said that MI might not vote for kamala, who cares, it’s an arguably stupid choice to do, but that’s a choice they can make. Like i said it’s most effective to focus on the moderates in literally every other state.
ok so, no, technically not, it’s only to the extent that support is required, and that people require direct representation on that issue. Things like kamala not being 80 years old, and being a woman, are gong to be more impactful than things like “actually i think we should continue with current energy policy”
Also to be clear, you’re arguing for an absolutist democracy here, a state where the people opt to elect a fascist, thus a fascist gets in power, and the end of democracy happens. I think most people would agree that this shouldn’t be possible. Sometimes popular sentiment is just wrong this is why the founding fathers constructed the government the way it is, with the electoral college, and the three branches. It’s intended to operate in a mostly isolated fashion from the public. Even the directly representative people within it, are not directly representative. They’re not meant to be. That’s why we still have a government.
And just so we’re on the same page here, if this does dock her enough public support that she is going to lose, she should dock this point, and move forward. However i don’t see that happening because i don’t think people care at all. And even if they did, it’s secondary, either locally, state level, or not at any government level.
it’s just basic game theory. We have the option between losing 100000 dollars, or losing 1000 dollars, you’re going to choose 1000 dollars every time. You could choose 100000 dollars in protest, but that would be stupid. Granted this isn’t a direct analogy here. You still see the same forces operating here, trump if elected, at the loss of MI in this weird hypothetical. Would lead to a scenario in which muslim MI voters literally caused more death and destruction to palestine, lebanon or whatever.
This is kind of like if every farmer held a national strike. It would fuck everything up. Generally essential industries are immune from organized strikes for this particular reason.
It can go both ways here, democratic voters can vote for things against their ideals, and also be responsible for voting for things against their ideals. If you’re a muslim living in MI and you don’t vote or vote someone other than kamala, there is a non insignificant chance that you will directly influence the potential for a trump victory. While to be clear you are allowed to do this, it would be very silly. This just doesn’t make sense. It might make sense if like, primaries were running, and kamala didn’t have the popular support she currently does, but that’s not what’s happening.
idk maybe you just consider going against basic game theory and self preservation to be “courting the wealthy donors” but you’ve provided no evidence of the sort other than “kamala harris like oil as evidenced by the fracking” which is maybe evident. Regardless, this would still be a separate issue, something to do with campaign finance laws and legality of donating money to super pacs and what not, this is irrelevant in any of these cases, and arguably another fallacy.