• 3 Posts
  • 53 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2023

help-circle
  • More like there was concerted effort way before Trump. Tea party movement ring bells anyone still and so on? At the time Trump wasn’t at all that much involved in politics and so on. He was still doing The Apprentice and so on.

    Trump is just a figure head of way broader movement, not the planner or brains of the thing. He is just riding the wave, that already existed. Though I must admit might he is pretty decent fire and brimstone crowd pleaser and thus has probably driven some of the base to be more energetic and radical compared to situation where someone less “charismatic” was the lead candidate.


  • Well thing is polls are always little bad at predicting in this kind of situation. Since for example, if Harris was the candidate, the campaign machine would change messaging behind her. This might affect things and so on.

    So any one who isn’t the main candidate has to be taken with “what would be this persons chances on election day taking in account between now and then campaign machine will be pushing them

    Many many other candidates have benefit of “don’t look like they are at deaths door and statistically aren’t beyond the expected life expectancy of USA population for person born so long ago.”

    Since realistically for example as morbid as it is ( and democrats and Biden forced themselves for me to making this comparison by insisting on the old man), one isn’t voting for President Biden for 4 years. Nah it’s like maybe 1-2 of President Biden and then rest of the term President Harris. Since that man is so old and looking bad health, he gets elected he is going to die in office. He will die in year or two also out of office, but well he really should take his retirement and enjoy the year or two of life he has left.

    So the “Harris wouldn’t be better choice”, well she will be the choice in year or two. Don’t think voters don’t take that into account. People aren’t dumb and can read life expectancy chart and use their eyes.


  • Well problem is most of the polls are general popular opinion votes, but US presidential election is not a straight popular vote. As such the general “who majority of the nation like” doesn’t really matter. Secure states are secure, so you might as well not ask their opinion and leave them out of opinion poll. Focus even on voting district levels in states the use electors to elect the electors and so on.

    Problem is such polls are really hard work… Almost no one does those and instead tries to read tea leaves out of general opinion polls. Polls which simply don’t have the granularity of data to make conclusions. You need to ask “what is mood in this swing district in this swing state”. After you have first added up the secure states, well with some looking of “are our old estimates of what are secure states for blue or red correct”. Not that opinion wise all states aren’t purple, but as far as election system results go there absolutely is blue and red states.

    As I understand even in USA maybe one of two whole nation granular polls are done, with the actual amount of data to actually conclude how the actual electoral votes split. Given as said, since in some cases it isn’t “you have to go down to state by state”. Nope “we have to go district by district since this state has weirdo way of electing electors or adding up the totals.”





  • Ehhhh. 2016, the year of an open no-incumbent primary? That is not called division, that is called primary democracy working as supposed. Primary is exactly the time, when party membership is under no obligation to show unity. That only needs to happen during the national election stage.

    Also just due to winning primary one isn’t as candidate free to ignore other candidate bases. Not out of any high ideals, but hard political reality. No voter is obligated to show up and voters are emotional beings. Slight them and they might stay home (which is the actual risk, instead of them voting for the other party).

    It might be “self-harming”, but again voters can be emotional instead of rational. One has to play to their actual psyche, instead of the idealistic perfect rational psyche one would want them to have. Atleast if one wants to win and shouldn’t the aim of democratic party be win by near any means begging, promising the moon to its base, being as enthusiastic and energetic as possible for the national good of avoiding another Trump presidency.

    People talk about electorates obligation to avoid another Trump presidency. What about DNCs obligation to go above and beyond to avoid another Trump presidency.

    Which is easier to change? The collective psyche layout of 300 million people or one party’s campaign program and political agenda? It’s easier to fix the candidate/candidates program to match the electorate, rather than fix the electorate to match the candidate.

    So if there is “division” among party base, it is the candidates and party programs job to move to match, cover and repair the cracks. Not out of high ideals, but since that is the one practically fast enough way to fix the issue. Base isn’t going to suddenly change their psyche and emotional state just, because DNC says to do so out of national good. Again emotional beings, not robotic, rational automatons.




  • variaatio@sopuli.xyztopics@lemmy.worldBehold
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    There possibly is a pushers/braking truck attached to the rear of the Transporter.

    Also one must remember on transporter it is about winning over rolling resistance rather than the weight. Doesn’t necessarily take that powerfull truck on flat ground to pull even great load.

    Also turbine housing has lot of air and as equipment to be lifted to top of a mast, built with light weight in mind. Not for pulling it, but in thought of the crane that has to lift that thing dead load up.



  • Just it will, it it makes the lesser of two evils to turn to be actually good, instead of lesser evil.

    Ones power in democracy isn’t in given ones vote It is in withholding it. Your vote is your hostage and the political party is the hostage negotiator trying to get it from you.

    If you give away the hostage before the bargaining even begins, you have no leverage. You are nobody, non-entity. Your opinion and your interests don’t matter. Since you always release the hostage, before the negotiating starts.

    At some point in comparative lesser of two evils must come the moment of “in absolute measures the evil is too much, even the lesser evil”. Withold vote and the egotistical lesser evil, who doesn’t want to lose to the greater evil has to listen to your concerns and turn course.

    Until the first moment you withhold vote, they can happily slide in behind the greater evil just two microns behind them in the evil slide.



  • Then again not like the “very shoot ourselves in the foot, but just little bit, instead of lot” on decades long repeat leads to anything good.

    If ones vote is to be taken for granted, you have no power. Only way you can hold your own side accountable is by threatening to withhold the vote.

    That is bargaining. Voting Democrat nomatter what and after that asking could they please do something, that is begging. Begging rarely works as well as bargaining.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Joys of two party system.

    Most likely people just get apathy and instead of flipping to Trump, they simply stay home. Which is the other bargain. What you offer for me to bother to go from my home to the voting station in the first place.

    That is their play “you can’t take us for granted anymore, we care about our vote and bargaining power on long term enough to suffer on short term to buy long term relevance”.

    Whether it works is different matter. I don’t know, if democratic leadership has the where with all to take their left flank of voters as anything but given serval supporters to be kept in line with “but we are only little bit bad, those guys are really really bad”.



  • They are always on the case first. They have feelers through all the various church state separation orgs. As soon as one of the likes of freedom from religion foundation, ACLU etc. Hear about a case, someone is bound to send Lucien a message and would you look at that within days they have found a local Satanist to have standing.

    Lucien sends smiling letter to the local government with “I heard there was religious freedom on offer, just give us a week we have the Baphomet statue dusted off from the temple and on the way there. It takes like 2 meters by 2 meters and 3 meters tall. You have free lawn available?”


  • More like he knows Lucian Grieves of the Satanic Temple has already prefilled a letter with his lawyer friend to have St. Lucifer’s Preparatory Academy financed by Oklahoma state funds. Just waiting for the Catholic funding to be upheld and the letter gets mailed. Along with affidavit from a local Oklahoma Satanist who is absolutely enthusiastic about having their child schooled at St. Lucifers.

    Like protestant vs Catholic is least of their problems. They have to finance a Wiccan Coven school, Muslim masrada, scientologist school, a norse Viking academy and so on.

    Since as the rule goes: can’t start making rulings on which religions are in and which are out.


  • Slashed tire doesn’t justify threatening with deadly force. Since that is what it was. How are the protesters to know its a replica airsoft gun from distance and not a real firearm. Person was injured since this person caused a fearing their lives scattering and rampage of people.

    Hence why he is in charge for menacing charge. Since that is what it is and why it is a crime. Since society knows just threatening with deadly force causes panic and leads to injuries and damage.

    The right response to “someone slashed my tire” us to call the cops and should one catch the perpetrator red handed, take out the obiguitous camera phone and take evidence footage of the likely by now running away perpetrator and turn that evidence over to police. That call insurance company.



  • But the thing is Democrats could change their strategy. Since frankly (I don’t know why, seems stupid given how small and hard to catch segment it is) Democrat strategy is to chase the middle of “moderate Republicans and fence sitters”.

    When I would hazard a guess, if they instead adopted are strategy of exactly focusing on non-voters with democrat leaning would bring them lot of votes.

    In general blaming the voter is a bad idea. It is way easier for party to qdapt to voter sentiments with their strategy, than it is for a party to change the emotional and mental state of millions of voters. In this case it is really the customer aka the voter is always right. If one can’t convince voter to vote, it is the candidates fault. To play otherwise is to say millions of people ought to adapt to single or couple persons whims. It shouldn’t be that way and in general it isn’t that way.

    Since in practice, if person is apathetic they won’t vote. No amount of “but that is stupid of you” will fix it. Apathy is emotional matter, not matter of logic. As much as some consultant might try to assume humans are rational, no they aren’t. Humans are inherently emotional beings and party wanting to succeed must adapt to that.

    Only way out of apathy isn’t fear, it just makes apathy deeper. The way out is hope, promise of prosperity and then delivering on that promise. Since to not do so is to cause betrayed expectations and doubly deep apathy.