Oh. And whilst I’ve got such a golden opportunity to have “kindergarten” level civics so patiently explained to me…
Taking that attitude you’re showing you’re not here in good faith. And skimming through yeah you’re rife with attitude and twisting,so these will be my final responses.
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?
This is not nearly so complicated that you make it out to be. I’m seeing a pattern, you did this before too: 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.
This is so much simpler. Do they lose? Do they win? A brief history may help you, and I’ve had this conversation (slightly different context, but it still works):
Ok let’s go through this chronologically.
Bill Clinton: After successive Dem losses Bill figured out “it’s the economy stupid”. Plus when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you generally run from the center. So that’s what he did. And he won.
Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Obama: So guess what Obama learned? Don’t stick your head out. He ran on vague “hope”, hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush’s disastrous wars. And he won.
More on Obama: so he enacted the ACA. That’s great, right? The thanks Obama got for that was to lose the House of Representatives for year 3 and 4. And lose the House of reps again for years 5 and 6. And then lose both the House of reps and the Senate for years 7 and 8. He enacted left policy and: The left never shows up.
Hillary Clinton: So what did Hillary learn from the last 6 years of Obama? She learned that the left never shows up. So she ran a mostly center platform to get voters, BUT with a big position to left on the map room to climate change. She basically declared war on climate change. You know that big existential issue that all the leftists care about, right? The big important issue that the left says they will show up for, right? And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Biden: Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don’t stick your head out left on anything. Not one thing. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. And he won.
More on Biden: So Biden did green energy, EVs, drug price control, etc. And what were the results? Lost the House of Representatives. Polls showed him losing to Trump. He enacted left policy and: The left didn’t show up and was likely to not show up.
Harris: So guess what Harris is doing? She’s adopting Obama’s tactic to run on vague “get ahead” and having energy. From what I know she’s not announced anything left, other than vague tax the billionaires. She has no reason to think the left will ever show up.
Look at the history and this becomes pretty simple. They don’t get elected on left platforms despite running them. They get elected when they go center or simply stfu. And when they enact left things, they pay for it the next election.
So what would happen if the left actually shows up? Yeah, they’d win when they run on left platform. They’d win after they enacted left policy. The pathway is consistent and overwhelming victories. Show them it’s safe to take policy chances. Because when they lose, like they’ve lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, they will go to the center to find votes. They won’t need to go right to the center voter if they won elections if the left actually showed up.
This is about the left (that doesn’t show up) wringing their hands about how to get left things (when they don’t show up), and thinking how could they possibly influence things (when they don’t show up). And the answer is pretty obvious: SHOW UP. They wouldn’t need the center double vote if the left, oh I don’t know, had showed up and the Dems won. It’s when they lose that they are forced to go to the center to find voters (who show up). Imagine if the left had showed up.
You’re suggesting polling subtle
Yeah there’s the narrow interpretation again. This is not nearly so subtle as you suggest. Do they lose? Yes? Then they will go to the center to find voters. Do they consistently win? Hasn’t happened in 44 years. But they still do some left policy (ACA, IRA) despite that the ACA cost them the next elections and despite the IRA showing that it was going to cost them.
Now 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.
But you have to construct an incredibly narrow pathway of interpretation to play whatever weird game of poll this or poll that. So with that, I think that’s my last message.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with your gist here, I don’t think it is accurate to characterize the ACA as “of the left”. It was just Romneycare expanded to the Federal level, the “left” couldn’t even get the “public option” included in the final bill. The whole thing was successful in that it got health insurance to a whole lot of people who didn’t have it before, an outcome supported by many or even most on the left, but the actual ACA isn’t really something leftists wanted or genuinely support as anything more than a stopgap on the path to actual reform. If the ACA actually did things to drive rent seeking behavior out of the health care industry and guarantee universal access it would be a great example of the phenomenon you are describing. The actual ACA is a much better example of the Republicans (and the the health care industry) running circles around the Dems during that era than of the Dems implementing leftist policy,
this is basically just a long ass history of saying that even when they give the left policy, the left never shows up, so it wouldn’t make any sense basically ever in the future for them to implement any leftist policy at any future point. we have to assume that they’re rational actors rather than idiots, and that they’re going to keep doing the thing that, according to you, makes them succeed. there’s no amount of local grassroots “just vote harder” -ing that is suddenly going to get those left wing voters to suddenly pop up if there isn’t any left wing policy proposals. so the democrats don’t go left because they won’t win, and the left wing voters don’t show up because there’s no left wing policy.
I also like the idea that actual populist, left wing policy implementations only ever cost them, only ever make them lose votes. also, this idea that they’d move left suddenly if they started winning, just, basically for no reason they’d start moving left, is awesome. very cool. by what mechanism would they move left? why? by what mechanism would the left actually have any leverage over them, in that circumstance? sure, they’d lose the votes, but then they’d actually have to implement left wing policy, which means they would totally be fucking over their much more important corporate and media sponsorships, and they’d also be basically eviscerating their own political power. you can see this in the very simple example of “no democrat will ever change the fptp system”, because then they would stop getting elected, because they benefit from that being the voting system. this is basically the same principle by which they won’t, say, do massive amounts of housing ownership reform.
also, what’s your opinion on serious housing reform? what do you think about that, what do you think about, say, eliminating massive rental companies, or nationalizing them, constructing a large amount of housing, and then providing it for free to people, thus making them less dependent on their job and more secure in order to take risks on, say, doing actual forms of political activism? what do you think about the same being done for healthcare? employment? can you see any reason why the people who are currently in power might not want any of that to actually occur? can you think of any possible reason why those people which are currently in power might not want that shit to exist precisely because they have been selected by those systems as a product of their reinforcement of those systems? to break it down more, perhaps, why do you think CEOs tend to be incompetent assholes? is it just because of some like, cosmic trick, or is there perhaps a system there that’s going to reward incompetent assholes over people who actually have beliefs?
also, I find it funny how you’re accusing the guy you’re talking to of having a narrow interpretation of history, that they’re construing everything to work around, but then you’re also turning around and saying “it’s just so simple: the left never shows up, so the democrats will never go to the left!”, and then retroactively giving an incredibly simplified and narrow retelling of history in order to support your point. any mention of the absolute slew of right wing legislation, that any of these people have pushed, which might be a reason why the left might not be showing up for them?
we have to assume that they’re rational actors rather than idiots
They will do what peoplevoters want. Sorry but have you lost sight of the foundations of the government so much that you forget that it’s the voters? Because you talk like that. Right now what the voters want is the Dems only in control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and senate) for 4 years every 24 fucking years. The voters are voting for brutally slow progress. Want faster progress? Then be the voters that vote for faster progress by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
In addition to that, I really think Dems want left policy. They do it when they can despite it costing them elections. According to your logic they would never have done the ACA, or green energy, or EVs, or union empowerment (inb4), or student debt forgiveness, or Chips act, or Pact act, etc, etc. But they did, and it cost them.
left wing voters to suddenly pop up if there isn’t any left wing policy proposals
That’s the point of this discussion. I’m saying if left non-voters want to actually be effective, they have to show up first. Because when they don’t, the Dems well just go to the center voters. Why do I feel like I have to emphasize voters again. Left wing non voters can’t play mexican standoff. They will lose because the Dems have an out: the center voter.
they’d move left suddenly
It won’t be sudden, it will be slow. But it will be a ton faster than current progress when they only have 4 years of control (of all 3, house of reps, senate, and presidency) every 24 fucking years.
what mechanism would they move left? why?
Yeah you’ve lost sight of the very mechanism of government. Already said: Sorry but have you lost sight of the foundations of the government so much that you forget that it’s the voters? Because you talk like that. Right now what the voters want is the Dems only in control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and senate) for 4 years every 24 fucking years. The voters are voting for brutally slow progress. Want faster progress? Then be the voters that vote for faster progress by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
also, what’s your opinion on serious housing reform
What you’re doing here with endless questions is what I call fishing. You’re fishing for something that you disagree with me on so that you can comfortably ignore everything I say. Part of a reverse gish gallop (I’m not saying you’re alt right, I’m saying it’s the same strategy.)
also, I find it funny how you’re accusing the guy you’re talking to of having a narrow interpretation of history, that they’re construing everything to work around, but then you’re also turning around and saying “it’s just so simple: the left never shows up,
There is a difference between a narrow interpretation of an issue (I did not say history) constructed so that, well I already said: so that you can walk out on it and say look at this very narrow interpretation, explain this narrow interpretation. He demands an explanation of that very narrow interpretation, and only that narrow interpretation. So that other things can not be brought in. It pulls away from the big picture and goes into this narrow path, and demands an explanation and rebuttal on only that very narrow path.
That is different than what I did which is explaining things, simply.
Honestly you’re pretty much doing the exact same thing. So this will be my only reply. Peace.
In addition to that, I really think Dems want left policy.
ACA, or green energy, or EVs, or union empowerment (inb4), or student debt forgiveness, or Chips act, or Pact act, etc, etc
Romneycare, a 5% token movements towards a correct approach, and also private industry funding, a good single issue, a post-covid handout, and more private industry funding mechanisms.
Yeah, see, that’s why I asked you those questions about what your actual political affiliations are. What is your definition of “left policy”? Economic stimulation by approving more contracts for private industry is not “left policy”, neither are means tested, highly qualified welfare programs. What do you think about the democrats moving to the right on the border, and doing absolutely nothing to combat the insane slew of lies that the republicans have been spouting for, say, the last 30 years? And they are lies, indeed. All this bluster over 3.3%, or maybe 14%, of the population, which is according to every study on the planet pretty much better behaved and provides more in to the system than your average citizen. I have basically never seen a democratic candidate actually give out any statistics to counter that narrative. They have only shifted further rightward.
Yeah you’ve lost sight of the very mechanism of government.
No. I fully understand that outside of a couple gerrymandered swing states that vote for electoral college members which then go on to maybe vote for who they have been told to vote for by the public, votes do not matter. I understand that this is something which is by design.
What you’re doing here with endless questions is what I call fishing. You’re fishing for something that you disagree with me on so that you can comfortably ignore everything I say.
If you don’t agree with the core positions, then we probably need to be talking about those core positions more than we need to be talking about who to vote for.
Honestly you’re pretty much doing the exact same thing. So this will be my only reply. Peace.
Why even engage in the conversation in the first place, then?
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?
Four step process to uncontested neoliberal corporate bliss…
Set up a folk-devil who must be stopped at all costs.
Promote the idea that anyone even vaguely progressive must vote for you even if they disagree with you, in order to keep the folk-devil out.
Promise to support literal genocide, and watch as your scheme has self-identified leftists falling over themselves spending the majority of their energy in-fighting with other leftists to ensure you have the power to make good on that promise.
Enjoy your retirement on million dollar public speaking engagements and corporate executive positions.
Taking that attitude you’re showing you’re not here in good faith. And skimming through yeah you’re rife with attitude and twisting,so these will be my final responses.
This is not nearly so complicated that you make it out to be. I’m seeing a pattern, you did this before too: 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.
This is so much simpler. Do they lose? Do they win? A brief history may help you, and I’ve had this conversation (slightly different context, but it still works):
Ok let’s go through this chronologically.
Bill Clinton: After successive Dem losses Bill figured out “it’s the economy stupid”. Plus when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you generally run from the center. So that’s what he did. And he won.
Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Obama: So guess what Obama learned? Don’t stick your head out. He ran on vague “hope”, hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush’s disastrous wars. And he won.
More on Obama: so he enacted the ACA. That’s great, right? The thanks Obama got for that was to lose the House of Representatives for year 3 and 4. And lose the House of reps again for years 5 and 6. And then lose both the House of reps and the Senate for years 7 and 8. He enacted left policy and: The left never shows up.
Hillary Clinton: So what did Hillary learn from the last 6 years of Obama? She learned that the left never shows up. So she ran a mostly center platform to get voters, BUT with a big position to left on the map room to climate change. She basically declared war on climate change. You know that big existential issue that all the leftists care about, right? The big important issue that the left says they will show up for, right? And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Biden: Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don’t stick your head out left on anything. Not one thing. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. And he won.
More on Biden: So Biden did green energy, EVs, drug price control, etc. And what were the results? Lost the House of Representatives. Polls showed him losing to Trump. He enacted left policy and: The left didn’t show up and was likely to not show up.
Harris: So guess what Harris is doing? She’s adopting Obama’s tactic to run on vague “get ahead” and having energy. From what I know she’s not announced anything left, other than vague tax the billionaires. She has no reason to think the left will ever show up.
Look at the history and this becomes pretty simple. They don’t get elected on left platforms despite running them. They get elected when they go center or simply stfu. And when they enact left things, they pay for it the next election.
So what would happen if the left actually shows up? Yeah, they’d win when they run on left platform. They’d win after they enacted left policy. The pathway is consistent and overwhelming victories. Show them it’s safe to take policy chances. Because when they lose, like they’ve lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, they will go to the center to find votes. They won’t need to go right to the center voter if they won elections if the left actually showed up.
This is about the left (that doesn’t show up) wringing their hands about how to get left things (when they don’t show up), and thinking how could they possibly influence things (when they don’t show up). And the answer is pretty obvious: SHOW UP. They wouldn’t need the center double vote if the left, oh I don’t know, had showed up and the Dems won. It’s when they lose that they are forced to go to the center to find voters (who show up). Imagine if the left had showed up.
Yeah there’s the narrow interpretation again. This is not nearly so subtle as you suggest. Do they lose? Yes? Then they will go to the center to find voters. Do they consistently win? Hasn’t happened in 44 years. But they still do some left policy (ACA, IRA) despite that the ACA cost them the next elections and despite the IRA showing that it was going to cost them.
Now 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.
But you have to construct an incredibly narrow pathway of interpretation to play whatever weird game of poll this or poll that. So with that, I think that’s my last message.
*Typos in my previous message fixed.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with your gist here, I don’t think it is accurate to characterize the ACA as “of the left”. It was just Romneycare expanded to the Federal level, the “left” couldn’t even get the “public option” included in the final bill. The whole thing was successful in that it got health insurance to a whole lot of people who didn’t have it before, an outcome supported by many or even most on the left, but the actual ACA isn’t really something leftists wanted or genuinely support as anything more than a stopgap on the path to actual reform. If the ACA actually did things to drive rent seeking behavior out of the health care industry and guarantee universal access it would be a great example of the phenomenon you are describing. The actual ACA is a much better example of the Republicans (and the the health care industry) running circles around the Dems during that era than of the Dems implementing leftist policy,
Want more? Then vote so that Manchin types can’t water it down. Nevermind that the ACA wouldn’t have passed without a super majority.
this is basically just a long ass history of saying that even when they give the left policy, the left never shows up, so it wouldn’t make any sense basically ever in the future for them to implement any leftist policy at any future point. we have to assume that they’re rational actors rather than idiots, and that they’re going to keep doing the thing that, according to you, makes them succeed. there’s no amount of local grassroots “just vote harder” -ing that is suddenly going to get those left wing voters to suddenly pop up if there isn’t any left wing policy proposals. so the democrats don’t go left because they won’t win, and the left wing voters don’t show up because there’s no left wing policy.
I also like the idea that actual populist, left wing policy implementations only ever cost them, only ever make them lose votes. also, this idea that they’d move left suddenly if they started winning, just, basically for no reason they’d start moving left, is awesome. very cool. by what mechanism would they move left? why? by what mechanism would the left actually have any leverage over them, in that circumstance? sure, they’d lose the votes, but then they’d actually have to implement left wing policy, which means they would totally be fucking over their much more important corporate and media sponsorships, and they’d also be basically eviscerating their own political power. you can see this in the very simple example of “no democrat will ever change the fptp system”, because then they would stop getting elected, because they benefit from that being the voting system. this is basically the same principle by which they won’t, say, do massive amounts of housing ownership reform.
also, what’s your opinion on serious housing reform? what do you think about that, what do you think about, say, eliminating massive rental companies, or nationalizing them, constructing a large amount of housing, and then providing it for free to people, thus making them less dependent on their job and more secure in order to take risks on, say, doing actual forms of political activism? what do you think about the same being done for healthcare? employment? can you see any reason why the people who are currently in power might not want any of that to actually occur? can you think of any possible reason why those people which are currently in power might not want that shit to exist precisely because they have been selected by those systems as a product of their reinforcement of those systems? to break it down more, perhaps, why do you think CEOs tend to be incompetent assholes? is it just because of some like, cosmic trick, or is there perhaps a system there that’s going to reward incompetent assholes over people who actually have beliefs?
also, I find it funny how you’re accusing the guy you’re talking to of having a narrow interpretation of history, that they’re construing everything to work around, but then you’re also turning around and saying “it’s just so simple: the left never shows up, so the democrats will never go to the left!”, and then retroactively giving an incredibly simplified and narrow retelling of history in order to support your point. any mention of the absolute slew of right wing legislation, that any of these people have pushed, which might be a reason why the left might not be showing up for them?
They will do what
peoplevoters want. Sorry but have you lost sight of the foundations of the government so much that you forget that it’s the voters? Because you talk like that. Right now what the voters want is the Dems only in control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and senate) for 4 years every 24 fucking years. The voters are voting for brutally slow progress. Want faster progress? Then be the voters that vote for faster progress by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.In addition to that, I really think Dems want left policy. They do it when they can despite it costing them elections. According to your logic they would never have done the ACA, or green energy, or EVs, or union empowerment (inb4), or student debt forgiveness, or Chips act, or Pact act, etc, etc. But they did, and it cost them.
That’s the point of this discussion. I’m saying if left non-voters want to actually be effective, they have to show up first. Because when they don’t, the Dems well just go to the center voters. Why do I feel like I have to emphasize voters again. Left wing non voters can’t play mexican standoff. They will lose because the Dems have an out: the center voter.
It won’t be sudden, it will be slow. But it will be a ton faster than current progress when they only have 4 years of control (of all 3, house of reps, senate, and presidency) every 24 fucking years.
Yeah you’ve lost sight of the very mechanism of government. Already said: Sorry but have you lost sight of the foundations of the government so much that you forget that it’s the voters? Because you talk like that. Right now what the voters want is the Dems only in control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and senate) for 4 years every 24 fucking years. The voters are voting for brutally slow progress. Want faster progress? Then be the voters that vote for faster progress by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
What you’re doing here with endless questions is what I call fishing. You’re fishing for something that you disagree with me on so that you can comfortably ignore everything I say. Part of a reverse gish gallop (I’m not saying you’re alt right, I’m saying it’s the same strategy.)
There is a difference between a narrow interpretation of an issue (I did not say history) constructed so that, well I already said: so that you can walk out on it and say look at this very narrow interpretation, explain this narrow interpretation. He demands an explanation of that very narrow interpretation, and only that narrow interpretation. So that other things can not be brought in. It pulls away from the big picture and goes into this narrow path, and demands an explanation and rebuttal on only that very narrow path.
That is different than what I did which is explaining things, simply.
Honestly you’re pretty much doing the exact same thing. So this will be my only reply. Peace.
https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf
Romneycare, a 5% token movements towards a correct approach, and also private industry funding, a good single issue, a post-covid handout, and more private industry funding mechanisms.
Yeah, see, that’s why I asked you those questions about what your actual political affiliations are. What is your definition of “left policy”? Economic stimulation by approving more contracts for private industry is not “left policy”, neither are means tested, highly qualified welfare programs. What do you think about the democrats moving to the right on the border, and doing absolutely nothing to combat the insane slew of lies that the republicans have been spouting for, say, the last 30 years? And they are lies, indeed. All this bluster over 3.3%, or maybe 14%, of the population, which is according to every study on the planet pretty much better behaved and provides more in to the system than your average citizen. I have basically never seen a democratic candidate actually give out any statistics to counter that narrative. They have only shifted further rightward.
No. I fully understand that outside of a couple gerrymandered swing states that vote for electoral college members which then go on to maybe vote for who they have been told to vote for by the public, votes do not matter. I understand that this is something which is by design.
Yes. “This does not help your cause” -Guy who hates your cause
If you don’t agree with the core positions, then we probably need to be talking about those core positions more than we need to be talking about who to vote for.
Why even engage in the conversation in the first place, then?
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.
Followed by…
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…
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?
Great breakdown. Polls show people want progressive policies. However that goes against Capital interests which are the main concern of neoliberalism.
Indeed.
Four step process to uncontested neoliberal corporate bliss…