The GoP?

[Patine]

The current NZ Labour party. They wanted to build a heap of houses and looked at putting tax up.

They got less votes than National which didn't even admit there was a housing crisis.

The didn't have the votes to put up tax, and the housing initiative was a failure.

So they're going into 2020 election not achieving much but things didn't get much worse relative to National winning.

I don't think it will cost them as people understand the reality of the situation and the right have their own problems (resignations, unpopular leaders, post power comedown, declining poll ratings, internal discontent, lack of coalition partners).

If the Dems win 2020 it's only the start. Apart from a lack of weekly outrage at Trump being stupid your day to day life won't change to much. It will take 20 odd years to change much assuming you can push your policies.

But, from what I've read about New Zealand politics, the NZ Labour is one of the "same old parties," in terms of the New Zealand political scheme. Thus, I still fail to understand how "the current government," failed to stop the "same old parties," without being among them.

So how do we change that?

Vote ALL the corrupt, long-incumbent parties out of power in one election. Like the "Clean Hands" legislative event in Italy in the '90's.

 

[Zardnaar]

But, from what I've read about New Zealand politics, the NZ Labour is one of the "same old parties," in terms of the New Zealand political scheme. Thus, I still fail to understand how "the current government," failed to stop the "same old parties," without being among them.



Vote ALL the corrupt, long-incumbent parties out of power in one election. Like the "Clean Hands" legislative event in Italy in the '90's.

It is but NZ parties tend to refresh themselves.

We've had other parties break out, one had potential but squandered it.

Most people are going to vote slightly right or left of center in most free and fair type elections.

Extreme/hard left or right are usually examples of flawed democracies which the USA has been downgraded to by Freedom House iirc.

A few parties seen to be in melt down mode though (GoP, Conservatives). The left in disarray/ can't organise a piss up in a brewery mode.

The parties are roughly where NZ was 30 odd years ago.

 

[Traitorfish]

Clinton, 2016. Oh and the big slumps in turnout that handed over Congress to the GOP during Obama's off-years. Obama was an energetic campaigner, to the point where he was routinely and consistently attacked by the right for using the organs of state (like Air Force One) to help the Democrats win elections. He also built one of the first big internet-based, grass-roots campaigning machine which was widely praised by both sides for its effectiveness. Coincidentally, the Republican response via Trump has been to take those examples and double-down on them but I digress. In any case, people still sat out those crucial elections and gave over Congress and the Presidency (and the Courts! - McConnell announced his strategy before the election) to the GOP.

People knew what the stakes were and stayed home. And I don't think you can look at the entire field of Congressional democrats in 2010, 2012 and 2014 as a bunch of limp-noodle loosers that deserved it. And yup, Clinton sucked and could have done a better job of campaigning. But if Obama couldn't keep a majority in the Congress over 8 years, I don't think we can blame solely her for the loss. The left tends sits things out when they don't have a big unifying cause or attractive candidate on the ballot - at least to the extent where they lose the election. And hell, a lot of the most progressive candidates in the 2018 lost their elections, so again, you can't blame everything on a lack of attractive candidates for the left.

And as I've pointed out elsewhere, there are real structural problems the left faces thanks to gerrymandering and our stupid brand of federalism. But even that doesn't fully explain the absolute walloping the left was handed from 2010 to 2018. They just don't vote consistently. And I think a lot of that has to do with our tendency to make the perfect the enemy of the good when it comes to policies and politicians.

But where's the evidence that was due to lefties in swing states sitting out the election? In Michigan, Clinton won 603,000 less votes than Obama did in 2008. Sanders won 598,000 votes in the primary. Can we really assume that this difference represents not only every Bernie supporter, but a bunch of their friends? Something else clearly happened that allowed Trump to take the state with less votes than Obama got even in 2012.

 

[Lexicus]

But where's the evidence that was due to lefties in swing states sitting out the election? In Michigan, Clinton won 603,000 less votes than Obama did in 2008. Sanders won 598,000 votes in the primary. Are we to believe that this difference represents not just every Bernie-or-bust voter, but a bunch of their friends? Something else clearly happened that allowed Trump to take the state with less votes than Obama got even in 2012.

Michigan was one of two states (the other being Wisconsin) where Republicans created a laboratory for the most ghoulish voter-suppression tactics imaginable, plus the destruction of the public-sector unions that were reliable sources of Democratic voter mobilization.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

But where's the evidence that was due to lefties in swing states sitting out the election? In Michigan, Clinton won 603,000 less votes than Obama did in 2008. Sanders won 598,000 votes in the primary. Can we really assume that this difference represents not only every Bernie supporter, but a bunch of their friends? Something else clearly happened that allowed Trump to take the state with less votes than Obama got even in 2012.

Michigan was one of two states (the other being Wisconsin) where Republicans created a laboratory for the most ghoulish voter-suppression tactics imaginable, plus the destruction of the public-sector unions that were reliable sources of Democratic voter mobilization.

In addition to what Lex said, yeah, I think the poor turnout can be in large part be explained by lefties not liking the candidate and sitting out the election for that reason. I don't see how that's a particularly hard line to draw.

In the end, this is all highly subjective and we're not going to be able to solve it based on our hunches and observations here. But I think the evidence speaks for itself. The Democrats got a candidate that the more progressive wing didn't like and they sat it out. That would also apply to more moderate voters in the party as well but I suspect that if we could suss out the numbers, we'd find the more left the voter, the less likely they were to vote. But I freely admit I've got nothing to base that on than a hunch and my own anecdotes.

I do know a couple of hard-left voters in Missouri that chose to sat out the election when Bernie didn't make it on the ballot. And here, I see people regularly throwing shade at Warren as a lesser version of Bernie when as far as I can tell there's pretty minor differences in their platforms. And the general public sees her as just as extreme left as Bernie and she is regularly discounted by the media on that basis. Yet, to the left here she's the 75% version of Bernie, with reasons to suspect she actually harbors far more regressive views on things, to paraphrase @Owen Glyndwr. To be fair, I haven't yet seen any Americans here saying they'll sit out the election if she makes the ballot and Bernie doesn't. But the attitudes expressed here seem to me to point toward leftist voters being very dissatisfied over what I think most people would consider fairly minor differences and I suspect in the end, that translates to people on the left sitting out elections more frequently in these situations than other voting blocks.

 

[Lexicus]

In addition to what Lex said, yeah, I think the poor turnout can be in large part be explained by lefties not liking the candidate and sitting out the election for that reason. I don't see how that's a particularly hard line to draw.

It's a hard line to draw for me because everyone I knew who sat out the election in 2016 or voted Stein didn't vote for Obama either, so these were not people the Democrats "lost" in any real sense. They just don't make sense as an explanation for why Obama won those states but Clinton didn't.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I would still take that as evidence (albeit anecdotal, as is all of mine) that the left sits out the elections where they don't get their perfect candidate, even if that doesn't mean Democrats didn't lose their vote because they never had it.

And to be clear, I'm not even damning them for doing it. Owen made a good case for why the left shouldn't feel obligated to turn out for candidates they don't like. I'm just taking note that I think this happens a lot and trying to point out that this strategy of non-participation means the left gets much worse outcomes than if they held their nose and voted for the non-ideal candidate. I don't think it's hard to show that while Clinton wouldn't have been very progressive, she still would have been far ahead of Trump on virtually every issue we care about.

 

[Lexicus]

I would still take that as evidence (albeit anecdotal, as is all of mine) that the left sits out the elections where they don't get their perfect candidate, even if that doesn't mean Democrats didn't lose their vote because they never had it.

You have to draw the line on principle somewhere or you end up like...that *glances at the Lib Dems in the UK then quickly looks away*

 

[hobbsyoyo]

For me the line is stopping the GOP from destroying the country and going backward on everything I care about. But I acknowledge everyone else has their own lines.

 

[Patine]

But where's the evidence that was due to lefties in swing states sitting out the election? In Michigan, Clinton won 603,000 less votes than Obama did in 2008. Sanders won 598,000 votes in the primary. Can we really assume that this difference represents not only every Bernie supporter, but a bunch of their friends? Something else clearly happened that allowed Trump to take the state with less votes than Obama got even in 2012.

If only they had someone else viable to vote for, and not such sit at home. More voters cheated by the broken U.S. electoral system.

 

[Lexicus]

For me the line is stopping the GOP from destroying the country and going backward on everything I care about. But I acknowledge everyone else has their own lines.

I dunno, if I lived somewhere else my line would be different but I see no reason to vote for Democrats that I don't actually like. DC will return 90+% vote for the Democratic candidate whomever they are.

Oh and fwiw I would certainly vote proudly for Warren. Despite preferring Bernie in my heart Warren is the only candidate I've given money to. Although that may have been a mistake because she will take big money contributions in the general election, and so doesn't need my money.

 

[Patine]

For me the line is stopping the GOP from destroying the country and going backward on everything I care about. But I acknowledge everyone else has their own lines.

Your corrupt, broken, and rigged two-party systems means that such ridiculous and unrealistic Neo-Manichaean scenarios become real situations - when they SHOULDN'T be. It's not just because Trump is the incumbent - it's because the whole U.S. electoral just sucks. Both major parties in the U.S. REALLY need a "Clean Hands" electoral event like in Italy in the mid-'90's - in the SAME ELECTION. They need to be shaken out of their smug complacence.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I dunno, if I lived somewhere else my line would be different but I see no reason to vote for Democrats that I don't actually like.

I hear you and I think the argument should be that you should vote to increase the popular turnout to further de-legitimize the electoral college. We all know the system is broken but if the Dems don't continue to break records with voting, then it's very hard to prove the system is broken. The case against the EC (and even the Senate) very much rests on how extremely broken it is, which is hard to prove when people sit it out knowing they're vote won't change the outcome. You have to vote in spite of that.

Oh and fwiw I would certainly vote proudly for Warren.

That's cool but I'd like to reiterate that I'm not attacking people who wouldn't. I did say I begrudge those people but I meant it in the sense that I think it's a bad tactic, not because they're morally inferior or whatever. And I've used Owen as an example because I admire him quite a lot and have been genuinely baffled by some of what's he posted on these issues. I also think his stances are useful talking points; it's not that I'm attacking him or hold his stances against him or things his morals are defective or whatever. I just fundamentally think that when you only have two choices, the lesser of two evils is far preferable to not choosing and thereby allowing the worst to win - because the GOP will turn out regardless of what you do or will win because of the systematic rigging that can only be overcome by stellar turnout.

Your corrupt, broken, and rigged two-party systems means that such ridiculous and unrealistic Neo-Manichaean scenarios become real situations - when they SHOULDN'T be

You get no argument from me on this point. But short of revolution, we have no other way to effect the system than to vote for the not-insane/criminal party. Voting for the Dems won't get us the reforms we need in and of itself but at the very least it will stop things from getting dramatically worse. And if we don't have any representation in Congress, the Presidency and by extension, the Courts, then not only will we not get the reforms we need but things will get worse.

 

[El_Machinae]

Voting for Dems won't make the changes, but being part of an influential voting block will. You also have to vote in the primaries. You need to be volunteering or donating.

One of my friends did a lot of scut work for the local Liberal Party. I asked if he thought his efforts significantly increased voter turnout. He did, but then he pointed out that the main reason why he did it is because the local party leadership always cared about his opinion.

There's no alternative but to put it in the hustle, because all the evil people will.

 

[Patine]

Voting for Dems won't make the changes, but being part of an influential voting block will. You also have to vote in the primaries. You need to be volunteering or donating.

One of my friends did a lot of scut work for the local Liberal Party. I asked if he thought his efforts significantly increased voter turnout. He did, but then he pointed out that the main reason why he did it is because the local party leadership always cared about his opinion.

There's no alternative but to put it in the hustle, because all the evil people will.

The Canadian, Australian, or old (pre-late-'80's) British Liberal Party?

 

[El_Machinae]

The Alberta liberal party. They've never really had a chance, but he puts in the hustle

 

[Patine]

The Alberta liberal party. They've never really had a chance, but he puts in the hustle

Well, "NEVER" isn't true - the first three Premiers here in Alberta were Liberal. But given Charles Stewart, the last Liberal Premier, was defeated in 1921 - not likely in any LIVING Alberta voters' lifetime. Though, Lawrence Decore probably had the best chance. If he had done a good one-two punch on, first, Don Getty losing his own personal seat to Liberal candidate Percy Whickman in 1989, and then had actually run a full negative campaign on all the well-known negative traits of Getty's successor, Ralph Klein - traits that had made the PC Leadership Convention that selected him so divisive and unsatisfying to many of the very delegates present - before Klein actually got much governing done (the 1994 election), Decore might have pulled off the slimmest majority in Alberta history. I'd met my Liberal MLA from the constituency I used to live in when I was in high school, while in high school, under Decore's small caucus - Betty Hewes, twice in my high school days, and Lawrence Decore's son, Michael Decore, was working at the same place I was when I we were both in our early 20's back in the mid-'90's, before he passed the bar and went to become a lawyer.

 

[Traitorfish]

In addition to what Lex said, yeah, I think the poor turnout can be in large part be explained by lefties not liking the candidate and sitting out the election for that reason. I don't see how that's a particularly hard line to draw.

In the end, this is all highly subjective and we're not going to be able to solve it based on our hunches and observations here. But I think the evidence speaks for itself. The Democrats got a candidate that the more progressive wing didn't like and they sat it out. That would also apply to more moderate voters in the party as well but I suspect that if we could suss out the numbers, we'd find the more left the voter, the less likely they were to vote. But I freely admit I've got nothing to base that on than a hunch and my own anecdotes.

But it's not subjective, is the problem. It's a claim about hard numbers. You say yourself, "the evidence speaks for itself"- well, what evidence? Clinton's poor showing does not in and of itself tell us anything about the preparedness of left-wing voters in key states to vote for a candidate they disliked. So my contention is, why should we reflexively accept the explanation that places the most favourable possible party bosses, the people with the greatest resources and the greatest responsibility to make sure that something like 2016 didn't happen?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Clinton's poor showing does not in and of itself tell us anything about the preparedness of left-wing voters in key states to vote for a candidate they disliked

Serious question - how does it not?

 

[Traitorfish]

Serious question - how does it not?

Because a simple tally of the number of people who voted for Clinton does not tell us anything about who these voters were, only that they voted for Clinton. It doesn't tell us about who they voted for previously, or who they may habitually voted for. It doesn't tell us why they did or did not vote for her. It only tells us that a certain number of people voted for this candidate X, candidate Y, and so on, and that a certain number of people did not vote.

For all we can infer from a raw tally, Clinton may have received votes exclusively from people who previously who previously voted for Romney. That's implausible, of course, but our knowledge this is implausible comes from sources external to the raw tally. While we can rule it out very quickly, we can do so only by referring to another source. Even if it appears utterly, overwhelmingly commensical, we are still appealing to an external source, it's simply that this common sense is our personal experience rather than a formal document. That information is not in any way encoded into the tally itself.

So where is the source that tells us that significant numbers of Sanders supporters in key states say out the 2016 presidential election?