As a strategic matter, the Democratic party ought to tack left in order to win swing votes.
Seriously.
Seriously.
Very strange to me it's almost exclusively the swing votes to the right of the Democratic party pundits consider worth picking up, particularly now that those swing votes have proved they'll vote extreme right even when there is a mainstream status quo center candidate to choose.
Disclosure ... I'm strong for Warren, and would also be just fine with Bernie. But also yes I'll vote for any Democrat.
This isn't about absolutism or insisting on a candidate. This is about strategy.
Specifically about discarding a strategy that failed for another.
This isn't about absolutism or insisting on a candidate. This is about strategy.
Specifically about discarding a strategy that failed for another.
I refer to voters who may vote Democrat or may vote 3rd party or stay home as "swing voters," to more accurately reframe something that I think has been deliberately obfuscated.
The only swing voters are not in the center.
Trump picked up swing voters on the right, for example.
The only swing voters are not in the center.
Trump picked up swing voters on the right, for example.
The pundits who largely try to steer media narrative around elections are largely centrists who would prefer that we think of the only swing voters existing exclusively in the center.
Getting us to believe that is probably good strategy for them, but we don't have to go along.
Getting us to believe that is probably good strategy for them, but we don't have to go along.
There are swing voters in the center.
There are ALSO swing voters on the left.
I'm neither. I'm locked in.
But I do find it...odd? that the strategy given for center swing voters is to compromise to win their votes, yet I rarely hear a similar strategy for left swing votes.
There are ALSO swing voters on the left.
I'm neither. I'm locked in.
But I do find it...odd? that the strategy given for center swing voters is to compromise to win their votes, yet I rarely hear a similar strategy for left swing votes.
And while I'm on the point, I *definitely* find it ... odd? That these unconcerned independent pundits, who claim they could break either way every time, almost exclusively offer this strategy to lure Democrats right, and VERY rarely to lure Republicans left.
If ever.
Odd.
If ever.
Odd.
Firm Democrats may not like that there are swing votes on the left. That’s understandable. I wish there was a more unified front.
But there are swing votes on the left.
There ARE.
That's a fact.
So the question becomes: SINCE there are, what is the strategy?
But there are swing votes on the left.
There ARE.
That's a fact.
So the question becomes: SINCE there are, what is the strategy?
People do get angry at swing voters on the left. I get it. The stakes are high. To protest vote when Trump's an option is distressing.
But it's ... odd. People don't seem to get similarly angry as often at swing voters on the right, who *actually are actively considering Trump.*
But it's ... odd. People don't seem to get similarly angry as often at swing voters on the right, who *actually are actively considering Trump.*
The swing voters on the right are frequently a challenge to be lured and won.
The swing voters on the left are frequently a problem who just need to go along.
It’s rarely seen the other way.
Is this good strategy?
The swing voters on the left are frequently a problem who just need to go along.
It’s rarely seen the other way.
Is this good strategy?
I suppose the thinking is, swing voters on the left are already aligned against Trump, so they should be willing to compromise to meet you and refuse to swing.
I see the logic.
But I do see a breakdown here.
I see the logic.
But I do see a breakdown here.
Consider the givens:
1) If the plan is to compromise to win swing votes ...
2) ...and the swing voters on the left are more naturally aligned
…if you're *already* planning to compromise to win swing voters, why not those with whom you're already MORE aligned?
1) If the plan is to compromise to win swing votes ...
2) ...and the swing voters on the left are more naturally aligned
…if you're *already* planning to compromise to win swing voters, why not those with whom you're already MORE aligned?
Honestly, just being open to voting for Trump is such an extremist and alienating position I wouldn't know how to reliably make common cause even if I wanted to, nor do I find it morally defensible or strategically wise to make the attempt
It's a position VERY misaligned with me
It's a position VERY misaligned with me
In 2016 the attempt was to win swing votes on the right. It didn't work. People who want right wing don’t care how extreme it gets, it seems.
Even being open to Trump is a far-right position.
The obvious move is to tack left to win swing votes.
Just something to consider.
Even being open to Trump is a far-right position.
The obvious move is to tack left to win swing votes.
Just something to consider.
Last thought:
We don't know what might make a swing voter on the right break for a Democratic candidate, but you never know what might compel somebody to move.
A new vision might do it. I'd say it's more likely to do so than something similar.
We don't know what might make a swing voter on the right break for a Democratic candidate, but you never know what might compel somebody to move.
A new vision might do it. I'd say it's more likely to do so than something similar.
We don't know what might make a non-voter actually engage and vote, but it strikes me as far more likely that a new vision will do that than a continuation.
They're not non-voters. They're SWING voters.
Food for thought.
OK andimout
They're not non-voters. They're SWING voters.
Food for thought.
OK andimout
