Did you not? Was that effective at accomplishing your policy goals? Did the party realize the error of their ways and shift radically left? Oh, they’re already floating running Harris again? Huh.
Voting works for what it’s designed to do: select the most popular candidate among voters. If you didn’t vote, or voted for an unpopular candidate, that’s not the fault of the election. What it doesn’t work for is unfocused feedback against a party. When Hilary lost, we got Biden. When Biden was rebuffed, we got Harris.
Hitting a bolt with a wench instead of using it as intended is not proof that wrenches don’t work. You’re just using it wrong.
The vote totals were closer to my goals than yours, in my state. How much do you have to fuck around with the math to make Illinois not only go red, but be the tipping point state? That’s a completely unrealistic fantasy, and most Americans are in similar boats.
Were they? Harris won Illinois, so it looks like the opposite is in fact true. And I must have missed the part of your plan where you tailored it strategically based on state. It seems like you’re telling everyone to act the same way, in which case vote margins of each state aren’t really relevant.
Harris won Illinois, so it looks like the opposite is in fact true.
That’s an interesting claim. What you’re telling me is that your strategy delivered Harris a victory in Illinois. Now, if we take your strategy to be, simply, “Be a liberal and vote for liberals because you’re a liberal,” then sure, it was because of liberals like you that she won. But if your strategy is, “Be a leftist, but act in a way that’s completely indistinguishable from liberals,” then whether the specific faction you represent was significant enough to determine whether she won or lost the state depends on how many of you there are. And that number is impossible to determine, since they act in a way that’s completely indistinguishable from liberals, there is no quality I’m aware of that we could look at that would tell us if that number is 1% or 90% of Harris voters.
Now, obviously, you are a liberal and the first interpretation is correct. But if I were to entertain your absurd pretense that you’re not a liberal, that there’s some meaningful distinction between your position and liberalism, then it seems very likely that all your faction accomplished was increasing the margin of victory a bit. Harris would have won anyway because of the number of liberal voters. Furthermore, no matter how much stronger you faction got here, it would continue to have zero influence over the outcome of the presidential election, because Harris is always going to get 100% of the electoral college votes here no matter what. Meaning that your strategy is both ineffective, but lacks even the theoretical potential to be effective.
It seems like you’re telling everyone to act the same way, in which case vote margins of each state aren’t really relevant.
It seems like you’re telling everyone to act the same way, in which case the situation of each state is relevant, because of any state should not follow your advice then you are wrong to proscribe it universally. Your argument cuts both ways.
Now, obviously, you are a liberal and the first interpretation is correct.
You are just as obviously a fascist sympathizer trying to ensure they stay in power by encouraging leftists to act stupidly.
There’s a difference between strategy and liberalism. But if you don’t understand strategy, then you must be a fascist trying to splinter the left because you’re acting indistinguishably from a fascist trying to splinter the left.
Did you not? Was that effective at accomplishing your policy goals? Did the party realize the error of their ways and shift radically left? Oh, they’re already floating running Harris again? Huh.
if you know voting doesn’t work, then we’re done here
Voting works for what it’s designed to do: select the most popular candidate among voters. If you didn’t vote, or voted for an unpopular candidate, that’s not the fault of the election. What it doesn’t work for is unfocused feedback against a party. When Hilary lost, we got Biden. When Biden was rebuffed, we got Harris.
Hitting a bolt with a wench instead of using it as intended is not proof that wrenches don’t work. You’re just using it wrong.
you know that you didn’t stop trump by voting.
I came very close. Another couple percent of the voters and it would have worked, it was a very achievable goal.
How many percent short were you?
but it didn’t work. it never has stopped him.
Removed by mod
he wasn’t stopped, and he’s worse than ever
Much like chemo, it is not a one and done solution. Guess what happens when you throw a tantrum and start skipping chemo sessions?
The vote totals were closer to my goals than yours, in my state. How much do you have to fuck around with the math to make Illinois not only go red, but be the tipping point state? That’s a completely unrealistic fantasy, and most Americans are in similar boats.
Were they? Harris won Illinois, so it looks like the opposite is in fact true. And I must have missed the part of your plan where you tailored it strategically based on state. It seems like you’re telling everyone to act the same way, in which case vote margins of each state aren’t really relevant.
That’s an interesting claim. What you’re telling me is that your strategy delivered Harris a victory in Illinois. Now, if we take your strategy to be, simply, “Be a liberal and vote for liberals because you’re a liberal,” then sure, it was because of liberals like you that she won. But if your strategy is, “Be a leftist, but act in a way that’s completely indistinguishable from liberals,” then whether the specific faction you represent was significant enough to determine whether she won or lost the state depends on how many of you there are. And that number is impossible to determine, since they act in a way that’s completely indistinguishable from liberals, there is no quality I’m aware of that we could look at that would tell us if that number is 1% or 90% of Harris voters.
Now, obviously, you are a liberal and the first interpretation is correct. But if I were to entertain your absurd pretense that you’re not a liberal, that there’s some meaningful distinction between your position and liberalism, then it seems very likely that all your faction accomplished was increasing the margin of victory a bit. Harris would have won anyway because of the number of liberal voters. Furthermore, no matter how much stronger you faction got here, it would continue to have zero influence over the outcome of the presidential election, because Harris is always going to get 100% of the electoral college votes here no matter what. Meaning that your strategy is both ineffective, but lacks even the theoretical potential to be effective.
It seems like you’re telling everyone to act the same way, in which case the situation of each state is relevant, because of any state should not follow your advice then you are wrong to proscribe it universally. Your argument cuts both ways.
You are just as obviously a fascist sympathizer trying to ensure they stay in power by encouraging leftists to act stupidly.
There’s a difference between strategy and liberalism. But if you don’t understand strategy, then you must be a fascist trying to splinter the left because you’re acting indistinguishably from a fascist trying to splinter the left.