Cont: 2024 Election Thread part 2

[Donal]

TBF, what choice do they have ? When we bitched how Biden is too old, nobody really considered Trump as an alternative. There are 2 parties, and 2 candidates. IMHO people choose the party, rather than the candidate. They then have to support its candidate, no matter what he/she does.

...why...? The whole point of choosing a party is that it aligns with your values (more or less). If the party nominates a candidate or adopts a platform that contrasts with your values, why do you owe them your vote?

And look at the Republican party and their voters. they aren't "holding their nose" to vote Trump. They have fully embraced everything about him.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well yes I've written volumes on this board about the:

- Person A is a basically good person who tries to do but has the same human foibles as anyone

and

- Person B is total open and admitted horrible person

Where somehow through insane troll logic we got told that Person A is WORSE because at least Person B doesn't commit the cardinal sin not needing to be taken down a peg.

That mentality, the "Good people need to be taken down a peg" informs so much of the toxic mentality we get from the Right.

Again and again we are told minor variations on the same stupid, destructive idea. We don't need to worry about bad people, we only need to worry about good people going too far. The only bad thing that ever happen happens because good people try to do good and mess it up. Never be pretentious, never put in airs, never act "smarter then you think you are" or whatever.

 

[shemp]

The goal is not to pursuade the diehard Trump Maga loyalists to turn against him. The goal is to get the swing voters to turn out against him.

I know people are eager for Harris and the Democratic party to make a big deal about this, but for now they should not distract Trump's campaign from really screwing this up.

The opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. -- Sun Tzu

In other words...

If the enemy is ******* up, let them keep ******* up -- Shemp

 

[CarbShark]

Those defending Trump's behavior seem star-struck. They say they would be honored to have a President come pay his respects. But the problems are obvious: you don't have to make a campaign commercial out of it.

Of course if he didn't think he could make a campaign commercial out of it, there's no way he'd come.

Trump, pay respect? Hah!

 

[bruto]

Horse ****. "Well I have to vote Republican, my hands are tied!" is insane.

They don't have to support their party's candidate, quite obviously, as those who belong to the party and explicitly express their lack of support have made abundantly clear. Just as a lone example, Vermont's Republican governor is still a Republican even though he openly disavowed Trump and endorsed Biden in 2020.

 

[acbytesla]

I go a little crazy when people say you can't change hearts and minds.

Is it difficult? Yes.
Is it rare? Yes.
Is it impossible? No.

We're probably not going to get 5% of the people voting for Trump to vote for Harris. But if you get 2% you have made a 4% difference. If you get Trump supporters just not feeling confident you are likely to affect turnout. A half a point could be the difference. So keep working towards making a difference.

 

[jimbob]

I go a little crazy when people say you can't change hearts and minds.

Is it difficult? Yes.
Is it rare? Yes.
Is it impossible? No.

We're probably not going to get 5% of the people voting for Trump to vote for Harris. But if you get 2% you have made a 4% difference. If you get Trump supporters just not feeling confident you are likely to affect turnout. A half a point could be the difference. So keep working towards making a difference.

Daryl Davis would agree with you.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/5448...0-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

And faced far harder hurdles.

Yes there are some who are hateful but many are not without a chance to change

 

[autumn1971]

Once a student here, but what I was taught (by pedants, no doubt, but it seemed to make sense) was that a singular ending in an "S" differs from a plural. A singular is generally pluralized with an "S" or, if it ends with an "s," an "ES." A singular is made possessive with an "apostrophe-s" and a plural (of the usual sort that ends with an "S")* with an apostrophe alone. Aside from a certain degree of consistency it works backwards in a sense, that in a case where it is not obvious at a glance whether a noun or name is plural or a singular with an "s" ending, the presence of the "s" in the possessive will tell you.

*we except words like "data" which is an "s-less" plural.

From the nineties, I learned that except for biblical or other ancient names, it’s add the extra “s”

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is what I was talking about with the "undecided voter" discussion earlier.

Yes there are people out there that Harris/Trump could get to their side by doing or saying something, that's pretty much what "undecided voter" means. Or to probably be more accurate "unmotivated voter" getting people who don't intend to vote out to vote, probably a much bigger group.

But what they are no longer is big, voting demographic blocks of people to reach out to. The problem with "undecided voters" is there is nothing singular you can say or do that is going to reach a meaningful number of them at once.

Economy of scale is a thing in politics. Abortion is a big issue. A lot of people have strong opinions about abortion and that affects them voting. So ruining a "Yay/Nay Abortion!" is money and time well spent because that's a lot of people who care about a single issue.

What do you say to this big mass of "undecided voters" who are all not voting or voting for your opposition for their own reason?

Modern politics really sorta forces you sink most of your resources into courting one issue or "a small handful of issue" voters to get the most return on investment because there is no way to reach out to a massive undefined group of "undecided" who are all undecided for their own reason in a mass web of vague, contradictory, and impossible to "message" all at once reasons?

Unless someone has an educated guess as to some "neither Trump nor Harris are addressing THIS issue and they can address it in my favor without stepping on one of their already established platforms/theme/personality?" Because I can't imagine what that could be.

Sure there's probably Mr. Edward V. Hackensmith in some latchkey district in Pennsylvania who could tilt the entire election, but he's gonna decide between Harris and Trump based on something that's not on Harris's radar, Trump's radar, Nate Silver's radar, or anybody else's.

Hell at times I legit wonder how big of a demographic "I, honestly and truly, couldn't tell you WHY I'm voting for this candidate over that candidate" actually is.

So too long, didn't read. Yes you can reach out and change the mind of "undecided voters." But not in any efficient, mass way.

 

[Tero]

Hell at times I legit wonder how big of a demographic "I, honestly and truly, couldn't tell you WHY I'm voting for this candidate over that candidate" actually is.

Very large. Most decisions are made unconsciously. Rules of thumb are used. See Kahneman and Tversky.

The typical voter is deciding on very little. It is like picking one loaf of bread over another.

 

[acbytesla]

This is what I was talking about with the "undecided voter" discussion earlier.

Yes there are people out there that Harris/Trump could get to their side by doing or saying something, that's pretty much what "undecided voter" means. Or to probably be more accurate "unmotivated voter" getting people who don't intend to vote out to vote, probably a much bigger group.

But what they are no longer is big, voting demographic blocks of people to reach out to. The problem with "undecided voters" is there is nothing singular you can say or do that is going to reach a meaningful number of them at once.

Economy of scale is a thing in politics. Abortion is a big issue. A lot of people have strong opinions about abortion and that affects them voting. So ruining a "Yay/Nay Abortion!" is money and time well spent because that's a lot of people who care about a single issue.

What do you say to this big mass of "undecided voters" who are all not voting or voting for your opposition for their own reason?

Modern politics really sorta forces you sink most of your resources into courting one issue or "a small handful of issue" voters to get the most return on investment because there is no way to reach out to a massive undefined group of "undecided" who are all undecided for their own reason in a mass web of vague, contradictory, and impossible to "message" all at once reasons?

Unless someone has an educated guess as to some "neither Trump nor Harris are addressing THIS issue and they can address it in my favor without stepping on one of their already established platforms/theme/personality?" Because I can't imagine what that could be.

Sure there's probably Mr. Edward V. Hackensmith in some latchkey district in Pennsylvania who could tilt the entire election, but he's gonna decide between Harris and Trump based on something that's not on Harris's radar, Trump's radar, Nate Silver's radar, or anybody else's.

Hell at times I legit wonder how big of a demographic "I, honestly and truly, couldn't tell you WHY I'm voting for this candidate over that candidate" actually is.

So too long, didn't read. Yes you can reach out and change the mind of "undecided voters." But not in any efficient, mass way.

What's efficient? Most of America still believes in a sky daddy. Most of the world does. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Still, the number of people that don't believe has grown a little bit at a time. So much so that in most of Europe today expressing that fairy tale belief is a hindrance. It's still helpful in the US, but there is little doubt it is diminishing.
As long as people are invested in pushing disinformation and as long as people are gullible, gains toward rationality will be marginal. But marginal gains add up.

 

[acbytesla]

Very large. Most decisions are made unconsciously. Rules of thumb are used. See Kahneman and Tversky.

The typical voter is deciding on very little. It is like picking one loaf of bread over another.

Exactly. And this is what drives political experts crazy. Just when you think you understand what's important the electorate surprises them.

 

[Stacyhs]

They aren't, but in unconstrained systems the bad will muscle out the good. And eventually the only way to play in such a system is by being bad.

When human networks were smaller (at about the 300-400 pop level) it was easier to police the bad actors, but these days the only way to police the minority who are bad actors takes significant powers, those that can only be reasonably wielded by states.

We'll have to agree to disagree because there's no way to verify whether a majority or minority of people are greedy, selfish bastards if given free rein.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think you're both right in a way and not disagreeing as much as you think you are.

There are far, far more decent people out there, but it takes far fewer dishonest agents to muck up the works.

 

[Stacyhs]

Agreed, but that's their business.

What isn't their business is that they don't own the cemetery and whatever permission they may have given to the Trump campaign is literally irrelevant.

Exactly! They had no authority to 'grant' Trump and his cameras permission to film a campaign video in ANC. Trump and his crew knowingly broke the law. But since when does that matter to them or Trump's fans?

 

[Stacyhs]

Once a student here, but what I was taught (by pedants, no doubt, but it seemed to make sense) was that a singular ending in an "S" differs from a plural. A singular is generally pluralized with an "S" or, if it ends with an "s," an "ES." A singular is made possessive with an "apostrophe-s" and a plural (of the usual sort that ends with an "S")* with an apostrophe alone. Aside from a certain degree of consistency it works backwards in a sense, that in a case where it is not obvious at a glance whether a noun or name is plural or a singular with an "s" ending, the presence of the "s" in the possessive will tell you.

*we except words like "data" which is an "s-less" plural.

From the nineties, I learned that except for biblical or other ancient names, it’s add the extra “s”

As I said in my original comment "Harris' AND Harris's are both correct," and "There are different rules for classical and biblical names. Go figure."

 

[Dr.Sid]

...why...? The whole point of choosing a party is that it aligns with your values (more or less). If the party nominates a candidate or adopts a platform that contrasts with your values, why do you owe them your vote?

And look at the Republican party and their voters. they aren't "holding their nose" to vote Trump. They have fully embraced everything about him.

Well .. people tend to identify with their choice, rather than hold their nose. You could see it here with people defending Biden. Only few admitted they are holding their nose. I don't think all Trump voters are pro-Trump. IMHO lot of them are anti-Democrats. I see lot more critique of Democratic policies rather than praise for Trump (except from Trump, of course).
I even think they could have more votes if they had different candidate, I mean someone bland. It won't happen, they only have clowns, and let's face it, Trump is best at that, but it would be interesting to watch.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Agreed, but that's their business.

What isn't their business is that they don't own the cemetery and whatever permission they may have given to the Trump campaign is literally irrelevant.

I honestly think it is not, they are blackening the names of their own kin, and they're not even getting a brass tack for it.

 

[Craig4]

That they would sell the sacrifice of their family members to promote the candidacy of a traitor is saddening.

It's despicable that the family would dishonor the memories of their loved ones by supporting the enemy of the nation.

 

[Craig4]

I think it's pretty clear what happened: Trump and his team thought they could just break the rules, as usual, and when someone tried to stop them, they assumed, in their victim-complex. that it must have been a Dem Operative Trump Hater etc. and treated them accordingly.

Trying to blame the Cemetery Official is an extra level of low.


Of course, his supporters will never care long enough for this to matter.

It's what I expect from their kind. Trump voters aren't like real Americans. They don't share our values. That one of those scum laid hands on an American is beyond contemptible.

One hopes there are people doxing the enemy who attacked the American at the cemetery and will let the internet do to what the internet does best.