Ctrl+F “too far” and 0 results. Nope I didn’t say “too far”.
What I’m saying is that she stuck her head a tiny bit left, and guess what happened? The voters didn’t turn out. They protest no-voted. As in, the left voters never show up. (or excruciatingly rarely) Candidates at various times stick their head a tiny bit left trying to court those voters, but nope the voters don’t show up.
You think they have to go even more, but every time they run left in any amount (either Gore or Hilary) the voters don’t show up. This is how it works, you go a little bit left, and see if you win. Sorry you don’t go extreme left to see if you win, you stick your toes in first. And every time the Dems do, they lose. So what does the next candidate learn? Don’t go left, because they don’t show up and you lose. They learn you go to the center to find votes.
The message to left voters is: If you want things to move left, then you have to show up. The dems have learnt time and time again that you can’t count on left voters. So they go to the center to find voters. If you want things to move left, then give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. You have to take small steps before big steps. You have to walk before you run. Not just president, congress too because again they will go center to find congress votes.
What I’m saying is that she stuck her head a tiny bit left, and guess what happened? The voters didn’t turn out.
So you’re saying that she went too far left for the electorate right? Or are you saying her going left had no appreciable impact, because she didn’t go left at all and these massive paragraphs you’re writing are just an exercise in pretending to be a LLM?
What is going on here. She went a little bit left and lost (because the left voters didn’t show up). So the next candidate learns to go to the center to find voters (because the left voters don’t show up). Every single time.
I just went to find and link my explanation to someone else just to find that it’s what you responded to. If you don’t get it then you are really trying hard to not get it and/or discussing in bad faith. Ciao.
Okay, it sounds like you’re saying the same thing - that Hillary tried to convince left wing voters she is on their side, and they protested because it “wasn’t enough.” Your original statement made it sound like she lost because she tried to move slightly left.
No, they protested in spite of her trying to move left, not because she tried to move left.
Although I’ll admit it’s a distinction without a difference. Democrats are going to continue to refuse to move farther left if we don’t vote because we think they’re not left enough.
You’re making no sense. Protest no vote in spite of her moving a little bit left is an oxymoron. Unless you meant protest no vote to spite her. In which case it doesn’t matter because of exactly what I’m saying, left voters don’t show up. You’d be an absolute fool to court voters that never show up, (again when you walk before you run). So candidates go to the center to find voters that do show up.
No I’m not. I think you don’t know what “in spite of” means. The correct usage of that expression would be: “The far left wing wanted Hillary to move far left. But they voted for her anyway in spite of her only moving a little bit left.”
This entire conversation has been you (intentionally or otherwise) misreading and/or misinterpreting and/or twisting words, so I’m leaving this conversation. I think I’ve explained things well enough.
I still think this has been a useful conversion, because it has helped me understand what you actually meant to say.
What I think you’re trying to say is that moving left failed to prevent voters from protesting, which I’m completely in agreement here.
If courting left wing voters fails to get them out to vote, then politicians are just going to pander to center/right voters.
Your phrasing was just really weird, because you keep arguing that moving left is what triggered the voters to protest, but they would have protested either way.
Ctrl+F “too far” and 0 results. Nope I didn’t say “too far”.
What I’m saying is that she stuck her head a tiny bit left, and guess what happened? The voters didn’t turn out. They protest no-voted. As in, the left voters never show up. (or excruciatingly rarely) Candidates at various times stick their head a tiny bit left trying to court those voters, but nope the voters don’t show up.
You think they have to go even more, but every time they run left in any amount (either Gore or Hilary) the voters don’t show up. This is how it works, you go a little bit left, and see if you win. Sorry you don’t go extreme left to see if you win, you stick your toes in first. And every time the Dems do, they lose. So what does the next candidate learn? Don’t go left, because they don’t show up and you lose. They learn you go to the center to find votes.
The message to left voters is: If you want things to move left, then you have to show up. The dems have learnt time and time again that you can’t count on left voters. So they go to the center to find voters. If you want things to move left, then give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. You have to take small steps before big steps. You have to walk before you run. Not just president, congress too because again they will go center to find congress votes.
So you’re saying that she went too far left for the electorate right? Or are you saying her going left had no appreciable impact, because she didn’t go left at all and these massive paragraphs you’re writing are just an exercise in pretending to be a LLM?
She moved a little bit left and the voters did not show up. C’mon.
So the latter?
What is going on here. She went a little bit left and lost (because the left voters didn’t show up). So the next candidate learns to go to the center to find voters (because the left voters don’t show up). Every single time.
I just went to find and link my explanation to someone else just to find that it’s what you responded to. If you don’t get it then you are really trying hard to not get it and/or discussing in bad faith. Ciao.
I’m not arguing in bad faith, you’re making an argument that has zero substance to it. There’s not a fucking argument to be had here.
If you’re saying both simultaneously that Hilary went left and that she didn’t go left, you’re just arguing with yourself.
You walk before you run. You take small steps before big steps. That is how it works. Why am I bothering, I’m out.
Okay, it sounds like you’re saying the same thing - that Hillary tried to convince left wing voters she is on their side, and they protested because it “wasn’t enough.” Your original statement made it sound like she lost because she tried to move slightly left.
She did lose because she moved a little bit left and the voters did not show up.
No, they protested in spite of her trying to move left, not because she tried to move left.
Although I’ll admit it’s a distinction without a difference. Democrats are going to continue to refuse to move farther left if we don’t vote because we think they’re not left enough.
You’re making no sense. Protest no vote in spite of her moving a little bit left is an oxymoron. Unless you meant protest no vote to spite her. In which case it doesn’t matter because of exactly what I’m saying, left voters don’t show up. You’d be an absolute fool to court voters that never show up, (again when you walk before you run). So candidates go to the center to find voters that do show up.
Are you saying that if Hillary had rejected the map room proposal, then left wing voters would have turned out to vote for her?
That’s ridiculous to think that moving further right would have got more left voters to turn out to vote.
Meaning the map room proposal had no effect on left wing voters, because it wasn’t enough. It did not cause them to protest.
No I’m not. I think you don’t know what “in spite of” means. The correct usage of that expression would be: “The far left wing wanted Hillary to move far left. But they voted for her anyway in spite of her only moving a little bit left.”
This entire conversation has been you (intentionally or otherwise) misreading and/or misinterpreting and/or twisting words, so I’m leaving this conversation. I think I’ve explained things well enough.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/despite-in-spite-of/
I feel you are misinterpreting what I’m trying to say, this example would be more accurate:
I still think this has been a useful conversion, because it has helped me understand what you actually meant to say.
What I think you’re trying to say is that moving left failed to prevent voters from protesting, which I’m completely in agreement here.
If courting left wing voters fails to get them out to vote, then politicians are just going to pander to center/right voters.
Your phrasing was just really weird, because you keep arguing that moving left is what triggered the voters to protest, but they would have protested either way.
JFC I don’t know how you misread things so badly. Go read from the very start