It’s not a “strategy”, it’s literally how democracy works. You need 50% + 1 or all the moral purity in the universe means nothing. If the far left continues to never work as a coalition then the left is forced to move to the middle. Don’t get me wrong, most of my views are pretty far left, I just understand how democracy works…
Morally pure ideologues that refuse to work with others enjoy all the benefits of knowing they are right while making none of the decisions. Democracies involve consensus and coalition building.
Yeah I generally agree, but I suspect that every politician that attends national security meetings is constantly being told that Israel is a necessary partner. Combine that with a strong Christian and Jewish Israel lobby and even a good person may recognize that they can’t gain power to do all the things they want and also oppose funding Israel at the same time.
It’s the paradox of political power, it’s why if I went back into politics I would do activism instead of elected office, with activism you have the freedom to put your energy where you want without compromise. In politics compromise is fundamental, even necessary, even when dealing with unquestionably immoral things. Personally I think being afraid to spend your political capital means you have failed, but id also probably lose if I ran for office.
Have you met voters? Pretending like voters are any better would be pretty hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
How they gonna nominate someone that has only ever said they will never run for president. Dumbest take I have ever seen on lemmy. Michelle would never be president, she doesn’t want it.
It’s impossible to appeal to everyone. 6 in 10 Americans believe Israel has a right to continue it’s fight with Hamas. 6 in 10 Americans are also sympathetic to both sides of the conflict. The Dems are attempting to thread that needle. And while I don’t agree with the unconditional support of Israel. The US is heavily invested in partnership with Israel and foreign policy has always shifted painfully slow. Despite all the death in the world, the US is involved in the least death it has been involved in since the WWII. We’ve been constantly at war since WWII. And shifting from the US being constantly at war to only arming our allies is at least some improvement.
One things certain, if Trump wins authoritarians will be emboldened worldwide and the amount of death will increase much much more, including here.
Ahh, I misinterpreted your post as a complaint. I’m not a hypermiler, but I do find the efficient routes are often the lowest stress routes as well.
That’s in your trip options “prefer fuel efficient route”. You can turn it off.
An alternate view for you, politicians can’t possibly be expected to know about everything, care about every cause, meet with every person. One of lobbyists roles is to educate and motivate where otherwise politicians may be complacent. The reason that education is currently problematic is because powerful people control much of the “education”. I think a well regulated lobbying system could remove some of the downsides while keeping the upsides. I’ve also worked in and around politics, that reality doesn’t make either one of us more or less correct.
I think you’re misattributing my intent. If you want to make corporate lobbying illegal or highly regulated I’m all for it. But lobbying overall is an inherently good and important part of politics. If you merely talk to a politician about a bill you want to pass you are lobbying. But you are likely very bad at it compared to a professional, so you pay an organization to do it on your behalf. Do you expect politicians to live in a black box completely disconnected from constituent issues as long as they are in office? Because that’s how you get laws passed that have nothing to do with human need. If I donate to the ACLU, HRC, or an environmental group, I expect that some of my money will be spent on lobbying congress. That is not bad or evil.
I absolutely read the question, accusing me of reading comprehension problems while having serious reading comprehension problems is some reddit level stupidity. Reread what I wrote, you read the first half and ignored the second half. I was merely illustrating that many paid lobbyist do very worthwhile things. From labor rights, to environmental justice, to human rights. The issue isn’t lobbyists, the issue is corporate lobbyists…
Let’s say you lose your job because a company lays you off without notice amid record profits. With your new found free time, you get so angry you go to your state senators and representatives and try to convince them to make a law limiting layoffs to a 6 month notice period for profitable companies. You are now a lobbyist. You are saying not to lobby the government full time. But for the sake of clarity let’s say your coworkers also got laid off and pooled their money to send you to lobby on their behalf, you are now a paid lobbyist.
I feel like most people that complain about lobbyists are really just complaining about corporate lobbyists or lobbying groups paid by corporations. Lobbyists are a good and necessary part of any democracy.
When he was in front of the Senate confirmation hearing he was absolutely embarrassed. He knew everyone was watching while he was accused of sexual harassment. He basically stopped interacting with the media because he was so furious with how he was portrayed publicly. Dude hates being publicly shamed. Doesn’t mean he’s wise enough to stop doing shitty things.
The only thing Thomas likes more than money is respect. He would never take Oliver money because it would publicly embarrass him. He hates embarrassment more than anything.
People can say whatever they want, no one can stop you. But people still have every right to judge your character. Being in a free society works both ways, you can say mean shit and I can think you’re mean.
People use “retard” to compare others or themselves to people they deem lesser than. It doesn’t work as an insult if you don’t look down on cognitively disabled people. You don’t have to use it on someone cognitively disabled, the implication is already there whether you have intended it or not.
For me, I think there are much worse words. While I don’t use it, I don’t waste my brain space judging people who do.
I think you’re missing the point of predictive modeling. It’s probability of separate outcomes is built in. This isn’t fortune telling, there is no crystal ball. Two predictive models can have different predictions and they both may have value. Just like separate meteorologists can have different forecasts, but predict accurately the same amount over time, all be it at different intervals. IIRC, the average meteorologist correctly predicts rain over 80% of the time. They are far over predicting by chance. But if you look at the forecast in more than one place you often get slightly different forecasts. They have different models and yet arrive at similar conclusions usually getting it mostly accurate. It’s the same with political forecasts, they are only as valuable as your understanding of predictive modeling. If you think they are intended to mirror reality flawlessly, you will be sorely disappointed. That doesn’t make the models “wrong”, it doesn’t make them “right” either. They are just models that usually predict a probable outcome.
His model has always been closer state to state, election to election than anyone else’s, which is why people use his models. He is basically using the same model and tweaking it each time, you make it sound like he’s starting over from scratch. When Trump won, none of the prediction models were predicting he would win, but his at least showed a fairly reasonable chance he could. His competitors were forecasting a much more likely Hillary win while he was showing that trump would win basically 3 out of 10 times. In terms of probability that’s not a blowout prediction. His model was working better than competitors. Additionally, he basically predicted the battleground states within a half percentage iirc, that happened to be the difference between a win/loss in some states.
So he has exactly one chance to get it right.
You’re saying it hitting one of those 3 of 10 is “getting it wrong”, that’s the problem with your understanding of probability. By saying that you’re showing that you don’t actually internalize the purpose of a predictive model forecast. It’s not a magic wand, it’s just a predictive tool. That tool is useful if you understand what it’s really saying, instead of extrapolating something it absolutely is not saying. If something says something will happen 3 of 10 times, it happening is not evidence of an issue with the model. A flawless model with ideal inputs can still show a 3 of 10 chance and should hit in 30% of scenarios. Certainly because we have a limited number of elections it’s hard to prove the model, but considering he has come closer than competitors, it certainly seems he knows what he is doing.
All prediction models only give you odds, not flawless accuracy. He has been closer in every election than most everyone else in the prediction market.
He’s not polling, he is aggregating all of the polls into a prediction model. Either way it is just a snapshot in time.
I think you’re mis-characterizing what I’m saying. That isn’t the only two options, the far left could be a little more honest about how one gets to a majority and start working with the only party with power that somewhat aligns. It’s what I’ve done much of my adult life, I’ve swam in party politics, there is a lot more room for socialists, democratic socialists, progressives, etc in the party than people seem to realize. You just have to be willing to compromise for incremental progress instead of letting perfect be the enemy of good. Policy shifts move slowly, but they do move.
The left has a clear path forward to move the Overton window back, but it needs the far left to be willing to do something other than constantly masturbate our/their moral self righteousness. But parties don’t really shift the Overton window that much alone, society does, activism does, education does. Parties don’t give a great speech and everyone changes their mind. That kind of of leadership is a simplistic fantasy we sell ourselves, but really parties and leaders meet the moment, they don’t make the moment. Citizens need to get involved, the far left needs to stop standing on the outside looking in. They need to be committed long term to joining, and then shifting, the party for real.