• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    It sounds like you’re basing it entirely off personal experience. But your personal experience probably doesn’t give you a representative cross section of Americans.

    The Greens also got 1/3 of the votes in 2020 as 2016, both times being about 1/3 of the Libertarian party.

    There’s also, like, some pretty big rifts in the right, between the old school establishment and the MAGA crowd. There was tons of infighting over the speaker and whatnot. Trump himself was obviously controversial, and I mentioned the threat of him running third party. If Republican voters would just line up to vote for anybody, the establishment would’ve never allowed things to splinter to the degree they have, they’d kick people out of the party and the voters would go for whoever they offered instead. I don’t see how any of that is explainable if what you’re saying is true.

    I feel like part of that narrative is just seeing the right run shitty candidates and seeing right wingers vote for them, but that’s because the voters have different values and preferences. They still care quite a bit about the things they do care about, and break rank when they don’t get their way, and much more so than people in the left do from the numbers I’m seeing.

    • SpaceCowboy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      But your personal experience probably doesn’t give you a representative cross section of Americans.

      Neither does yours. The fact is that there are Democrats pushing legislation pushing to move towards Ranked Choice Voting. It’s only your personal experience that leads you to believe that it’s all for show.

      There’s also, like, some pretty big rifts in the right, between the old school establishment and the MAGA crowd.

      Yeah but they didn’t form a new party did they? And I don’t think the Dems want to be dependent on the GOP running another unpopular candidate in 2028. They have campaign workers that actually talk to a lot of voters so they’d know better than either of us about the cross section of Americans.

      Most people don’t know about legislation that has passed, forget about proposed legislation being a thing that will influence voters. So why would they bother proposing legislation they don’t really want in an effort to bamboozle people who don’t even know about it?

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        Neither does yours.

        Of course. That’s why I cited a bunch of actual evidence and examples that aren’t dependent on my personal experience.

        It’s only your personal experience that leads you to believe that it’s all for show.

        Is it? I don’t recall bringing up my personal experience in that matter at all, or bringing up that matter in the first place. Nothing about my personal experience seems relevant to that question, it’s not as if I have firsthand experience with politicians in Washington that I’m using to determine whether they’re trustworthy or not.

        Most people don’t know about legislation that has passed, forget about proposed legislation being a thing that will influence voters. So why would they bother proposing legislation they don’t really want in an effort to bamboozle people who don’t even know about it?

        Now this is just silly. Are you suggesting that performative legislation never happens? It happens all the time, especially during election seasons. Just because not every person hears about ever minutiea doesn’t mean that nobody ever hears about anything or that it can’t influence voters. You’re literally using it right now to try to influence people.

        We can talk about whether this particular example is performative or not, but to rule out the entire concept of performative legislation categorically is ridiculous.