3 ms·

Ross Barkan is running as a Democrat, but he is not a Machine candidate; he is an independent who needs to edge out the person preferred by party leadership [so

Ross Barkan is running as a Democrat, but he is not a Machine candidate; he is an independent who needs to edge out the person preferred by party leadership [so that he can take on the Republican incumbent without splitting the vote]. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is a corporatist through and through. Suppose we had Elizabeth Warren as a candidate instead? Bernie Sanders is also a Democrat, but look at the kind of games party leadership played against him to make sure their preferred candidate got the nomination. Don't pretend you don't understand the difference between running under a party and being part of party leadership. I happen to have a productized campaign contributions and expenditures database at my fingertips, so maybe I'll take you up on the offer to check. What state are you in? EDIT: Your donations are probably to candidates in California, and we don't have that normalized and loaded yet.

lisper 8y ago
> Hillary Clinton Is not running AFAIK. > Bernie Sanders is also a Democrat No, he's an independent. > Suppose we had Elizabeth Warren as a candidate instead? Elizabeth Warren already holds elected office and is not up for re-election this cycle. > Your donations are probably to candidates in California, Don't make assumptions. > we don't have that normalized and loaded yet. And what exactly do you expect me to do about that? I appreciate the fact that you are actually trying to move the needle, but you need to focus. Words matter.
- philipov 8y ago
  You were talking about about the Trump election. Please don't constantly move the goalposts on me.
  - lisper 8y ago
    I cited that as an example where voting can make a difference, because you said: "[Voting] only matters if voting actually functions as the root cause of election victory, but in practice it is merely an illusion of choice." Don't confuse a data point with a recommendation. Data points are always in the past. Activism can only be effective in the future.
    - philipov 8y ago
      And in that example, our choice was a fork between a corporatist and a fascist, and yet you used that to imply I was saying all Democratic candidates are corporatists, while also ignoring the influence party leadership has on aggregate outcomes. Your example had flaws I attempted to point out, but you are going to such great lengths to find any reason to misunderstand and mix up my statements that I find it both uncharitable and uncanny. Are you somehow claiming Bernie did not run against Hillary in the democratic primary, and that party leadership did not attempt to sabotage his campaign in favor of their preferred candidate? Why did you suddenly switch from past tense to the present to claim a misunderstanding instead of addressing my point directly?
      - lisper 8y ago
        > our choice was a fork between a corporatist and a fascist But it was still a choice. And people's votes still mattered. (And BTW, tens of millions of people still purport to be happy with the outcome.)
        philipov 8y ago
        As I argued elsewhere, a fork is a good example of an illusory choice. A rook/queen fork is not a real choice between keeping your rook or your queen, it is a forcing move designed to take your rook. A choice between staying in an abusive relationship and killing yourself does not meet the criteria for an uncoerced choice, especially when it is being offered by the people with whom you are in an abusive relationship. Not killing yourself doesn't imply you consent to being in an abusive relationship. You'd have to be trying really hard to consider that a choice except in the most literal unhelpful sense. Even our legal system (mostly) understands that you can't have a valid contract without consideration on both sides.
        lisper 8y ago
        I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether the world would be substantively different today if the 2016 election had had a different outcome.

lisper 8y ago

> Hillary Clinton Is not running AFAIK. > Bernie Sanders is also a Democrat No, he's an independent. > Suppose we had Elizabeth Warren as a candidate instead? Elizabeth Warren already holds elected office and is not up for re-election this cycle. > Your donations are probably to candidates in California, Don't make assumptions. > we don't have that normalized and loaded yet. And what exactly do you expect me to do about that? I appreciate the fact that you are actually trying to move the needle, but you need to focus. Words matter.

philipov 8y ago
You were talking about about the Trump election. Please don't constantly move the goalposts on me.
- lisper 8y ago
  I cited that as an example where voting can make a difference, because you said: "[Voting] only matters if voting actually functions as the root cause of election victory, but in practice it is merely an illusion of choice." Don't confuse a data point with a recommendation. Data points are always in the past. Activism can only be effective in the future.
  - philipov 8y ago
    And in that example, our choice was a fork between a corporatist and a fascist, and yet you used that to imply I was saying all Democratic candidates are corporatists, while also ignoring the influence party leadership has on aggregate outcomes. Your example had flaws I attempted to point out, but you are going to such great lengths to find any reason to misunderstand and mix up my statements that I find it both uncharitable and uncanny. Are you somehow claiming Bernie did not run against Hillary in the democratic primary, and that party leadership did not attempt to sabotage his campaign in favor of their preferred candidate? Why did you suddenly switch from past tense to the present to claim a misunderstanding instead of addressing my point directly?
    - lisper 8y ago
      > our choice was a fork between a corporatist and a fascist But it was still a choice. And people's votes still mattered. (And BTW, tens of millions of people still purport to be happy with the outcome.)
      - philipov 8y ago
        As I argued elsewhere, a fork is a good example of an illusory choice. A rook/queen fork is not a real choice between keeping your rook or your queen, it is a forcing move designed to take your rook. A choice between staying in an abusive relationship and killing yourself does not meet the criteria for an uncoerced choice, especially when it is being offered by the people with whom you are in an abusive relationship. Not killing yourself doesn't imply you consent to being in an abusive relationship. You'd have to be trying really hard to consider that a choice except in the most literal unhelpful sense. Even our legal system (mostly) understands that you can't have a valid contract without consideration on both sides.
        lisper 8y ago
        I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether the world would be substantively different today if the 2016 election had had a different outcome.