4 ms·

This is a ridiculous assertion. In USA, you're typically given two choices realistically. If you agree with more points of what is important to you, you vote

by axaxs 7y ago

This is a ridiculous assertion. In USA, you're typically given two choices realistically. If you agree with more points of what is important to you, you vote for them. By no means is who you vote for a complete representation of yourself.

CM30 7y ago
For many, it's probably not which party they agree with more points from, but which one they agree with on the one or two issues they care about the most, even if they disagree with everything else.
- axaxs 7y ago
  Absolutely. This is how I generally vote.
  - dvtrn 7y ago
    Stepping on a ledge and positing it's probably how a lot of people vote, if even unconsciously- but it's probably not a popular way of ascribing personal motive to the political act of voting which is a more conscious and deliberate action. Or at least, it's less convenient than simply associating the sum with the worst of its parts. That bit in the article about 'motive attribution asymmetry'.
mceachen 7y ago
Certainly. But who you voted for indicates your least-bad preference of the options available.
tootie 7y ago
That's not really true. We have primaries. Republican primary voters didn't have a great set of options, but they clearly chose the worst person in American politics in about 50 years. What conclusion am I supposed to draw from this?
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  > What conclusion am I supposed to draw from this? That they care much, much more about their own financial and economic conditions than pretty much any other issues? That's not a slam on them; you would too if you were living paycheck-to-paycheck. Bill Clinton understood this ("It's the economy, stupid.") but the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates somehow do not, which is why they stand a depressingly good chance of failing to win the next presidency.
- busterarm 7y ago
  If Republicans chose the worst person in 50 years of American politics to represent them, you've really got to wonder how the Democrats still managed to pick someone who would lose to him. The DNC didn't want to listen to those of us in the party who were practically shouting at how unelectable Hillary Clinton was and the party got what it deserved, IMO.
  - scruple 7y ago
    > The DNC didn't want to listen to those of us in the party who were practically shouting at how unelectable Hillary Clinton was and the party got what it deserved, IMO. And, many of us (I'm also a registered Democrat) that are watching things as they shape up in the DNC for 2020, are wondering if any lessons were taken to heart at all. It's frightening to me to sit here today and feel a genuine sense that Trump is going to win _again_ in 2020 because the DNC can't pull it's shit together and field an electable candidate.
  - tootie 7y ago
    This is just way, way off-topic. If you want to make it relevant, try asking why voters decided she was unelectable and ask yourself it had anything to do with policy. I think the crux of my entire complaint is that a huge swath of voters don't vote on policy at all. There could be 20 million Trump voters who wish he'd be softer on immigrants and take action on climate, but they really don't care because they just love his attitude or something. It's like declaring your intent to be a vegetarian but spending all your money on Big Macs because they're tasty. And then asking why Chipotle put tofu on the menu when you know everyone hates it.

by axaxs 7y ago

CM30 7y ago

For many, it's probably not which party they agree with more points from, but which one they agree with on the one or two issues they care about the most, even if they disagree with everything else.

axaxs 7y ago
Absolutely. This is how I generally vote.
- dvtrn 7y ago
  Stepping on a ledge and positing it's probably how a lot of people vote, if even unconsciously- but it's probably not a popular way of ascribing personal motive to the political act of voting which is a more conscious and deliberate action. Or at least, it's less convenient than simply associating the sum with the worst of its parts. That bit in the article about 'motive attribution asymmetry'.

mceachen 7y ago

Certainly. But who you voted for indicates your least-bad preference of the options available.

tootie 7y ago

That's not really true. We have primaries. Republican primary voters didn't have a great set of options, but they clearly chose the worst person in American politics in about 50 years. What conclusion am I supposed to draw from this?

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
> What conclusion am I supposed to draw from this? That they care much, much more about their own financial and economic conditions than pretty much any other issues? That's not a slam on them; you would too if you were living paycheck-to-paycheck. Bill Clinton understood this ("It's the economy, stupid.") but the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates somehow do not, which is why they stand a depressingly good chance of failing to win the next presidency.
busterarm 7y ago
If Republicans chose the worst person in 50 years of American politics to represent them, you've really got to wonder how the Democrats still managed to pick someone who would lose to him. The DNC didn't want to listen to those of us in the party who were practically shouting at how unelectable Hillary Clinton was and the party got what it deserved, IMO.
- scruple 7y ago
  > The DNC didn't want to listen to those of us in the party who were practically shouting at how unelectable Hillary Clinton was and the party got what it deserved, IMO. And, many of us (I'm also a registered Democrat) that are watching things as they shape up in the DNC for 2020, are wondering if any lessons were taken to heart at all. It's frightening to me to sit here today and feel a genuine sense that Trump is going to win _again_ in 2020 because the DNC can't pull it's shit together and field an electable candidate.
- tootie 7y ago
  This is just way, way off-topic. If you want to make it relevant, try asking why voters decided she was unelectable and ask yourself it had anything to do with policy. I think the crux of my entire complaint is that a huge swath of voters don't vote on policy at all. There could be 20 million Trump voters who wish he'd be softer on immigrants and take action on climate, but they really don't care because they just love his attitude or something. It's like declaring your intent to be a vegetarian but spending all your money on Big Macs because they're tasty. And then asking why Chipotle put tofu on the menu when you know everyone hates it.