5 ms·
>Two candidates? That's a balance? I don't see that. Two candidates who, combined, are polling at nearly 40% of the party vote. >And, to my point (thank you),
by naravara 7y ago
>Two candidates? That's a balance? I don't see that.
Two candidates who, combined, are polling at nearly 40% of the party vote.
>And, to my point (thank you), they are both Blue. So the narrative remains a Party v Party paradigm. How's that workin' out for us?
This is a tiresome cliche that ignores how politics structurally works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
In multi-party democracies it doesn't end up being all that different in terms of any individual voter getting what they want, it's just that the tacking to the median voter happens after the election is done instead of through a primary process.
- chiefalchemist 7y agoBtw. We're not a democracy. We're a republic.
- naravara 7y agoThis is meaningless nonsense people say to justify not letting people have a voice. Please explain to me what the practical difference is between these terms in the modern context.
- chiefalchemist 7y agoThey are alledgedly __polling__ at 40%, the last week or so. That's not real votes. Sanders is a second health issue from being out of it. Liz? After the Native American snafu it's hard to imagine she's sharp enough to beat DJT. It was him afterall that suckered her into that snafu. In the theory, I would love to agree with you. I bleed blue. The reality is there's a lack of truth / data / facts to support doing so.
- naravara 7y ago>The reality is there's a lack of truth / data / facts to support doing so. Only because you're making a point of pleading away any data that invalidates your conclusions. You just asserted opinion polls don't count because it's not votes, which is a far cry from you original statement that there is nobody talking about or supporting an agenda to reduce inequality and seems like you're just trying to juke your way out of reevaluating your priors.