4 ms·

Getting to the point you were responding to: in fact Feinstein won on the back of a bunch of "republican" votes, cast strategically in a "blue" state where a tr

Getting to the point you were responding to: in fact Feinstein won on the back of a bunch of "republican" votes, cast strategically in a "blue" state where a traditional candidate wasn't likely to win. Which is to say: nonpartisan voting did exactly what it was advertised to do and resulted in the election of a centrist candidate. Obviously there are other externalities to consider (Feinstein is very senior), etc... But I don't know why anyone is so upset that she's the "worst democrat". She'd be the "worst republican" too. You want consensus-building nonpartisan elections, you get candidates that reflect social consensus and not your particular party's priorities.

qppo 6y ago
> fact Feinstein won on the back of a bunch of "republican" votes, cast strategically in a "blue" state where a traditional candidate wasn't likely to win Except de Leon carried the red districts. Not Feinstein.
- newacct583 6y ago
  I didn't say she carried all the republicans, just that she carried enough of them to put her above any of the more "typical" democratic candidates you'd expect to see from a state with the demographics of California. You can't feasibly elect a progressive with a non-partisan election, even in California.
mindslight 6y ago
Calling a democrat that won't even pretend to support blue team freedoms the "worst democrat" makes a lot of sense. What is called "centrist" is nowhere near the center, but is actually straight up authoritarianism. If you look at both the blue team's and red team's grassroots messages, individuals are not happy with how much control the government exerts over us. Each political team markets a half-libertarian message and lures individual voters in by focusing on those gripes. They then channel their supporters' energy into going after the "other team", and "compromise" by enacting the fully authoritarian policies their sponsors paid for.
- newacct583 6y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. In general, a "centrist", in common usage, is a person who broadly supports existing social structures. So yes, they're going to support law enforcement over privacy, the media industry over public access concerns, etc... So to anyone who cares deeply about some issue of social change, a centrist is going to look "just as bad as" the "other side". But calling them (sigh) "authoritarian" isn't helping your case when they come back at you to persecute a (sigh) "revolutionary" or "extremist". Work with people. Centrists aren't idiots. Their constituency is real, and has concerns too.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    > a person who broadly supports existing social structures. So yes, they're going to support law enforcement over privacy, the media industry over public access concerns We already have a word for this - conservative. And I do agree that conservatives have consistent and valid points, even if I do not agree. I don't know what other word to use besides "authoritarian" as in the two-dimensional political space with red-blue on one axis, and authoritarian-libertarian on the other. To me "centrist" implies some middle of the road. I do not agree that someone who supports (this bill, the patriot act, elective wars, drone strikes, etc) deserves the label centrist, as they're nowhere near the entire libertarian half of the political spectrum. Allowing this to be called centrism is privileging and cloaking authoritarianism.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      Again, you're playing semantic games. That's not what "conservative" means in modern political discourse, at all. And I'm sure you know this. In fact when journalists want to use the sense you cited they generally have to call it out explicitly (c.f. "small-c conservative", by reference to the Conservative parties in commonwealth nations). > I don't know what other word to use besides "authoritarian" And for the same reasons, it doesn't help your case to invent new jargon here either. The word you're looking for, describing people generally predisposed to agreement with existing social and government structures, is "centrist". It's what I use, it's what everyone in journalism uses. It's probabaly what you use too when you're talking to people in the real world and not trying to score points with hyperbole on HN by likening centrists to Nazis and Communists. Basically: you know what I meant.

qppo 6y ago

> fact Feinstein won on the back of a bunch of "republican" votes, cast strategically in a "blue" state where a traditional candidate wasn't likely to win Except de Leon carried the red districts. Not Feinstein.

newacct583 6y ago
I didn't say she carried all the republicans, just that she carried enough of them to put her above any of the more "typical" democratic candidates you'd expect to see from a state with the demographics of California. You can't feasibly elect a progressive with a non-partisan election, even in California.

mindslight 6y ago

Calling a democrat that won't even pretend to support blue team freedoms the "worst democrat" makes a lot of sense. What is called "centrist" is nowhere near the center, but is actually straight up authoritarianism. If you look at both the blue team's and red team's grassroots messages, individuals are not happy with how much control the government exerts over us. Each political team markets a half-libertarian message and lures individual voters in by focusing on those gripes. They then channel their supporters' energy into going after the "other team", and "compromise" by enacting the fully authoritarian policies their sponsors paid for.

newacct583 6y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. In general, a "centrist", in common usage, is a person who broadly supports existing social structures. So yes, they're going to support law enforcement over privacy, the media industry over public access concerns, etc... So to anyone who cares deeply about some issue of social change, a centrist is going to look "just as bad as" the "other side". But calling them (sigh) "authoritarian" isn't helping your case when they come back at you to persecute a (sigh) "revolutionary" or "extremist". Work with people. Centrists aren't idiots. Their constituency is real, and has concerns too.
- mindslight 6y ago
  > a person who broadly supports existing social structures. So yes, they're going to support law enforcement over privacy, the media industry over public access concerns We already have a word for this - conservative. And I do agree that conservatives have consistent and valid points, even if I do not agree. I don't know what other word to use besides "authoritarian" as in the two-dimensional political space with red-blue on one axis, and authoritarian-libertarian on the other. To me "centrist" implies some middle of the road. I do not agree that someone who supports (this bill, the patriot act, elective wars, drone strikes, etc) deserves the label centrist, as they're nowhere near the entire libertarian half of the political spectrum. Allowing this to be called centrism is privileging and cloaking authoritarianism.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    Again, you're playing semantic games. That's not what "conservative" means in modern political discourse, at all. And I'm sure you know this. In fact when journalists want to use the sense you cited they generally have to call it out explicitly (c.f. "small-c conservative", by reference to the Conservative parties in commonwealth nations). > I don't know what other word to use besides "authoritarian" And for the same reasons, it doesn't help your case to invent new jargon here either. The word you're looking for, describing people generally predisposed to agreement with existing social and government structures, is "centrist". It's what I use, it's what everyone in journalism uses. It's probabaly what you use too when you're talking to people in the real world and not trying to score points with hyperbole on HN by likening centrists to Nazis and Communists. Basically: you know what I meant.