6 ms·

That's a pretty interesting thought. I read something a few years ago that said moderates/non-affiliated make up the majority of voters with only a smaller per

That's a pretty interesting thought. I read something a few years ago that said moderates/non-affiliated make up the majority of voters with only a smaller percentage on left and right tied to the parties (somewhere maybe in 15% to 20% range on each side, can't remember exactly). So it seems like a good mix of moderate could possibly win, especially when the other candidate is so polarizing.

yieldcrv 2y ago
Yeah partisans arent good at winning friends and influencing people in their pathetic partisan power struggles They’ve spent nearly a decade isolating themselves in an algorithm fueled mirror room, while disassociating from everyone that doesn't already agree with them 100% instead of any color coded “wave” occurring despite their recurring delusions, there’s gridlock in the senate, no filibuster proof majority, they’ve lost affiliation and independents are the largest political affiliation in the country now with almost zero representation
tbrake 2y ago
Though unaffiliated myself, I still have very clear opinions on policies. This leads to voting exclusively for one party anyway. It's just the label and tribalism I reject, not their stances or some desire for a mythical "middle path". I have no idea how common this is in the "unaffiliated base" but I'd be willing to wager it's fairly common.
vundercind 2y ago
True-swing voters are a tiny minority. Most of the folks who say they’re unaffiliated or moderates or open to voting for either party in fact vote exactly like a self-reported partisan. They just don’t like the label. Lots of crappy reporting doesn’t differentiate between self-reported swing/moderates and true swing. GOTV matters more. Do your people show up at the polls?
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >True-swing voters are a tiny minority. Honestly, just like undecided voters, they are either a myth or complete idiots.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Maybe but we have also seen a swing in how politics works (gotten more extreme). During the last two decades I've gone from Republican to Democrat to independent (never-Trumper, Democrat by GOP moral forfeit). I wonder how my beliefs would have evolved if US politics didn't grow so extreme over time.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > Maybe but we have also seen a swing in how politics works (gotten more extreme). I've seen the same and done similar. I'm now in the unhappy position of voting against instead of voting for.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    I'm in the same boat. I think everyone dramatically underestimates how many of us Trump refugees there are. Some of us are never trumpers and actually voted for Biden, some of us held our nose and voted for Trump. But the extreme right that fuels MAGA doesn't have as much support as people think, and the main reason why Trump stands a chance this year is because the left has made no overtures whatsoever to the center and center-right.
    - vundercind 2y ago
      Going along with the… let’s say poorly supported by the facts notions that illegal immigrants are meaningful in terms of rising violent crime rates (which—to avoid accidentally contributing to the problem, no, they’re not rising) or fentanyl smuggling, and backing that not just with rhetoric but with policy in some cases is, I think, one thing the democratic campaigns believe they’re doing to reach out toward the center and center right. It’s definitely not aimed at democrats even a hair left of… idk, Reagan I guess, given the whole amnesty thing. So they are trying some stuff.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      My father was a straight-ticket Republican voter his entire life and now he says he will never vote for any MAGA Republican. He hates the MAGA takeover of the party. Though it's anecdotal, I agree that there are far more Trump refugees than people think. I also don't know any Democrats who have done the inverse and moved to the MAGA camp. Hopefully Trump's loss will be the final nail in the coffin for MAGA.
- jkestner 2y ago
  That's the thing. When individual issues are polled without party labels, the Democratic Party's positions are largely popular. Just like these issues, if you were to put a Republican on the Democratic ticket, that candidate will lose support. We've seen repeatedly that Democrats going to the middle are met with supposedly moderate Republicans saying, "But not like that."
  - baggy_trough 2y ago
    They are popular right up until the price tag gets added to the question.
    - vundercind 2y ago
      It’s definitely not just that. You can ask people if they’d support a hypothetical social program and then describe a real one, warts and all (they’re usually not a tenth as bad as popularly supposed—you don’t need to shy away from the down sides to make them look good) and get very high rates of support. Name the actual program, and you get a “no” and a bunch of BS about it back. It’s a propaganda thing, it’s not the price tags. I mean, sometimes, sure, but you can go out all day long and get 20-30% swings in support for this stuff with straight descriptions (including costs) vs. the name under which a program has been vilified. [edit] one of the funniest ones is foreign aid. It’s commonly supposed to be way higher than it actually is (you’ll get answers like 5%, 10% of the budget, wildly wrong stuff) so you can consistently get people to agree that a “cut” to double what it actually is would be a great thing for a fiscally responsible candidate to propose. [edit edit] so point is the vast majority of voters have no clue what it is they’re opposing when they say they’re against lots of things they’re against. Describe it, and they’re on board. They don’t actually know what it is.
  - cat_plus_plus 2y ago
    The problem is that Democratic policies do not result in promised outcomes. For example, higher minimum wage sounds good on paper, but then you have a hard time finding a job or affording basic essentials. So people become allergic to people who seem to bring decay. I am not saying Republican policies are a picture of practicality.

yieldcrv 2y ago

Yeah partisans arent good at winning friends and influencing people in their pathetic partisan power struggles They’ve spent nearly a decade isolating themselves in an algorithm fueled mirror room, while disassociating from everyone that doesn't already agree with them 100% instead of any color coded “wave” occurring despite their recurring delusions, there’s gridlock in the senate, no filibuster proof majority, they’ve lost affiliation and independents are the largest political affiliation in the country now with almost zero representation

tbrake 2y ago

Though unaffiliated myself, I still have very clear opinions on policies. This leads to voting exclusively for one party anyway. It's just the label and tribalism I reject, not their stances or some desire for a mythical "middle path". I have no idea how common this is in the "unaffiliated base" but I'd be willing to wager it's fairly common.

vundercind 2y ago

True-swing voters are a tiny minority. Most of the folks who say they’re unaffiliated or moderates or open to voting for either party in fact vote exactly like a self-reported partisan. They just don’t like the label. Lots of crappy reporting doesn’t differentiate between self-reported swing/moderates and true swing. GOTV matters more. Do your people show up at the polls?

Suppafly 2y ago
>True-swing voters are a tiny minority. Honestly, just like undecided voters, they are either a myth or complete idiots.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Maybe but we have also seen a swing in how politics works (gotten more extreme). During the last two decades I've gone from Republican to Democrat to independent (never-Trumper, Democrat by GOP moral forfeit). I wonder how my beliefs would have evolved if US politics didn't grow so extreme over time.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > Maybe but we have also seen a swing in how politics works (gotten more extreme). I've seen the same and done similar. I'm now in the unhappy position of voting against instead of voting for.
- lolinder 2y ago
  I'm in the same boat. I think everyone dramatically underestimates how many of us Trump refugees there are. Some of us are never trumpers and actually voted for Biden, some of us held our nose and voted for Trump. But the extreme right that fuels MAGA doesn't have as much support as people think, and the main reason why Trump stands a chance this year is because the left has made no overtures whatsoever to the center and center-right.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    Going along with the… let’s say poorly supported by the facts notions that illegal immigrants are meaningful in terms of rising violent crime rates (which—to avoid accidentally contributing to the problem, no, they’re not rising) or fentanyl smuggling, and backing that not just with rhetoric but with policy in some cases is, I think, one thing the democratic campaigns believe they’re doing to reach out toward the center and center right. It’s definitely not aimed at democrats even a hair left of… idk, Reagan I guess, given the whole amnesty thing. So they are trying some stuff.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    My father was a straight-ticket Republican voter his entire life and now he says he will never vote for any MAGA Republican. He hates the MAGA takeover of the party. Though it's anecdotal, I agree that there are far more Trump refugees than people think. I also don't know any Democrats who have done the inverse and moved to the MAGA camp. Hopefully Trump's loss will be the final nail in the coffin for MAGA.
jkestner 2y ago
That's the thing. When individual issues are polled without party labels, the Democratic Party's positions are largely popular. Just like these issues, if you were to put a Republican on the Democratic ticket, that candidate will lose support. We've seen repeatedly that Democrats going to the middle are met with supposedly moderate Republicans saying, "But not like that."
- baggy_trough 2y ago
  They are popular right up until the price tag gets added to the question.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    It’s definitely not just that. You can ask people if they’d support a hypothetical social program and then describe a real one, warts and all (they’re usually not a tenth as bad as popularly supposed—you don’t need to shy away from the down sides to make them look good) and get very high rates of support. Name the actual program, and you get a “no” and a bunch of BS about it back. It’s a propaganda thing, it’s not the price tags. I mean, sometimes, sure, but you can go out all day long and get 20-30% swings in support for this stuff with straight descriptions (including costs) vs. the name under which a program has been vilified. [edit] one of the funniest ones is foreign aid. It’s commonly supposed to be way higher than it actually is (you’ll get answers like 5%, 10% of the budget, wildly wrong stuff) so you can consistently get people to agree that a “cut” to double what it actually is would be a great thing for a fiscally responsible candidate to propose. [edit edit] so point is the vast majority of voters have no clue what it is they’re opposing when they say they’re against lots of things they’re against. Describe it, and they’re on board. They don’t actually know what it is.
- cat_plus_plus 2y ago
  The problem is that Democratic policies do not result in promised outcomes. For example, higher minimum wage sounds good on paper, but then you have a hard time finding a job or affording basic essentials. So people become allergic to people who seem to bring decay. I am not saying Republican policies are a picture of practicality.