4 ms·

Surely punishing the people will make them vote for us!

estearum 3mo ago
Do you think justice should only be dealt out when you think it'll generate a positive outcome for you personally on the other side? Seems to me that people who have committed crimes should be punished for those crimes. Call it "LAW AND ORDER!!!!" or something
- iamnothere 3mo ago
  I think that winning (and retaining political advantage over time) is probably a prerequisite for enacting any punishments, much less correcting other issues.
  - estearum 3mo ago
    Uhhhh... sure...? Are you implying that "the other side" will never again hold power? Because that's a very silly view, if so. I'm quite sure the single most popular platform someone could run on today is simply "aggressively prosecute every single crime committed by the MAGA apparatus."
    - iamnothere 3mo ago
      Punitive campaigns seem to work best with the right wing base. There’s a large squishy center (and a sizable segment of the left) that doesn’t vote when things go too negative. If you want to contrast with a real world example, Obama won as an unknown candidate running on “hope and change” despite racial bias. But it’s probably better to lose if presenting a positive message would make you feel icky.
      - estearum 3mo ago
        All available evidence points toward my claim: Americans don't really agree on how they want the future to look. However, they do agree on how they don't want it to look. The rampant corruption, state brutality, and criminality of MAGA is unpopular across the board.
        iamnothere 3mo ago
        Two things can be true at the same time: Americans dislike the status quo, and they don’t support angry/negative Democratic politicians for President. See also: claims that Sanders was “too angry” (lmao), the “Dean scream” smear campaign, characterizing Clinton as a cackling witch, etc.
        estearum 3mo ago
        Yeah nah this is way too reductive. You'd need to share a much more thorough analysis than just "here are three candidates criticized for things that are arguably adjacent to angry/negative vibes" For example, Harris ran on a positivity campaign and lost. There are just way, way too many dimensions to modern politics to resolve into something like this – with the exception of the anti-MAGA sentiment which is widespread, highly salient, and highly motivating. Obviously that's fleeting and so in 16 years it will probably be wrong to say "anti-MAGA candidates always win, just look at 2028!"
        iamnothere 3mo ago
        Well you should try it then. The right wing is doing a better job of disassembling the empire anyway, inadvertently, so I don’t mind too much if they win again. (FWIW the Dems had an internal report after ‘24 that mostly agreed with me.)
        estearum 3mo ago
        Well thanks for confirming you're just making shit up from whole cloth. The Dems' 2024 report literally argues the opposite, over and over. It argues that Democrats did not engage in enough negative campaigning against Trump. > LESSONS FROM THE STATE CAMPAIGNS 1. Going Negative Works (Especially if Voters Know You). > The Trump campaign and supportive Super PACs went full throttle against Vice President Harris, but there was not sufficient or similar negative firepower directed at Trump by Democrats. > Voting is a choice. And negative messaging needs to be a part of the story as choices are framed for voters. > The Harris campaign appears to have relied on Trump being unacceptable rather than building an affirmative case for Harris. Base voters needed reasons to vote FOR Harris as well as against Trump. Without an effective contrast with a difficult (and unaffordable) status quo, the obvious contrast with Trump was not a sufficient motivator, especially since there was not sufficient negative messaging about how horrible Trump was (and still is) for and to most Americans. > Define lanes for communications ecosystem. Who will carry contrast and negative messaging so candidates go high as other entities go low. This was a major failing in 2024, and it cannot be repeated. Set the lanes and hold organizations accountable.
yongjik 3mo ago
Increasing gas prices seems very well correlated with people not voting for the incumbent party, and I can't imagine these people not feeling they're being punished by the price, so ... ... yeah I'd say punishing the people can make them vote for us, or at least not vote for not-us, which is basically equivalent.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago
I don't accept the idea that e.g. Greg Bovino should be allowed to have brownshirts murder people in my city as long as enough voters support him. I reject the legitimacy of any political system that can't or won't punish him for his crimes. I do have a lot of faith in democracy, so I'm optimistic that most people can be persuaded to accept his punishment if the argument is presented well. I'm sure some number of people who called for him to murder people will pretend they were never on his side, and that'll frustrate me to no end, but such is life.
- iamnothere 3mo ago
  There’s a difference between wanting to punish the officials responsible, and wanting to punish the people who elected them. In the context of the broader discussion it sounded like you were advocating for the latter, which isn’t a winning strategy. But even if you only mean the officials, punishment is a bad centerpiece of a campaign; it’s something that one should do quietly after you have already won. (The exception is right wing politicians, who seem to be allowed to win elections while openly calling for punishment of their opponents. Call it a quirk of the US electorate, or a flaw in human nature, who knows. It is what it is.)

Do you think justice should only be dealt out when you think it'll generate a positive outcome for you personally on the other side? Seems to me that people who have committed crimes should be punished for those crimes. Call it "LAW AND ORDER!!!!" or something

iamnothere 3mo ago
I think that winning (and retaining political advantage over time) is probably a prerequisite for enacting any punishments, much less correcting other issues.
- estearum 3mo ago
  Uhhhh... sure...? Are you implying that "the other side" will never again hold power? Because that's a very silly view, if so. I'm quite sure the single most popular platform someone could run on today is simply "aggressively prosecute every single crime committed by the MAGA apparatus."
  - iamnothere 3mo ago
    Punitive campaigns seem to work best with the right wing base. There’s a large squishy center (and a sizable segment of the left) that doesn’t vote when things go too negative. If you want to contrast with a real world example, Obama won as an unknown candidate running on “hope and change” despite racial bias. But it’s probably better to lose if presenting a positive message would make you feel icky.
    - estearum 3mo ago
      All available evidence points toward my claim: Americans don't really agree on how they want the future to look. However, they do agree on how they don't want it to look. The rampant corruption, state brutality, and criminality of MAGA is unpopular across the board.
      - iamnothere 3mo ago
        Two things can be true at the same time: Americans dislike the status quo, and they don’t support angry/negative Democratic politicians for President. See also: claims that Sanders was “too angry” (lmao), the “Dean scream” smear campaign, characterizing Clinton as a cackling witch, etc.
        estearum 3mo ago
        Yeah nah this is way too reductive. You'd need to share a much more thorough analysis than just "here are three candidates criticized for things that are arguably adjacent to angry/negative vibes" For example, Harris ran on a positivity campaign and lost. There are just way, way too many dimensions to modern politics to resolve into something like this – with the exception of the anti-MAGA sentiment which is widespread, highly salient, and highly motivating. Obviously that's fleeting and so in 16 years it will probably be wrong to say "anti-MAGA candidates always win, just look at 2028!"
        iamnothere 3mo ago
        Well you should try it then. The right wing is doing a better job of disassembling the empire anyway, inadvertently, so I don’t mind too much if they win again. (FWIW the Dems had an internal report after ‘24 that mostly agreed with me.)
        estearum 3mo ago
        Well thanks for confirming you're just making shit up from whole cloth. The Dems' 2024 report literally argues the opposite, over and over. It argues that Democrats did not engage in enough negative campaigning against Trump. > LESSONS FROM THE STATE CAMPAIGNS 1. Going Negative Works (Especially if Voters Know You). > The Trump campaign and supportive Super PACs went full throttle against Vice President Harris, but there was not sufficient or similar negative firepower directed at Trump by Democrats. > Voting is a choice. And negative messaging needs to be a part of the story as choices are framed for voters. > The Harris campaign appears to have relied on Trump being unacceptable rather than building an affirmative case for Harris. Base voters needed reasons to vote FOR Harris as well as against Trump. Without an effective contrast with a difficult (and unaffordable) status quo, the obvious contrast with Trump was not a sufficient motivator, especially since there was not sufficient negative messaging about how horrible Trump was (and still is) for and to most Americans. > Define lanes for communications ecosystem. Who will carry contrast and negative messaging so candidates go high as other entities go low. This was a major failing in 2024, and it cannot be repeated. Set the lanes and hold organizations accountable.

yongjik 3mo ago

Increasing gas prices seems very well correlated with people not voting for the incumbent party, and I can't imagine these people not feeling they're being punished by the price, so ... ... yeah I'd say punishing the people can make them vote for us, or at least not vote for not-us, which is basically equivalent.

deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 3mo ago

I don't accept the idea that e.g. Greg Bovino should be allowed to have brownshirts murder people in my city as long as enough voters support him. I reject the legitimacy of any political system that can't or won't punish him for his crimes. I do have a lot of faith in democracy, so I'm optimistic that most people can be persuaded to accept his punishment if the argument is presented well. I'm sure some number of people who called for him to murder people will pretend they were never on his side, and that'll frustrate me to no end, but such is life.

iamnothere 3mo ago
There’s a difference between wanting to punish the officials responsible, and wanting to punish the people who elected them. In the context of the broader discussion it sounded like you were advocating for the latter, which isn’t a winning strategy. But even if you only mean the officials, punishment is a bad centerpiece of a campaign; it’s something that one should do quietly after you have already won. (The exception is right wing politicians, who seem to be allowed to win elections while openly calling for punishment of their opponents. Call it a quirk of the US electorate, or a flaw in human nature, who knows. It is what it is.)