• doughless@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    No, they protested in spite of her trying to move left, not because she tried to move left.

    Although I’ll admit it’s a distinction without a difference. Democrats are going to continue to refuse to move farther left if we don’t vote because we think they’re not left enough.

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 days ago

      You’re making no sense. Protest no vote in spite of her moving a little bit left is an oxymoron. Unless you meant protest no vote to spite her. In which case it doesn’t matter because of exactly what I’m saying, left voters don’t show up. You’d be an absolute fool to court voters that never show up, (again when you walk before you run). So candidates go to the center to find voters that do show up.

      • doughless@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Are you saying that if Hillary had rejected the map room proposal, then left wing voters would have turned out to vote for her?

        That’s ridiculous to think that moving further right would have got more left voters to turn out to vote.

        Meaning the map room proposal had no effect on left wing voters, because it wasn’t enough. It did not cause them to protest.

        • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          No I’m not. I think you don’t know what “in spite of” means. The correct usage of that expression would be: “The far left wing wanted Hillary to move far left. But they voted for her anyway in spite of her only moving a little bit left.”

          This entire conversation has been you (intentionally or otherwise) misreading and/or misinterpreting and/or twisting words, so I’m leaving this conversation. I think I’ve explained things well enough.

          • doughless@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            I still think this has been a useful conversion, because it has helped me understand what you actually meant to say.

            What I think you’re trying to say is that moving left failed to prevent voters from protesting, which I’m completely in agreement here.

            If courting left wing voters fails to get them out to vote, then politicians are just going to pander to center/right voters.

            Your phrasing was just really weird, because you keep arguing that moving left is what triggered the voters to protest, but they would have protested either way.

              • doughless@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 days ago

                She did lose because she moved a little bit left and the voters did not show up.

                We’re saying you don’t understand cause and effect.

                You are saying A (moving left) caused B (losing).

                If A didn’t happen, then B also would not have happened. Therefore, “if she had stayed to the right, she would have won.”

                Edit: I think I figured out what I’ve got wrong. If I rephrase what you said, then it makes more sense:

                “She did lose because the voters did not show up, even though she moved a little left.”