-1 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: Casual Questions Thread
It's a reasonable bargaining position.
Party A is going to be bad for Voter Q, but Party B will be worse. In a one-off event, Q should vote for A. But elections aren't one-offs, they're an iterated negotiation. So, if Q wants A to change their position, they need a *credible* threat to stay home and sink the election for A. They'll risk a short term worse outcome for the chance to get a long term positive benefit.
And if that sounds dumb, look at black voters. They've been reliable votes for Democrats for the last 60 years, and what are they getting out of it? Harris as VP? Meanwhile, look at how much Dems care about winning over white suburban women.
Comment by No-Touch-2570 at 14/12/2023 at 15:05 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
And if that sounds dumb, look at black voters. They've been reliable votes for Democrats for the last 60 years, and what are they getting out of it? Harris as VP?
Well, they don't get tear gassed when they protest, for one.
Comment by [deleted] at 13/12/2023 at 17:58 UTC
5 upvotes, 1 direct replies
what are they getting out of it?
Political leadership that doesn't think their blackness is a fundamental problem, for one. It ain't much but given the two options, it's obviously the better choice.