The Biden campaign is openly troubled by the uncommitted vote campaign, so this seems like the obvious next step. Is there an alternative explanation? Why reverse course now? What else changed?

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Just saying there is no direct evidence and folks shouldn't pat themselves on the back. Edit calling people "little worms" when you have no proof your position is valid is a touch presumptive.

I've not seen a press release indicating the connection of events, so it's an assumption.

That's true regardless of the popularity of this fact on this board.

That said I am happy to see some sort of progress on the issue.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

He'll never admit it, but it's a deduction based on the open evidence of the Biden campaign recognizing the uncommitted Problem and based on there not being alternative explanations (or at least, any good or consistent ones)

I don't think we should celebrate yet, but this is encouraging and that matters. It's encouraging to see that public pressure seemingly matters.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Mmk so still an assumption based on your view of voter's power on the system. Everything you are hinging this on is based on your perception of the situation.

I stepped on a crack on the sidewalk yesterday, then my friend called me.

Obviously the crack caused them to think of me.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

The entire concept behind representative democracy is that voters influence their representatives. What I'm getting from you is that you don't actually believe that America is a democracy or that representatives actually represent voters.

I guess I don't totally disagree. I just think that even if Biden might not be worried about electability, he must be worried about his regime's legitimacy. The last thing he wants is a repeat of the BLM uprisings.

Still not hearing an alternative explaination from you btw

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Don't be obtuse. Its not clever.

If you're absolutely insistent on defending your comment, start by telling us all how the opposite assumption, that Biden is completely unaffected by voter opinion in an election year makes more sense.

Please take this seriously. I am really, really tired of snarky quips.

[+] GBU_28@lemm.ee -10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Lol if you're tired of public discourse, perhaps take a break. I'm not responsible for your day. Edit I am not attempting clever, so don't put that incivility on me either.

Second, I agree that the premise is a good one. Use votes (or lack thereof) to influence behavior even in primaries. Edit it is good voter behavior to do so, in general.

But ultimately, before there is a statement or discussion from the Whitehouse we have zero evidence that they cared about the primary votes at all and didn't have some other variable come to the surface that finally forced some progress.

You are asking me to prove something happened for which there is no evidence, and I am expressing skepticism that an action had the reaction you propose. I can't prove something exists or doesn't and neither can you.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not tired of discourse, as i explicitly stated i am tired of snark. Too many people think one is the same as the other. For answering me without a tired one-liner, i honestly and unsarcastically thank you.

Let's discuss! I had a problem with your statement earlier, (not you) because your are asking op to provide what you yourself cannot, as you yourself said here. You also provided nothing to move the conversation forward, such as another plausible reason for Biden pivoting here.

You are asking me to prove something happened for which there is no evidence, and I am expressing skepticism...

Skepticism is fine. But there is no evidence is there? And none against it.

Since that is the case, we must move towards probable causes for this change, yes?

We could discuss possible other reasons, you could show me quotes or something to say this administration has been moving in this direction. If we have nothing, we could then move into conjecture. That would be fun! That would be discourse! I am down.

What i am telling you is what you put the first time doesn't cut it by any metric. You don't get to ask for something you cannot provide, in a comment that is not claiming anything other than "pressure changes policy"

Yes, that is what it said. Perhaps you took it to mean something else, and we can talk about that! That too would be discourse.

So let's have some

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee -5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"probable" is a value judgement by you. If you have data that non-voting in past primaries has definitively driven policy change then we can talk probability, but I've never seen such a metric described.

I am ready to be educated on the historical record of this dynamic, then we can reasonably discuss this current event.

Otherwise guessing something happened as a result of non-voting is just speculation.

[–] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Hmm. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding after all. this is about a recent primary election where voters chose non-committed, not abstention from voting entirely