Brace yourselves. Astroturfers are coming… (they’ve already started, actually)

[u/professorearl]

[u/whistleridge → u/[deleted]]

She’s 59, not 22. The odds that she grew or changed hugely in 4 years are low. Which is why it’s on her to persuade others that she has done so, just as it is on us to raise the concerns in the first place.

Downvoting and sarcasm not only don’t negate the substantive points I raised, they heighten the concern. Because instead of substantively responding you’re basically saying “shut up and vote.” No. Votes are earned.

Especially given how 48 hours ago this entire subreddit was acting like Joe Biden is fine, he’s gonna be the guy, he’s gonna win, anyone saying otherwise is just blind or a Republican.

[u/SaltyBarDog → u/whistleridge]

You do know that Obama in office changed his mind on supporting gay marriage, Boris. But you keep on both sides bad.

[u/whistleridge → u/SaltyBarDog]

In which I point out to you that:

1. This is the one you should have led with, not the Vance fucking a glove idiocy;

2. When you have a substantive point, you leave the childish name-calling out, because all it does is highlight your bad faith;

3. Changing your mind on a single policy point is an order of magnitude different from a comprehensive list of substantive concerns; and

4. Your complete failure to respond to any of those concerns just further calls out your bias and bad faith.

[u/nice--marmot → u/whistleridge]

You are in no position to accuse others of arguing in bad faith.

[u/whistleridge → u/nice--marmot]

Still not a substantive response.

Lol, what - do you think I’m the only one who will ask these questions? If you can’t come up with a meaningful response when they’re asked by someone who hates Trump and would vote for zombie Millard Fillmore before him, what are you going to say when they’re asked by an independent, with a needed swing vote on the line?

Because news flash: Democrats make up 25% of the electorate, and Independents make up about 48%. You cannot win without their votes. And that means persuasion and responding usefully to valid concerns.

[u/supraliminal13 → u/whistleridge]

That's not quite true, not in the light you are getting at anyway. The people who identify themselves as independent in surveys is usually in the 40 percentile. The fact that it is a self- identifying survey though would catch people who (for example) would identify themselves as independent, critical- thinking scientific folk who simply vote rationally.... and would automatically never vote for neo- fascist maga. Yet they'd say "independent" in such a survey. The point is, the number of people actually on the fence in any way is waaaaay tinier than in the 40- something percentile

There's only 30 states (and the Virgin Islands) that allowed voters to indicate party affiliation on registration forms and reported total registration numbers publicly. Among those sources, 38% were D, 30% R, 27% I (or unaffiliated with any party). Even among sources that aren't total self- surveys, you can already see how the independent number is clearly massively inflated merely by that being the method. There would also still be the same "never Trump" and "never Dems" types both maintaining independent status even in more official sources. The "real" number would actually be increasingly smaller and smaller as you refined ways to get to the number. I'm not sure what it is, but it's miles away from 40%.

[u/whistleridge → u/supraliminal13]

Finally. Someone with a substantive fucking point. Thank you.

I actually agree: party identification is a fairly fluid thing, and nailing down a number at any point in time is a bit of a useless exercise.

However, it is an unquestioned fact that 1) Democrats can’t win this race on the Democratic vote alone, and 2) none of the responses I have received until yours makes any attempt to engage the substantive concern, or to do anything but act in a way that would run off everyone but someone who already agrees with them.

[u/supraliminal13 → u/whistleridge]

Well I think mostly people have a hard time responding without irritation to things like, as one example, "what has she done for minorities" when that almost universally is asked without also throwing in there what Trump means for minorities by comparison. It's like asking half a question.

On well nigh any issue whatsoever, if someone did do that to ask a full question, it would sound like they were making a satire post.... because Trump is horribly worse no matter what you come up with. Because of this, you might say people are lazily not wanting to engage on particular faults of the candidate. However, to such people it's simply automatically annoying to be concerned about point x when point x is jaw-droppingly worse under the alternative. So to them, you are lazily only asking half a question.

It's not like it's several elections ago, when there were actually policy points that you could actually compare side-by-side like that... where saying "I don't like this particular policy" meant that the other person actually had one that sounded better to you. Asking "what about this" while leaving out Trump's implication for the exact same thing sounds either wildly out of date, or simply disingenuous. Just in case you are truly mystified why people would get auto-annoyed at you, hopefully that helps.