Hacker News Reader

Comment by magashna | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21081580 and marked it off-topic.

I regularly get called both a libtard (by conservatives) and a nazi (by liberals) because I generally lean towards the left socially but the right economically. Both sides come off like a bunch of children screaming at each other hurling insults without actually accomplishing anything or wanting to have a genuine discussion. The entire American political system is a joke at this point, it's basically reality television

I worked in the states (Michigan) briefly in 2010, and I was shocked at the state of discourse among regular folks back then. As someone from outside the US political system, I was amazed at the simmering discontent (anecdotal experience, of course) - and even got caught in the crossfire a couple times myself.

That simmer is now boiling over (certainly in some circles), and the polarization/black and white thinking appears to be going global. It's a tough time to try to hold nuance and accommodate ambiguity. Especially when those yelling the loudest seem to be rewarded by our dysfunctional controversy-chasing media outlets.

There's certainly been times in history where discourse has been at similar levels, but I think we're going to need some strong course corrections here. Not sure how that's going to work, given the financial incentives to keep people angry at each other.

Half the problem is that two parties have screwed up the nation, and no one lets third parties get a say. Remember they wouldn't even let Gary Johnson (libertarian candidate) debate back in 2016, even after he was polling widely at double digits? https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/let-gary-johnso...

You should look up Duverger's Law, and understand why we have a two party system.

Yea, that's a good explanation on the "what" cause - but I think it's more an issue of political corruption leading the two parties to mutually that everything is best if there are just two parties.

FPTP single candidate voting districts are just broken.

If you just pay attention to Twitter and/or the media it's very easy to internalize that narrative.

However, if you actually spend some time on the ground with advocacy groups, unions, non-profits, etc, you'll find the actual story is much different.

I found that after leaving Twitter, and most social media for that matter, I wouldn't see this anymore.

I am considered very left even in my country (France), and I had several discussion with people with various political opinion. If it got pretty heated sometimes, it was always respectful and never insulting.

Political discussion can get pretty heated, and thats normal. We could even argue that in a working democracy it should happen. But what I see on social media is people not listening to each other, constently insulting the other side, competing to be the most "left", "right" or whatever. Simplifying complex problem also and generally reacting with very little information.

My impression is that the corporatist establishment democrat left is the one that overly villifies trump and the right. A progressive like Tulsi Gabbard or Mike Gravel will actually defend trump or the right against unfair accusations, unlike the all or nothing rah rah team sport establishment left.

Let's be honest. People who currently identify as Trump Supporters are hard core. They are not susceptible to being convinced to join the other side. And just like hard core liberals, they are more-or-less irrelevant politically. Elections are won and lost entirely based on the middle of the electorate, who actually can be convinced to vote for either party in any given election.

> more-or-less irrelevant politically

This is a great way to lose. Again. Remember when Hillary, in her hubris, didn't campaign outside of big coastal cities? Those people exist and they matter. Acting like they don't is the best way to ensure they win again.

You misunderstand. I'm talking about the people who are irrelevant because they were always going to vote R. Their minds could never be changed. It was the middle voters that elected Trump, which is pretty much the usual these days.

I'm not one of them, but I have a hard time considering the people who elected Trump and in 13.5 months will re-elect him "irrelevant politically". Don't confuse the Twitter and cable news meta-game for the real game.

His point is that, with limited resources, spending them on swing voters makes sense more than partisans.

Exactly. I somehow managed to make that confusing, judging from the downvotes. A significant number of voters will not change their minds. For whatever reason they are only ever going to vote for their party's candidate, perhaps because they figure the candidate will always toe the party line anyway. They're effectively irrelevant.

Political analysts seem to disagree, as both Republican and Democratic candidates are currently focusing mostly on energizing the core base, possibly to the detriment of swing voters.

This is the nature of the primary system. Right now, Democrat candidates must appeal to registered Democrats only. That changes in the general election.

Fascinating. I wonder what the reason is. Perhaps they think they can boost turnout in partisans faster than they can convince. Thanks for that.

Right now you need to energize the base: those are the people who care enough to work for you (knocking on doors, making phone calls) when the election gets closer. You don't want to touch people who only slightly supporters but overall "have a life to live" because you can burn them out and then they won't vote at all which is a loss. In just under a year when the election gets close you use the core base to run your local election.

It is well understood that the local ground game in the months up to the election is what really wins.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com