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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
“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.
How do you know that? Your making an assumption by inference
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
“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.
deleted by creator