Oh. I've just looked up 'sea-lion'. Jesus fucking Christ. In one thread we've had the argument, from supposed progressives, that;

1. Vote your government back in no matter what their policies are, just do so out of blind faith.
2. Don't look things up for yourself, just accept what the authorities tell you without question.
3. Don't ask for evidence or challenge this view, just accept it without question.

This is the progressive position now?

This isn't politics, it's a fucking religion.

if that “guaranteed” base grows, it provides a voting offset that could allow the candidate to worry less about losing the support of less progressive voters.

Sure.

But why would they? If the base that's 'grown' is guaranteed, then why shift at all? Why not have the new larger guaranteed base, and the less progressive voters. After all, the guaranteed base is guaranteed, you don't need to do anything to get their votes.

But let's say they want to risk it for ideological reasons (no evidence at all that this is the case, but for the sake of argument we could assume it).

You've still not addressed the two main questions.

1. How do they know the extra votes came from left-leaning but 'guaranteed' voters, and not from voters who really liked their centrist policies?

2. If they have some way of knowing (polls, focus-groups etc) then why can't they use that way of knowing to ask about voter commitment, and make the move to the left before the election, why do they need us to actually vote first to find out if we're in this 'guaranteed base'?

that's as much energy as I'm willing to spend on someone who does not converse in good faith.

Ahh. The apocryphal 'bad faith'. Last resort of failing argument. If in doubt, accuse your interlocutor of arguing in 'bad faith' and retreat to the comforting safety of your echo chamber.

Would you like a reassuring copy of the New York Times to read? I'm sure they'll have an article somewhere about how everything's going to be be just fine so long as we tick the right box at election time.

You've studiously avoided the question no one seems willing to address.

Why would anyone move their policies an inch to the left if they are assured of the votes anyway?

Doesn't matter if they're in the primaries, the presidential election or the bloody village mayor. No one will shift to meet the policies of a group whose votes they are guaranteed to get anyway.

Given there are other countries, like the Nordic countries, that have achieved greater quality of life for their people...

Ahh. The Nordics. You mean the countries famous for their coalitions where people vote even for the smaller candidates who suit their preferences to form small elements in a mixed government... Those Nordic countries?

Incidentally, the same Nordic countries that are now facing the same rise in racist populism that evey other country is facing across the globe?

It's almost as if the problem were systemic and nothing to do with a bunch of leftists not wanting to vote in favour of genocide...

Indeed.

Four step process to uncontested neoliberal corporate bliss...

1. Set up a folk-devil who must be stopped at all costs.
2. Promote the idea that anyone even vaguely progressive must vote for you even if they disagree with you, in order to keep the folk-devil out.
3. Promise to support literal genocide, and watch as your scheme has self-identified leftists falling over themselves spending the majority of their energy in-fighting with other leftists to ensure you have the power to make good on that promise.
4. Enjoy your retirement on million dollar public speaking engagements and corporate executive positions.

Local politicians > work way into DNC primary machine

Sounds very cloak-and-dagger. Aren't these systems largely democratic? If so, why aren't they caught in the same trap, they have to give their votes to the least worst candidate?

There's not enough of us yet.

"Yet"? From when? The beginning of the socialist movement? Is there a point in time you begin to question this slow-and-steady policy? 100 years? 1000?

Is there some threshold at which you might begin to look at the utter failure of such a process, it's total and utter net support for the status quo and start to question who really benefits?

Because if that day ever comes, you might take a glance at the media promoting such a view and the degree to which their owners and sources of revenue benefit from exactly the outcome this policy results in.

But I'm not holding my breath. Experience has taught me that people these days seems quite happy to believe that when powerful forces get exactly the results which benefit them most, it's most likely to be a completely fortuitous coincide and anything else is just conspiracy theory.

Well, if you consider your conclusions to be facts, not theories then what are you doing here? This is a forum for discussing the item in the OP. You can't discuss facts, they're merely presented. I fear you have this place confused with a schoolroom. If you want to present facts, write a textbook.

But this discussion isn't about grassroots or local politicians. Following the logic espoused in the OP you'd turn out in droves to vote for a local politician who offers policies you agree with.

This discussion is about the presidential election and what to do about two candidates who both actively support genocide.

One could conceivably not vote for Kamala and then massively support your local grassroots movement and politicians, or... You could vote for Kamala and then massively support your local grassroots movement and politicians.

Talking about whether or not to vote for Kamala has no bearing on what you then do at a local level.

And if that local-level politician doesn't offer policies you like, same logic. Why would they ever do so if they're guaranteed your vote anyway?

What's at stake here is people actively arguing that we should just guarantee one political party our votes, no matter what their policies are, out of blind faith.

That's not a democracy, it's a theocracy.

when I am confronted with new information, I add that into my belief system and my belief system changes accordingly

You've misunderstood the paper

It's not about information. The argument is about disagreement among epistemic peers. We all have the same information. You've not provided any information I didn't already know. I've not provided any information you didn't already know. We've been exchanging theories, not information.

The paper is about the status of disagreement in conclusions based on the same information.

As I said in my other comment, if you really can't tell the difference between a theory and the facts on which it is based, then we can't possibly have a rational discussion since rational discussion is premised entirely on that distinction.

We don't discuss facts, we demonstrate them by the presentation of evidence. We discuss theories drawn from those facts.

you have no reason not to vote for Harris except that you want people to pay attention to you.

Yes. I want the Democrats to pay attention to me and change their policy. I'm asking why that is not the normal function of democracy.

you are still not understanding that the US does not have the power over the Palestinian genocide you believe they have.

Still at it then? This is why I gave you the paper. Me disagreeing with you about a conclusion is not equivalent to me not understanding. Whether America can influence Israel in this matter is not an established fact like the shape of the earth or 2+2=4. It's an opinion. People disagreeing with you haven't failed to understand something, they disagree.

protests. letters to senators and other politicians. political parties and go talk to people in the real world.

And why would politicians take any notice if we're going to vote for them anyway?

politicians are often influenced by popular actions.

Yes, because they think they'll lose/gain votes. But your advice has us eliminate that motive. They now can be assured of our votes no matter what policies they propose or implement.

would you rather have Harris in the White House or Trump?

False dichotomy. I'd rather have Harris with a stricter policy on arms sales to Israel. I believe that's achievable. That you don't is not a fact, it's an opinion, I disagree with it, I don't fail to understand it. Really, if you can't grasp the basic distinction between theories and the facts on which they're based then I don't know how we can proceed.

I'll ask the same question i did on the other thread. Why, do disaffected voters have to ...

[show] up during primaries or generals to indicate that moving left will pay anything back.

Why not just poll them, or focus-group them, or use proxies like social media?

You seem to have no problem with the notion of leftist groups communicating preferred policies to Democrat strategists, but then seem to bizarrely assume that the only way to communicate a willingness to vote is to actually vote (for a party you don't agree with).

Tell me... We all go out and vote Democrat. They get into power. How do they now know it wasn't the support for genocide that won them the vote and go even further next time?