Climate Protesters March on New York, Calling for End to Fossil Fuels (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 1 year ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] aelwero@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

"if you want our votes" is the most toothless threat one could possibly make in the current political environment, no matter what your single issue concern is... abortion, climate, guns, arguably the very color of your own skin, you're lbgtqrstuvwxyz, you like books, you like money... whatever the hell it is you want, you got exactly one option on the ballot for it.

How many of these people would actually not vote Biden? Likely exactly zero of them, because God forbid trump wins, every single one of these voices will get slapped on the ignore list for four years.

Every single climate focused individual should probably vote green party, but if they all actually do, they're fucked, because theyre blue team, and the blue team won't beat the red team without them.

Toothless threat, and it's going to fall on deaf ears... Bidens campaign machine is going to be focused on a couple key states, and the only action that's going to be taken is to throw money at them...

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago

Cornel West was a speaker. In the past, having Green Party candidates on the ballot has shifted 2-3% of the population to voting for them instead of the Democrats. That's enough to tip close election, which is what we're likely to have.

Getting his support, and having him stay off the ballot in likely swing states would make a real difference.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

In the past, having Green Party candidates on the ballot has shifted 2-3% of the population to voting for them instead of the Democrats

can you prove that?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

It's a bit lower than I thought; Jill Stein got ~1% of the vote in 2016. The spoiler effect is so well-known that you see Republicans funding Green Party candidates. It's an artifact of how US elections work:

Scenario 1:

D: 11 votes

R: 10 votes

G: 0 votes

Democrat wins

Scenario 2:

D: 10 votes

R: 10 votes

G: 1 votes

Tie decided by game of chance

Scenario 3:

D: 9 votes

R: 10 votes

G: 2 votes

Republican wins

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

none of this addresses my question:

CAN YOU PROVE THAT 2-3% OF THE POPULATION BOTH HAVE VOTED FOR GREENS, BUT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR DEMOCRATS.

i already know the answer: you can't prove a counterfactual.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

A good way to is poll twice, once including a Green Party Candidate, and once not. Emerson College did that for some swing states a few weeks back. Here's a pretty typical example, showing how results in Michigan change when West is added to the ballot:

This is why having him on the ballot is a really damaging for the Democrats, and it's important that there be a negotiated policy concession to get him to avoid the damage.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

A good way to is poll twice

what makes you think this is a good method for proving your claim that 2-3% of all voters were democrat voters who switched to green in past elections?

[-] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

You are being so rude. Silence is linking all the data and graphs at you and you're spitting in their face.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

none of the data or graphs are proof that 2-3% of voters have voted green but would have otherwise voted democrat. demanding proof for a claim isn't rude.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

It's a good way of saying what people are thinking of doing, and that's exactly what was happening in Michigan a few weeks ago. Given how close the election is likely to be in that state, even a far smaller number of people voting G instead of D will throw the country for Trump.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

a small number of people voding r instead of d will give the election to trump, too.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For sure. But of the people who vote for the greens, many more would have chosen to vote for a Democrat instead.

The Green party could:

Run candidates in the Democratic primaries (the DSA has done this to considerable success at the state level)
Run candidates in districts where Democrats aren't running
Build up power by starting at a local level and winning elections there to create people with a base of supporters who can win in larger and larger areas

But they don't do those things in the US, and instead choose to run candidates where they effectively serve as spoilers

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

they don’t do those things in the US

this is a fucking lie. do you get all your information about the green party from msnbc, or directly from the dnc?

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

I've been watching the Green Party for decades. I see lot of behavior which looks like people running to be on the ballot. I don't see a lot of people running campaigns which look like they're designed to win.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

Getting on the ballot is a VERY tiny step compared to what it takes to win. You can get on the ballot for a local election by paying a filing fee and asking a few friends to sign.

Actually winning means spending a huge amount of time talking with community groups, obtaining earned media, raising money, and actually convincing people that you can govern in a way that's better than the other candidates.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Getting on the ballot is a VERY tiny step compared to what it takes to win. You can get on the ballot for a local election by paying a filing fee and asking a few friends to sign.

the green party literally goes to court over ballot access at least twice a decade. you are either woefully misinformed or intentionally spreading misinformation

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

I see lot of behavior which looks like people running to be on the ballot.

when JUST GETTING ON THE BALLOT is over half the fight, it's understandable that this is a lot of what they do. what do you think running to win looks like? hiring peter dao? nominating a candidate who already has both a good reputation and name recognition? if the greens did that, would you still tell them to "push for policy concessions," but drop out and endorse the democrat whether they get them or not?

[-] zpoex@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

... You don't think telling someone else that their opinion is "a fucking lie" is rude or mean? I mean sure you can disagree with them, but like just don't be so angry lol

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

it wasn't an opinion. they stated a false fact. those are also known as fucking lies.

[-] zpoex@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Why are you so mean... just chill out damn

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

what did I say that was mean? someone else said I was rude and really don't get it.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

For sure. But of the people who vote for the greens, many more would have chosen to vote for a Democrat instead.

this totally misses the point: if democrats are worried about losing to republicans, they should be trying to convince people to vote democrat instead of republican. if they're only worried about republicans getting into power and they believe this nonsense about splitting votes, they should vote for the greens.

i for one do NOT believe in this vote-splitting narrative. it assumes that the votes somehow belong to democrats and green candidates steal them. the votes belong to voters, and it's the job of parties to earn those votes, and using FUCKING ABHORENT tactics like keeping other parties out of debates or off the ballot are not how you earn MY vote. i'm sure many others feel the same.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

They need to be worried about both losing moderate and low-information voters to the Republicans and losing left-of-center voters to the Greens.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

it's not as though they don't know the policies green voters like. they're not losing left of center voters to the greens, tehy're choosing not to attract them and instead play dirty political games.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

the polling is interesting but it doesn't prove that any of those people will vote at all.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The 'RV' annotation means it's a poll of people who say they are registered voters.

Proof is a standard for mathematics. Not the real world. It's likely enough that Republicans regularly provide financial support for the Greens. That's good enough for me

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago

so you have conjecture. you should have just said that instead of stating it as indisputable fact and then trying to snow me with data that doesn't prove your position.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

I have:

a history of people actually voting for the Greens
polls where registered voters say they'll do so instead of voting for Democrats
a party ideology which could attract Democrats but which would be antithetical to Republicans
a history of Republicans funding Green party candidates as spoilers
an Election system which causes them to in fact serve as spoilers

It's pretty compelling when taken as a whole

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago

i'm of the opinion that democrats spoil green party elections, and if the democrats weren't on the ballot, greens would have won every election for the last 30 years. and i have just as much proof as you do.

[-] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

The Green candidates are all complete dorks. We have studies on what voters like in a candidate and they have none of those qualities.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

The Green candidates are all complete dorks.

this is a nonsequitur

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We have studies on what voters like in a candidate and they have none of those qualities.

you aren't providing any of those studies. further, as i said, a hypothesis framed like this cannot actually be proven (or disproven), so i don't know what good those studies would do.

[-] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

I'm not gonna waste my time on your bullshit the way Silence will.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

this is not a refutation of anything I've said

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

"bullshit" would be making a clear claim, then presenting anything except evidence when challenged on it.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago

registered voters are not the same as likely voters, nor actual past voters. you made a claim that you simply can't prove and none of the data you've provided is, in fact, proof for your claim.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

Likely voter models don't work well enough to look at 1-3% kinds of numbers of voters more than a year out from election day. Sorry.

Using actual voters from 2020 is tough because we had two different third parties there: the Greens who siphoned votes off of Biden, and the Libertarians who siphoned a larger number of votes off of Trump. So you see polls showing the combined effect (slightly beneficial to Biden) but not the separate impact of the Green party candidate.

Absolute proof isn't something that really exists in the social sciences, which is why you're never going to find it, the most you find is several decent converging lines of evidence, as we have here.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

Likely voter models don’t work well enough to look at 1-3% kinds of numbers of voters more than a year out from election day. Sorry.

your claim was about past elections. the data you provided was about a potential future election. you still don't seem to be able to understand what was wrong with your claim.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

It's pretty clear that no amount of data is going to actually convince you.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

it's not the volume: it's teh quality and relevance. you haven't given me any relevant data to support your claim.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

the Greens who siphoned votes off of Biden and the Libertarians who siphoned a larger number of votes off of Trump.

you can't prove this at all. just because e those people did vote for libertarians or greens does t mean they would have voted for anyone else. in fact, given the option, they did NOT vote for someone else.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 year ago

Absolute proof isn’t something that really exists in the social sciences

this platitude isn't even true. lots of things can be proven false in social sciences. the fact that you are (quixotically) defending an unprovable hypothesis doesn't mean there aren't disprovable hypotheses which are possible.

this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023

96 points (99.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5197 readers

896 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

silence7@slrpnk.net