Reply #145: your math needs some work

[enki23]

here's how it really works:

a person who would have voted democratic is convinced to vote for bush: bush campaign nets +2 votes.

a person who would have voted democratic is convinced to vote for a third party, fails to vote, or their vote is not counted: bush campaign nets +1 vote.

a person who would not have voted or would have voted third party is convinced to vote democratic, or a person whose democratic vote was not counted has their vote discovered in a recount: democratic campaign nets +1 vote.

a person who would have voted for bush is convinced to vote democratic: democratic campaign nets +2 votes.

a vote for bush is a vote for bush. a "democratic" voter who votes for bush counts *DOUBLE*, if we have to follow this "owed vote" logic. this is why moderates and swing voters are worth so much. it's not because they're necessarily more numerous, it's because their votes count for twice as much as someone whose vote can safely be assumed not to be for bush.

leftists don't need to be courted in the general election, the way this is set up, even if there are twice as many of them. they won't vote for bush in any case, and so their measly single votes are worth less than a "centrist" vote from someone who will vote republican. the truth is, swing voters are in a much better position to (in the words of the carlossian crowd) "hold the democratic party hostage." the minority can rule, so long as it's willing to rule ruthlessly.

you can still blame the greens if you like. they're a tiny part of your problem. but to remain consistent, you'd have to blame those "democrats" who voted for bush first, as they're a far larger problem. 1) there were likely more of them in the first place, and 2) each of their bush votes counted double against the party with which they are assumed to be affiliated.

assign the swing voters their larger share of the blame, or get off the greens' case.