4% max
If I were my own political consultant, and I told myself to research the popularity of my Global Green Communist platform as a candidate for office in the US, assuming universal name recognition and unlimited campaign funds, assuming a ranked-choice or proportional-representation voting system, assuming I was charismatic on TV and gave good speeches and performed well in debates ...
4% of the vote, max.
Because when Gallup recently asked people to state what they believed the most important problem in the country was, only 2% said the environment, pollution, or climate change. And only another 2% said the (widening) economic gap between the rich and the poor.
So only 4% think one of my two top issues is their top issue. And I'm assuming that once they fully understood my solutions, and how my solutions would affect them personally, lowering their standard of living to $1,800 per person per year, then most of those 4% would walk away. Because it is fine to say the most important problem is climate change, but you're going to reduce my own standard of living by 97% on average to stop global warming? Great to talk about the gap between the rich and the poor as a major problem, but they certainly didn't mean JUST MAKE EVERYBODY AS POOR AS CAMBODIA THEN.
Yeah. In response to my mentioning these poll results a friend of mine sent me a meme about attacking windmills, but at least windmills are part of the solution under my platform LOL. I'm pro windmills.
-----
According to Gallup, some of the more popular problems include:
Inflation -- 17%
Immigration -- 5%
Russia's invasion of Ukraine -- 9%
Poor government leadership -- 22%
Economy (in general) -- 11%
COVID -- 3%
Race relations -- 5%
Practically nobody mentioned guns as a problem, or abortions, or terrorism, or police brutality, or LGBT issues, or infrastructure, or China -- all that stuff we hear a lot about on the news, are not what people are thinking of as their top problems. Lump together poor leadership, inflation, and the economy, and that's 50% -- that's your set of Republican talking points -- Biden doesn't know how to lead, look at the inflation, look at how difficult it has been to find everything you need at the grocery store or pharmacy.
I was looking at a different survey from AARP and inflation was the top problem listed among the 50+ "retiree" crowd, while the most common adverse experience from the pandemic was not being able to find everything you need at the grocery store.
Cost of living and supply chain problems -- that's what's top of mind for people these days, not climate change, not taking from the rich to give to the poor. They just want more stuff at more affordable prices, that's what they think their government leaders should be focusing on. More stuff at more affordable prices!
-----
In the past I've written about my regression equation that sort of predicts the outcomes of presidential and midterm elections, though it can't account for the bias of the Electoral College. The amount of recent GDP growth, adjusted for inflation, is by far the most important predictor of election outcomes in the US. People just want more stuff. Preside over a recession or high inflation and they kick you out.
More stuff, more stuff! But without inflation! Persistent high inflation from the late 1960s through the early 1980s led to a bunch of US Presidents unable to complete two full terms. Johnson chose not to run for a second term. Nixon resigned during his second term. Ford was tossed out in favor of Carter, then Carter was tossed out in favor of Reagan. Then, finally, inflation quieted. Reagan served two full terms!
Reagan's successor Papa Bush presided over a recession, he was tossed out in favor of Clinton, whose campaign mantra was "It's the economy, stupid!" Clinton avoided both recession and inflation, he served two full terms, despite Republicans trying to impeach him for having Oval Office sex.
Trump presided over a short recession, he was tossed out in favor of Biden.
More stuff, more stuff! But without inflation! That's what gets people elected or re-elected around here.
-----
Yeah, I already know my politics would be unpopular. Does that mean I give them up? What was the point of voting for a candidate who received 0.26% of the popular vote in 2020? After I retire, if I actually run for office on this platform, what will be the point?
I guess because somebody's got to.
So long as my platform is pointlessly unpopular, I guess I'll add some more stuff to it that nobody actually cares about. Like gun control, abortion rights, and gender liberation.
Why am I such a fan of democracy if all the people care about when they vote is more stuff? It's not logical for me to support a democratic system that's destroying the planet. Except that the authoritarian countries aren't doing any better than the democracies. All politicians under every system know they'll have an easier time remaining in power if they provide more stuff.
More stuff is the enemy. How do you campaign against more stuff? Elect me your leader and I'll do away with dessert and Christmas decorations. Yay.
-----
The story of the Buddha tells us about a person who gave up stuff and campaigned for less stuff. Starting with the simple idea that you can sit still and do nothing for a while each day. I have trouble doing that for as little as 5 minutes per day in my own life. I'm making do with 10% less stuff so far, though ... but haven't been able to stick with a meditation habit. Most of my "stuff" is in my brain.
It's all linked together, my Zen, my Global Green Communism, wanting a simpler life with less stuff and fewer responsibilities. But somehow it is taking me decades to get there. Zen is called a "practice" not a "perfection" or a "destination". It is "the way" not "the finish line".
4% of the vote, max.
Because when Gallup recently asked people to state what they believed the most important problem in the country was, only 2% said the environment, pollution, or climate change. And only another 2% said the (widening) economic gap between the rich and the poor.
So only 4% think one of my two top issues is their top issue. And I'm assuming that once they fully understood my solutions, and how my solutions would affect them personally, lowering their standard of living to $1,800 per person per year, then most of those 4% would walk away. Because it is fine to say the most important problem is climate change, but you're going to reduce my own standard of living by 97% on average to stop global warming? Great to talk about the gap between the rich and the poor as a major problem, but they certainly didn't mean JUST MAKE EVERYBODY AS POOR AS CAMBODIA THEN.
Yeah. In response to my mentioning these poll results a friend of mine sent me a meme about attacking windmills, but at least windmills are part of the solution under my platform LOL. I'm pro windmills.
-----
According to Gallup, some of the more popular problems include:
Inflation -- 17%
Immigration -- 5%
Russia's invasion of Ukraine -- 9%
Poor government leadership -- 22%
Economy (in general) -- 11%
COVID -- 3%
Race relations -- 5%
Practically nobody mentioned guns as a problem, or abortions, or terrorism, or police brutality, or LGBT issues, or infrastructure, or China -- all that stuff we hear a lot about on the news, are not what people are thinking of as their top problems. Lump together poor leadership, inflation, and the economy, and that's 50% -- that's your set of Republican talking points -- Biden doesn't know how to lead, look at the inflation, look at how difficult it has been to find everything you need at the grocery store or pharmacy.
I was looking at a different survey from AARP and inflation was the top problem listed among the 50+ "retiree" crowd, while the most common adverse experience from the pandemic was not being able to find everything you need at the grocery store.
Cost of living and supply chain problems -- that's what's top of mind for people these days, not climate change, not taking from the rich to give to the poor. They just want more stuff at more affordable prices, that's what they think their government leaders should be focusing on. More stuff at more affordable prices!
-----
In the past I've written about my regression equation that sort of predicts the outcomes of presidential and midterm elections, though it can't account for the bias of the Electoral College. The amount of recent GDP growth, adjusted for inflation, is by far the most important predictor of election outcomes in the US. People just want more stuff. Preside over a recession or high inflation and they kick you out.
More stuff, more stuff! But without inflation! Persistent high inflation from the late 1960s through the early 1980s led to a bunch of US Presidents unable to complete two full terms. Johnson chose not to run for a second term. Nixon resigned during his second term. Ford was tossed out in favor of Carter, then Carter was tossed out in favor of Reagan. Then, finally, inflation quieted. Reagan served two full terms!
Reagan's successor Papa Bush presided over a recession, he was tossed out in favor of Clinton, whose campaign mantra was "It's the economy, stupid!" Clinton avoided both recession and inflation, he served two full terms, despite Republicans trying to impeach him for having Oval Office sex.
Trump presided over a short recession, he was tossed out in favor of Biden.
More stuff, more stuff! But without inflation! That's what gets people elected or re-elected around here.
-----
Yeah, I already know my politics would be unpopular. Does that mean I give them up? What was the point of voting for a candidate who received 0.26% of the popular vote in 2020? After I retire, if I actually run for office on this platform, what will be the point?
I guess because somebody's got to.
So long as my platform is pointlessly unpopular, I guess I'll add some more stuff to it that nobody actually cares about. Like gun control, abortion rights, and gender liberation.
Why am I such a fan of democracy if all the people care about when they vote is more stuff? It's not logical for me to support a democratic system that's destroying the planet. Except that the authoritarian countries aren't doing any better than the democracies. All politicians under every system know they'll have an easier time remaining in power if they provide more stuff.
More stuff is the enemy. How do you campaign against more stuff? Elect me your leader and I'll do away with dessert and Christmas decorations. Yay.
-----
The story of the Buddha tells us about a person who gave up stuff and campaigned for less stuff. Starting with the simple idea that you can sit still and do nothing for a while each day. I have trouble doing that for as little as 5 minutes per day in my own life. I'm making do with 10% less stuff so far, though ... but haven't been able to stick with a meditation habit. Most of my "stuff" is in my brain.
It's all linked together, my Zen, my Global Green Communism, wanting a simpler life with less stuff and fewer responsibilities. But somehow it is taking me decades to get there. Zen is called a "practice" not a "perfection" or a "destination". It is "the way" not "the finish line".