Yeah, I know. I'm just wondering if he even has enough support to be a vote-splitter.
Trump is hoping that enough Black voters will vote for the Black man. It's got nothing to do with giving wavering conservatives a palatable non-Trump candidate.
Yeah, I know. I'm just wondering if he even has enough support to be a vote-splitter.
Trump is hoping that enough Black voters will vote for the Black man. It's got nothing to do with giving wavering conservatives a palatable non-Trump candidate.
Oh, okay. I wasn't sure. I thought possibly the target of the alleged vote-splitting scheme was the vote of Trump-hating conservatives who were planning to vote for Biden in the absence of another conservative candidate.
If the target, however, is traditionally Democratic Black voters, I probably don't know enough about that community to make a solid prediction. From what I've seen, Black voters tend to be fairly loyal to candidates viewed as amicable to the interests of Blacks, and tend not to vote on the basis of identity(Obama, eg. did not have heavy black support in the primaries until it became apparent he could win). But would Kanye's celebrity status make a difference?
Yeah, I know. I'm just wondering if he even has enough support to be a vote-splitter.
Trump is hoping that enough Black voters will vote for the Black man. It's got nothing to do with giving wavering conservatives a palatable non-Trump candidate.
The other target is low information voters who may be swayed by a celebrity name.
What I find striking about it is how steady Trump's approval ratings are, compared to those of most other post-war presidents. They are quite low (not as low as some), but don't seem to go up or down no matter what happens. Why is that?
Because Trump supporters are not affected by data.
[...]
The conclusion is that the people who think Trump is doing a good job don't look at the data. They are not swayed by information, because they don't use it in their decisions.
So why were they affected by data before, when they were George W. Bush supporters? Because his graph went up and down a lot, and it was pretty clear why.
What has happened to them over the past fifteen years? Has the news environment really had that much of an impact, as @Crœsos suggests? Why has it worked so much better for Trump than for GWB?
The idea is that West will rob Biden of votes. Nobody, outside of Kanye himself, thinks he will win.
Yeah, I know. I'm just wondering if he even has enough support to be a vote-splitter.
Who knows. If the electorate were sane, we wouldn't be in the position we are
Political insanity does tend to have its own internal logic, and I'm not sure that the logic in this instance would dictate voters going over to West.
There was no logic in any of the 3rd party candidates in 2016, not the Bernie voters shifting to Trump.
If you're someone who supported Sanders because he was anti-war, it might make sense to support a professed isolationist like Trump, who was talking about pulling troops back home and possibly dismantling NATO. Especially given that Hillary Clinton, as SOS, is gonna be associated in your mind with a lot of warlike activities.
Also, both Sanders(I'm assuming) and Trump were promising to save jobs in the Rust Belt, which was probably the Number 1 issue for many people in that region.
Plus, factor in that a lot of the Sanders-to-Trump voters probably believe that on every other issue, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Taking all that into account, going from Sanders to Trump probably seemed like a logical choice according to the worldview of those who did so.
(And yes, I think that worldview was hopelessly naive, at best.)
I think that's a fair point about anti-war activists. I suspect that as the progressive wing gains more influence in the Democrats, foreign policy will become a wedge issue, splitting both parties on isolationist v interventionist lines. A curse on all isolationists, the enemies of America's allies. Mind you America's hawks would do well to make big foreign policy moves in conjunction with Europe and other allies, rather than deciding what to do and trying to twist arms. I'd like to see the US President as convener of a college of free peoples, making decisions about particularly war, and our stances towards perceived enemies in times of peace, with the aim of containing threats and preventing wars.
I think it's interesting that you equate progressive with isolationist.
Personally, I use "isolationist" to mean anti-intervrntionism of the Charles Lindbergh variety, with all the baggage that goes along with that.
I view progressive anti-interventionism as a different thing entirely. But I also recognize that to an untutored observer, the two types of anti-interventionism will often bear a strong, albeit superficial, resemblance.
The one reason why Trump is challenging mail-in ballots in various states is to set up enough doubt so he could challenge the results in the courts. NPR had a talking head today who said Trump is hoping to challenge the counts in the courts which may take years to settle. I don't think any judge will entertain that plot. January 2021 at 12:01 he will be shown the door.
The idea is that West will rob Biden of votes. Nobody, outside of Kanye himself, thinks he will win.
Yeah, I know. I'm just wondering if he even has enough support to be a vote-splitter.
Who knows. If the electorate were sane, we wouldn't be in the position we are
Political insanity does tend to have its own internal logic, and I'm not sure that the logic in this instance would dictate voters going over to West.
There was no logic in any of the 3rd party candidates in 2016, not the Bernie voters shifting to Trump.
If you're someone who supported Sanders because he was anti-war, it might make sense to support a professed isolationist like Trump, who was talking about pulling troops back home and possibly dismantling NATO.
I don't tend to think of progressives as one-issue voters, but I suppose those exist. And I suppose that some of Sanders' supporters aren't actually progressive.
But Republicans have made those noises and still supported war. I would not call the lack of seeing that naive, just stupid.
Also, both Sanders(I'm assuming) and Trump were promising to save jobs in the Rust Belt, which was probably the Number 1 issue for many people in that region.
Also stupid. Trump was always pro-business and business interests are what sent those jobs away. Whether Sanders had an actual plan, he is no quite so pro-business.
Political insanity does tend to have its own internal logic, and I'm not sure that the logic in this instance would dictate voters going over to West.
There was no logic in any of the 3rd party candidates in 2016, not the Bernie voters shifting to Trump.
It should be noted that neither Sanders nor Trump was an actual third party candidate in 2016. Sanders ran within the Democratic party primary and Trump was the Republican nominee.
Political insanity does tend to have its own internal logic, and I'm not sure that the logic in this instance would dictate voters going over to West.
There was no logic in any of the 3rd party candidates in 2016, not the Bernie voters shifting to Trump.
It should be noted that neither Sanders nor Trump was an actual third party candidate in 2016. Sanders ran within the Democratic party primary and Trump was the Republican nominee.
Wasn't talking about either of them.
I was talking about Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and the other, even more also rans.
I think it's interesting that you equate progressive with isolationist.
I don't think equate is the right term. But if someone is opposed to the USA involving itself in foreign conflicts, or reducing its armed forces to a defensive capability only, or opposing any and all war, then there is little practical difference between them and those on the right who also want the USA to retreat into its shell. I am looking at this from the perspective of an outsider, and one who believes that an isolationist USA, whether in pursuance of peace at all costs, or some weird nativist malarkey, is very much not in the interests of my country or any other long-term US ally.
The best position the USA can take, in its own interests and the interests of its allies, is a conciliar one. First among equals is where the USA should position itself. That's where its true friends want it to be. Isolationists in the USA, peace at all costs or in the case of the right, some sort of brain disease, are not the friends US allies need.
Actually, for the right-wingers, its more likely to be a developmental disorder. Perhaps lead in the Evian?
I think it's interesting that you equate progressive with isolationist.
I don't think equate is the right term. But if someone is opposed to the USA involving itself in foreign conflicts, or reducing its armed forces to a defensive capability only, or opposing any and all war, then there is little practical difference between them and those on the right who also want the USA to retreat into its shell.
They might think they can sleep comfortably together, but the realities of politics means that they won't.
This is why I hate single-issue voting. No issue a voter has is ever accomplished without dragging along, or dragging down, other issues. Often times related issues.
But is there any evidence that West is actually suffering from a mental illness? I mean, beyond just being a jerkoff narcissist like a zillion other over-entitled celebrities?
But is there any evidence that West is actually suffering from a mental illness? I mean, beyond just being a jerkoff narcissist like a zillion other over-entitled celebrities?
One cannot easily diagnose from a distance, but Kanye himself has said that he cannot create if he is on his meds. The meds most famous for robbing creativity are those for controlling things like bi-polar disorder and the like.
But is there any evidence that West is actually suffering from a mental illness? I mean, beyond just being a jerkoff narcissist like a zillion other over-entitled celebrities?
West has publicly stated that he has bipolar disorder. A capsule summary of his various (known) mental health issues can be found here.
But is there any evidence that West is actually suffering from a mental illness? I mean, beyond just being a jerkoff narcissist like a zillion other over-entitled celebrities?
West has publicly stated that he has bipolar disorder. A capsule summary of his various (known) mental health issues can be found here.
Okay, thanks.
Speaking as someone who has known probably hundreds of diagnosed psychiatric patients, I have to say I have a bit of difficulty with the idea that someone could be a) ill enough to be unable to resist the manipulation of Republican operatives, but b) rational enough to maintain a career that is putting millions of dollars into his bank accounts every year.
And yes, I'm sure he might have certain psychological conditions that are alleviated by drugs. I'm not convinced that means he's sick to the point of helplessness in the face of Republican connivance.
If fWest is going along with some GOPers' plans for a presidential campaign, I think that might just be because he's a giant ego who likes to see himself in the news. And as a Republican himself, running a campaign that hurts the Democrats seems to show a fair bit of rational calculation.
Yes, I was referring to Kanye. Sometimes, I'm replying to a post that's before the last page, and forget to check for new pages. So when my response to something on, say, page 41, shows up on page 42, it can be out of context. Sorry.
*Croesos*, thx for filling in the blanks that occurred.
AIUI, various of his loved ones have also publicly stated he has mental illness.
I truly think that T has many mental health issues. And a whole bunch of mental health professionals have broken protocol to say as much. (IIRC, you disagree.)
I think that the Congressional and party Republican hierarchy (and assorted fund/evo folks) used T, many of them consciously. And they're doing it again with Kanye. And that stinks.
(In case it matters: I know very little about Kanye. Never really interested me; but the media keeps mentioning him...and the Kardashians...and I occasionally catch bits of info about his behavior...which often seems impulsive...and now that makes more sense.)
So the 'hope' is that he's split the black vote, rather than split the right-wing vote?
Seems risky from a Republican pov.
It could be the case that some of these Republicans think that there are alot of Blacks who will vote for any Black guy who's a hip-hop star, because the only thing Black people understand is hip-hop.
From what I understand of Kanye's popularity, there may be hell to pay if his fans and supporters decide he's being used, and that it's worsening his mental health.
In that case, the Republican instigators may have shot T's campaign and their own party in the foot. (Never mind all the ways they've already done that...for years...)
But is there any evidence that West is actually suffering from a mental illness? I mean, beyond just being a jerkoff narcissist like a zillion other over-entitled celebrities?
West has publicly stated that he has bipolar disorder. A capsule summary of his various (known) mental health issues can be found here.
Okay, thanks.
Speaking as someone who has known probably hundreds of diagnosed psychiatric patients, I have to say I have a bit of difficulty with the idea that someone could be a) ill enough to be unable to resist the manipulation of Republican operatives, but b) rational enough to maintain a career that is putting millions of dollars into his bank accounts every year.
And yes, I'm sure he might have certain psychological conditions that are alleviated by drugs. I'm not convinced that means he's sick to the point of helplessness in the face of Republican connivance.
If fWest is going along with some GOPers' plans for a presidential campaign, I think that might just be because he's a giant ego who likes to see himself in the news. And as a Republican himself, running a campaign that hurts the Democrats seems to show a fair bit of rational calculation.
ISTM, his condition is exacerbated by his ego. Success in the entertainment industry is a different path to that in politics. His current success is driven in large part by his past successes, so evaluating his current competence by his current success is non-linear.
It's possible to have an ego AND be mentally ill, and even to have those two things join to drive you to unexpected success. But if it's true that anybody is manipulating him, that's despicable.
Best option would be some left-wing candidate like Gabbard, but such a person would likely reject Republican assistance.
Tulsi Gabbard is not left wing, even by American standards of the term. She's a politician with a 'D' after her name from a state where you pretty much have to have 'D' after your name to hold elected office.
Best option would be some left-wing candidate like Gabbard, but such a person would likely reject Republican assistance.
Tulsi Gabbard is not left wing, even by American standards of the term. She's a politician with a 'D' after her name from a state where you pretty much have to have 'D' after your name to hold elected office.
Yeah, I knew about her BJP connections, and it doesn't surprise me that she's someone who thinks Putin did a good job in Syria.
Let me fine-tune it and say that she's the kind of candidate who would attract votes from certain types of people who view themselves as leftists, of the Russia Today variety(and yes, I know RT isn't left-wing, but they've got a certain segment of the left thinking they are). And I doubt she would run much danger of siphoning votes away from the GOP. Well, maybe some of the Ron Paul crowd.
But for clarity's sake, let's put up Jill Stein as a more plausible spoiler candidate. Unarguably left-wing, and unlikely to have any appeal to Republican voters. Though it's doubtful if she'd take their help, and they probably couldn't help her anyway without making the ruse obvious.
But for clarity's sake, let's put up Jill Stein as a more plausible spoiler candidate. Unarguably left-wing, and unlikely to have any appeal to Republican voters. Though it's doubtful if she'd take their help, and they probably couldn't help her anyway without making the ruse obvious.
But for clarity's sake, let's put up Jill Stein as a more plausible spoiler candidate. Unarguably left-wing, and unlikely to have any appeal to Republican voters. Though it's doubtful if she'd take their help, and they probably couldn't help her anyway without making the ruse obvious.
But for clarity's sake, let's put up Jill Stein as a more plausible spoiler candidate. Unarguably left-wing, and unlikely to have any appeal to Republican voters. Though it's doubtful if she'd take their help, and they probably couldn't help her anyway without making the ruse obvious.
That's not the same degree of obviousness as Republican operatives taking high-profile roles in her campaign. There's a plausible deniability there that you wouldn't have in the case of known Republican operatives openly taking a salary to help someone like Stein run her campaign. They would be blatantly working for someone whose policies they are known to oppose.
Anyway, this is just a hypothetical for a left-wing candidate that Republicans could support who would split the Dem vote and not risk doing the same to Republicans. I'm sure everyone can think of their own examples.
I think its more about using him in the media cycle. They just plant a story somewhere - this time about who is working for him, and watch the media follow.
Kanye West remains nothing more than a handy distraction to put into the mix. I'm not convinced Republican strategists see any other role for him.
But, at the very least, they would want to ensure that that distraction does more damage to the Democrats than to the Republicans.
That's almost guaranteed with any third party candidacy that makes it on to the ballot. The willingness to vote third party is asymmetrical between the American right and left.
The American right has spent the last forty years doing its best to turn its adherents into reprogrammable meat puppets who will believe whatever [ Rush Limbaugh / Sean Hannity / Andrew Breitbart's internet horcrux ] tells them to believe, even if it's the exact opposite of what [ Limbaugh / Hannity / ABIH ] told them last week.
The American left, on the other hand, has what could be called the purity wank voter. This is someone who sees politics not as a system where society collectively decides big questions but rather as a kind of atomistic consumer choice that should be customizable to their exact specifications. ("I like this 'Obama' model, but does it come in a different color?") A Kanye West candidacy is meant to provide these people with a safe landing place that isn't Joe Biden, on the expectation that because Joe Biden isn't 100% in agreement with them on [ issue ] they won't sully themselves by actually voting for him. To these voters it's irrelevant that Kanye West also doesn't agree with them 100% on [ issue ] or that he has no realistic chance of getting elected, the point is they've saved themselves from the stigma of actually participating in politics.
The American left, on the other hand, has what could be called the purity wank voter.
In fairness, most of the support of the US Libertarian Party could be described as "purity wank voters", and they're mostly right-wing libertarians. I'd agree that they were healthily outnumbered by leftist wank-voters, though.
I've mentioned my Bernie-supporting friend before. She's pretty much a purity-wank voter. She was supporting either Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard in the primary ('cause Gabbard is an isolationist and she thinks she'd be bad for the military-industrial complex). She's probably going to vote for Howie Hawkins, but is rational enough to admit that she's only doing it because the state is going blue whatever she does. If she lived in a marginal state, she'd hold her nose and vote Biden.
Well, if the intention is to get the purity-wank leftists to abandon Biden, then I really don't think that's gonna fly at all. There might be a couple of items in his program that are left-wing in a populist sorta way, but he has almost zero profile as a progressive figure.
The only votes I can see him getting would be from people who are just automatically impressed with any celebrity name, and maybe a few macho posers who think he's cool for standing up to that uppity chick at the MTV Awards way back when. (Admittedly, that could make some difference in a very close race.)
The American left, on the other hand, has what could be called the purity wank voter.
In fairness, most of the support of the US Libertarian Party could be described as "purity wank voters", and they're mostly right-wing libertarians. I'd agree that they were healthily outnumbered by leftist wank-voters, though.
Actually, if we're measuring the purity-wankers by party support, the right seems to be doing better than the left. In 2016, the Libertarians got 3.28% of the vote, to the Greens 1.07.
Mind you, that's obviously not measuring the ones who did their wank by staying home on election day.
I would imagine that Ross Perot did a lot more damage to the Republicans than to the Democrats, for example.
Actually, I think the general consensus on that one is that the damage was distributed about equally. Perot was uncompromisingly pro-choice, which almost certainly limited his ability to attract socially conservative Republicans.
I've heard from fairly credible albeit informal sources that Perot's worst numbers were in the Bible Belt. I don't quite have the inclination to look that up right now.
Comments
Trump is hoping that enough Black voters will vote for the Black man. It's got nothing to do with giving wavering conservatives a palatable non-Trump candidate.
Oh, okay. I wasn't sure. I thought possibly the target of the alleged vote-splitting scheme was the vote of Trump-hating conservatives who were planning to vote for Biden in the absence of another conservative candidate.
If the target, however, is traditionally Democratic Black voters, I probably don't know enough about that community to make a solid prediction. From what I've seen, Black voters tend to be fairly loyal to candidates viewed as amicable to the interests of Blacks, and tend not to vote on the basis of identity(Obama, eg. did not have heavy black support in the primaries until it became apparent he could win). But would Kanye's celebrity status make a difference?
The other target is low information voters who may be swayed by a celebrity name.
Political insanity does tend to have its own internal logic, and I'm not sure that the logic in this instance would dictate voters going over to West.
So why were they affected by data before, when they were George W. Bush supporters? Because his graph went up and down a lot, and it was pretty clear why.
What has happened to them over the past fifteen years? Has the news environment really had that much of an impact, as @Crœsos suggests? Why has it worked so much better for Trump than for GWB?
If you're someone who supported Sanders because he was anti-war, it might make sense to support a professed isolationist like Trump, who was talking about pulling troops back home and possibly dismantling NATO. Especially given that Hillary Clinton, as SOS, is gonna be associated in your mind with a lot of warlike activities.
Also, both Sanders(I'm assuming) and Trump were promising to save jobs in the Rust Belt, which was probably the Number 1 issue for many people in that region.
Plus, factor in that a lot of the Sanders-to-Trump voters probably believe that on every other issue, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Taking all that into account, going from Sanders to Trump probably seemed like a logical choice according to the worldview of those who did so.
(And yes, I think that worldview was hopelessly naive, at best.)
Personally, I use "isolationist" to mean anti-intervrntionism of the Charles Lindbergh variety, with all the baggage that goes along with that.
I view progressive anti-interventionism as a different thing entirely. But I also recognize that to an untutored observer, the two types of anti-interventionism will often bear a strong, albeit superficial, resemblance.
But Republicans have made those noises and still supported war. I would not call the lack of seeing that naive, just stupid.
Also stupid. Trump was always pro-business and business interests are what sent those jobs away. Whether Sanders had an actual plan, he is no quite so pro-business.
It should be noted that neither Sanders nor Trump was an actual third party candidate in 2016. Sanders ran within the Democratic party primary and Trump was the Republican nominee.
GAAAAAA. GRRRRR.
I was talking about Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and the other, even more also rans.
I don't think equate is the right term. But if someone is opposed to the USA involving itself in foreign conflicts, or reducing its armed forces to a defensive capability only, or opposing any and all war, then there is little practical difference between them and those on the right who also want the USA to retreat into its shell. I am looking at this from the perspective of an outsider, and one who believes that an isolationist USA, whether in pursuance of peace at all costs, or some weird nativist malarkey, is very much not in the interests of my country or any other long-term US ally.
The best position the USA can take, in its own interests and the interests of its allies, is a conciliar one. First among equals is where the USA should position itself. That's where its true friends want it to be. Isolationists in the USA, peace at all costs or in the case of the right, some sort of brain disease, are not the friends US allies need.
Actually, for the right-wingers, its more likely to be a developmental disorder. Perhaps lead in the Evian?
This is why I hate single-issue voting. No issue a voter has is ever accomplished without dragging along, or dragging down, other issues. Often times related issues.
What's the reference here?
The Kanye West third party presidential run. It's pretty transparently a Republican-backed ploy.
Thanks.
But is there any evidence that West is actually suffering from a mental illness? I mean, beyond just being a jerkoff narcissist like a zillion other over-entitled celebrities?
West has publicly stated that he has bipolar disorder. A capsule summary of his various (known) mental health issues can be found here.
Seems risky from a Republican pov.
Okay, thanks.
Speaking as someone who has known probably hundreds of diagnosed psychiatric patients, I have to say I have a bit of difficulty with the idea that someone could be a) ill enough to be unable to resist the manipulation of Republican operatives, but b) rational enough to maintain a career that is putting millions of dollars into his bank accounts every year.
And yes, I'm sure he might have certain psychological conditions that are alleviated by drugs. I'm not convinced that means he's sick to the point of helplessness in the face of Republican connivance.
If fWest is going along with some GOPers' plans for a presidential campaign, I think that might just be because he's a giant ego who likes to see himself in the news. And as a Republican himself, running a campaign that hurts the Democrats seems to show a fair bit of rational calculation.
Yes, I was referring to Kanye. Sometimes, I'm replying to a post that's before the last page, and forget to check for new pages. So when my response to something on, say, page 41, shows up on page 42, it can be out of context. Sorry.
*Croesos*, thx for filling in the blanks that occurred.
AIUI, various of his loved ones have also publicly stated he has mental illness.
I truly think that T has many mental health issues. And a whole bunch of mental health professionals have broken protocol to say as much. (IIRC, you disagree.)
I think that the Congressional and party Republican hierarchy (and assorted fund/evo folks) used T, many of them consciously. And they're doing it again with Kanye. And that stinks.
(In case it matters: I know very little about Kanye. Never really interested me; but the media keeps mentioning him...and the Kardashians...and I occasionally catch bits of info about his behavior...which often seems impulsive...and now that makes more sense.)
It could be the case that some of these Republicans think that there are alot of Blacks who will vote for any Black guy who's a hip-hop star, because the only thing Black people understand is hip-hop.
What's the alternative? Emphasize Donald Trump's competence and accomplishments?
In that case, the Republican instigators may have shot T's campaign and their own party in the foot. (Never mind all the ways they've already done that...for years...)
Well, I guess find a spoiler candidate who splits some Democrats away from the coaltion, while not running the risk of also splitting Republicans.
Best option would be some left-wing candidate like Gabbard, but such a person would likely reject Republican assistance.
And yeah, when addressing the base, emphasize Trump's supposed awesomeness.
Tulsi Gabbard is not left wing, even by American standards of the term. She's a politician with a 'D' after her name from a state where you pretty much have to have 'D' after your name to hold elected office.
Yeah, I knew about her BJP connections, and it doesn't surprise me that she's someone who thinks Putin did a good job in Syria.
Let me fine-tune it and say that she's the kind of candidate who would attract votes from certain types of people who view themselves as leftists, of the Russia Today variety(and yes, I know RT isn't left-wing, but they've got a certain segment of the left thinking they are). And I doubt she would run much danger of siphoning votes away from the GOP. Well, maybe some of the Ron Paul crowd.
But for clarity's sake, let's put up Jill Stein as a more plausible spoiler candidate. Unarguably left-wing, and unlikely to have any appeal to Republican voters. Though it's doubtful if she'd take their help, and they probably couldn't help her anyway without making the ruse obvious.
I think that was 'plan A' but doubts were raised by some in the campaign team.
I'm not sure about Jill Stein's ability not to make a ruse obvious.
That's not the same degree of obviousness as Republican operatives taking high-profile roles in her campaign. There's a plausible deniability there that you wouldn't have in the case of known Republican operatives openly taking a salary to help someone like Stein run her campaign. They would be blatantly working for someone whose policies they are known to oppose.
Anyway, this is just a hypothetical for a left-wing candidate that Republicans could support who would split the Dem vote and not risk doing the same to Republicans. I'm sure everyone can think of their own examples.
But, at the very least, they would want to ensure that that distraction does more damage to the Democrats than to the Republicans.
Oh, my. That interview.
And he's never voted.
:votive:
Maybe it's Trump thinking ahead (if he does, ever) to save face by having an excuse for losing.
That's almost guaranteed with any third party candidacy that makes it on to the ballot. The willingness to vote third party is asymmetrical between the American right and left.
The American right has spent the last forty years doing its best to turn its adherents into reprogrammable meat puppets who will believe whatever [ Rush Limbaugh / Sean Hannity / Andrew Breitbart's internet horcrux ] tells them to believe, even if it's the exact opposite of what [ Limbaugh / Hannity / ABIH ] told them last week.
The American left, on the other hand, has what could be called the purity wank voter. This is someone who sees politics not as a system where society collectively decides big questions but rather as a kind of atomistic consumer choice that should be customizable to their exact specifications. ("I like this 'Obama' model, but does it come in a different color?") A Kanye West candidacy is meant to provide these people with a safe landing place that isn't Joe Biden, on the expectation that because Joe Biden isn't 100% in agreement with them on [ issue ] they won't sully themselves by actually voting for him. To these voters it's irrelevant that Kanye West also doesn't agree with them 100% on [ issue ] or that he has no realistic chance of getting elected, the point is they've saved themselves from the stigma of actually participating in politics.
In fairness, most of the support of the US Libertarian Party could be described as "purity wank voters", and they're mostly right-wing libertarians. I'd agree that they were healthily outnumbered by leftist wank-voters, though.
I've mentioned my Bernie-supporting friend before. She's pretty much a purity-wank voter. She was supporting either Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard in the primary ('cause Gabbard is an isolationist and she thinks she'd be bad for the military-industrial complex). She's probably going to vote for Howie Hawkins, but is rational enough to admit that she's only doing it because the state is going blue whatever she does. If she lived in a marginal state, she'd hold her nose and vote Biden.
Well, if the intention is to get the purity-wank leftists to abandon Biden, then I really don't think that's gonna fly at all. There might be a couple of items in his program that are left-wing in a populist sorta way, but he has almost zero profile as a progressive figure.
The only votes I can see him getting would be from people who are just automatically impressed with any celebrity name, and maybe a few macho posers who think he's cool for standing up to that uppity chick at the MTV Awards way back when. (Admittedly, that could make some difference in a very close race.)
Actually, if we're measuring the purity-wankers by party support, the right seems to be doing better than the left. In 2016, the Libertarians got 3.28% of the vote, to the Greens 1.07.
Mind you, that's obviously not measuring the ones who did their wank by staying home on election day.
Actually, I think the general consensus on that one is that the damage was distributed about equally. Perot was uncompromisingly pro-choice, which almost certainly limited his ability to attract socially conservative Republicans.
I've heard from fairly credible albeit informal sources that Perot's worst numbers were in the Bible Belt. I don't quite have the inclination to look that up right now.