I’ll leave you to your fantastical notions, which are contrary to pretty much all Historical evidence in Psychology, Marketing and Politics, about how people behave, both inside and outside Politics.
Your theory is literally picking up a single known effect that yields the results you desire and denying all others.
It’s like claiming nothing should ever sink because there’s Surface Tension in the interface between water and air whilst ignoring everything else including far more important elements like Gravity and Density and then when confronted with the fact that stuff has in fact sunk in water, just treating thatrecorded observation that disproves your theory as irrelevant.
Such selective picking up of only the part of the theory that yields the results you desire and denial of observations that disprove your theory, is not Science, it’s not even Logic, at best it’s Fantasy - in other words, a particularly illogical kind of wishful thinking.
Picking the parts of a Science you like and ignoring the rest does not yield something Scientific, just like putting a steering wheel on a rock doesn’t turn it onto a car.
I’m not cherry picking obscure data to support a “theory”.
What I’m doing is patently obvious, indisputable cause and effect.
If a kid sells orange juice by the road, but everyone buys lemonade from the kid next door, it’s not gonna take very long for OJ kid to change their game.
If the republicans keep losing elections, they will move to the left to attract voters. The dems would need to move left to minimise voters lost to the republicans.
It’s not a complicated theory. It’s a well established obvious feature of democracy.
Sorry mate, you just haven’t understood anything I’ve said.
Of course the electorate can move. More people need to vote for the dems. Politicians will chase the votes.
I’ll leave you to your fantastical notions, which are contrary to pretty much all Historical evidence in Psychology, Marketing and Politics, about how people behave, both inside and outside Politics.
What you’re calling fantastical notions are well understood concepts of political science.
Your theory is literally picking up a single known effect that yields the results you desire and denying all others.
It’s like claiming nothing should ever sink because there’s Surface Tension in the interface between water and air whilst ignoring everything else including far more important elements like Gravity and Density and then when confronted with the fact that stuff has in fact sunk in water, just treating thatrecorded observation that disproves your theory as irrelevant.
Such selective picking up of only the part of the theory that yields the results you desire and denial of observations that disprove your theory, is not Science, it’s not even Logic, at best it’s Fantasy - in other words, a particularly illogical kind of wishful thinking.
Picking the parts of a Science you like and ignoring the rest does not yield something Scientific, just like putting a steering wheel on a rock doesn’t turn it onto a car.
Your analogy just isn’t analogous.
I’m not cherry picking obscure data to support a “theory”.
What I’m doing is patently obvious, indisputable cause and effect.
If a kid sells orange juice by the road, but everyone buys lemonade from the kid next door, it’s not gonna take very long for OJ kid to change their game.
If the republicans keep losing elections, they will move to the left to attract voters. The dems would need to move left to minimise voters lost to the republicans.
It’s not a complicated theory. It’s a well established obvious feature of democracy.