"Politics is not a battle for the middle."

[welshTerrier2]

there is a rift on DU just as there is a rift in the Democratic Party ... some try to paint the "disruptors" as a handful of trolls ... some blame it on lefty purists ... some blame the DLC and Lieberman and the party sell-outs ... and some even deny there is a rift ... one need not look much beyond what's going on in CT to know that's just not true ...

the argument i often hear from those who say "we have to just win" and who don't seem inclined to want to put policies and issues before politics, is that once we "win", then and only then can we effect the changes we seek ... of course, IF we win this November, after campaigning on a centrist agenda or even a vaguely defined agenda, the likelihood of the party moving further to the left is ZERO ... why? because if the current logic prevails now, the identical case will be made after the elections ... then, instead of "political posturing" for the midterms, we'll be told we need to politically posture for '08 ... if we want change, we need to campaign on change ...

and my purpose here is not to call the DLC names or get into the usual idiocy that seems to have an unproductive stranglehold on DU ... my purpose is to try to call for negotiated PROGRESS ... does anyone else actually give a damn about trying, at least trying, to build a greater degree of consensus? or are we just addicted to our oh-so-clever hurling of insults back and forth ad nauseum? i suspect the latter may be the case ... i hope i'm wrong ...

posts about reclaiming DU to focus more on the political races are bullshit ... why? because they are divisive ... and yes, posts that bash the party's right wing aren't much help either ... at least not when they are attacking the people and not the policies ... i think it's perfectly legitimate to fight over policy ... but those who genuinely want to see greater unity should resist the temptation to focus on the players and "sub-organizations" within the party and keep their focus on platforms and process ...

and speaking of process, the quote below does a damned good job laying bare what's wrong with current Democratic Party thinking ... if we could address this one fundamental idea, i think we could actually find a path to greater intra-party unity ... for me, that's a goal; how about you?

here is a quote I read that i think gets to the heart of our differences:

Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle. (kudos to Sirota, TalkLeft and Professor Ackerman for the quote)

recent and current strategy has dictated that we tap into the "mushy middle" ... we look for new votes among moderate republicans and independents ... there is nothing wrong with seeking a dialog with these voters on the issues ... there is something terribly wrong when we give up on our beliefs (or even apologize for them) to appeal to these voters ... the Democratic Party should be defining what we consider the middle to be and then trying to convince those voters to the right of "our middle" to move in our direction ... if we move right, we are seen as lacking a commitment to our core beliefs ... we are seen as insincere political hacks ... we are seen as lacking the courage of our convictions ... and in doing so, we de-energize our own activist base ... does anyone value having that occur?

as a party, our priority should be to fight for our beliefs and to teach the electorate why our views should prevail ... what we should not do is sell-out our views in search of votes ...

DU has become an increasingly frustrating experience ... the endless, shrill arguments are frankly totally pointless ... what is it you hope to gain, regardless of your views of what the party's approach should be, by participating in the screaming matches? and this is not a call for "everyone should make nice"; it's a call to understand what divides us and to recognize that it hurts us all if we can't find a better dialog ... we will always have differing views on many issues but how we address these differences, and i would argue for greater inclusiveness and greater adherence to and fighting for our traditional core beliefs, will determine our futures ...

and greater inclusiveness can only be achieved by working toward agreement on where the "middle" lies ... to move the "middle" to the right is the wrong approach ... to abandon some, in search of others, will never achieve the desired results ...

[Drum]

1. Kicking

:kick:

I like this post. Spunky!

And recommended, on account of your "signature" quote.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Excellent - KNR.

[readmoreoften]

3. KR /nt

[kineneb]

4. Jim Hightower's book title says it all

There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos

good book, by the way...

[welshTerrier2]

5. from the Karate kid ... a classic ...

Daniel-san, must talk. Man walk on road. Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk down middle, sooner or later, get squished just like grape. Same here. You karate do "yes,"or karate do "no." You karate do "guess so," just like grape. Understand?

[Gregorian]

6. Here's what Wes Clark said at DKos yesterday.

But first- my thought on this is that the shift in the party is a societal phenomenon. And I believe the shift to the right has been achieved by, yes, the corporations. The shift has nothing to do with winning. It's where our society is going. To win, we need the middle voters. Shifting is not something we have any ability to change. At least not in the timeframe of one election. We're talking about two animals here. Sadly, our society has been moving to the right since at least Ronald Reagan. And in reality, we may never have been progressive ever. I think only mature societies who as a cummulative group know the benefits of being progressive, or rather know the destructive results of not being progressive, are willing and able to move to the left.



In response to a post asking what we can do, Wes Clark said this-

"We've got to get Democrats elected. So our candidates have to address the issues that will bring in the middle! There's no doubt what our Party stands for, but the idea is to bridge the gaps that divide people, and to focus on the most important issues facing the whole country..."



Edit- I personally can't stand the middle. Like mild hot sauce, it does zero for me.

[Donna Zen]

18. I read that Kos diary

When one looks at the entire quote, it is clear that Clark is talking about issues that are important to the American people. He feels (and I agree) that Democratic positions are very strong. He doesn't suggest that we alter our stance to lean right or move to the center.

We've got to get Democrats elected. So our candidates have to address the issues that will bring in the middle! There's no doubt what our Party stands for, but the idea is to bridge the gaps that divide people, and to focus on the most important issues facing the whole country. Foreign policy and national security (including global warming), the economy, jobs, health care, education, the encvironment, trade, would be among the top issues, plus other matters of local interest. We're Democrats, we believe that every American should be treated fairly and equally regardless of any "differentiating" aspects. And of course we believe in families, privacy and freedoms.

by Wes Clark on Fri Jul 14, 2006 at 01:25:50 PM PDT

Although one would know that from Clark's diary which includes:

All too often, we see Democratic positions described as "unpopular" or "risky" in the press, despite widely-available polling that shows large majorities supporting the Democratic agenda.

What this adds up to a caution to stay away from issues like "in God we trust," as part of the pledge, or a platform that includes "gun control." We will not win with those issues because those issues are complex and require the bully pulpit.

[robcon]

7. I disagree completely and utterly.

"Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle. "

In the U.S. two-party situation, the wings are set: each will vote for the Repugs or Dems, and occasioanlly a third party. The undecideds are in the middle.

[depakid]

8. The evidence doesn't support your belief

If the so called "middle" were so important- then why do far right extremists now control every branch of government while the Dems- whose "strategy" has been to play to the ephemercal "center," have lost 6 congressional elections in a row- and may well lose a 7th this fall?

Your conventional "wisdom" doesn't seem to work in real life-

[robcon]

28. You are looking at the government, not the electorate

Bush was elected, not by those who believed in his 'centrism', but by those who abandoned the Swift-boated, Schrum-led, voted-for-before-voted-against Kerry. Kerry lost the middle.

Kerry was out-strategized, and beaten to the middle of the electorate by Rove.

edit:spell

[benEzra]

34. Wedge issues...

you can "play the center" all you want, but if your centrist candidate promises Middle America that if he's elected, he'll confiscate half their guns, then he's in trouble. Gore would have won Tennessee and West Virginia (and the Presidency) had he not fallen for the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch and motivated gun owners to show up at the polls in huge numbers to vote against him.

There are other wedge issues that are needlessly divisive, but that's the one that hits closest to where I live.

[LWolf]

9. I'm with you on this one.

:kick:

[The Count]

10. Common Good, not common ground - borrowed from Lamont

It's what we believe in that moves us, energize us. Once we try to coach it in the vernacular acceptable to the enemy/its media - well, we do what DCCC did with the coffins add - we lose ground.

[MrBenchley]

11. Why would anyone want a concensus if your claim was true?

"there is something terribly wrong when we give up on our beliefs (or even apologize for them) to appeal to these voters"
Other than hatred of Democrats, what does the far left here believe? They seem to spend their days pimping for flag burning and other such idiocy.

"of course, IF we win this November, after campaigning on a centrist agenda or even a vaguely defined agenda, the likelihood of the party moving further to the left is ZERO ... why?"
Because the far left has shown over and over again how out of touch with America and useless it is?

"posts about reclaiming DU to focus more on the political races are bullshit ... why? because they are divisive "
So it's not divisive when we get dimwits calling Democrats "cowards," "corporate whores," and the like...it's only divisive when anyone objects. And Noam Chomsky is Queen of the May.

[welshTerrier2]

12. Benchley, you are a perfect example

of what is wrong around here ...

even on a thread like this one calling on both "sides" to at least try for a better dialog, you steadfastly refuse ...

thanks so much for letting us see ourselves in your attitude ... it helps clarify the very point i was making ...

[MrBenchley]

13. Geeze, guess those calling Democrats "cowards," "whores,"and "wimps"

and trying to stifle any dissent from their miserable defeatism and gibberish will just have to nurse their disappointment.

"it helps clarify the very point i was making"
Yes it does....and it shows in spades how phony your call was.

[Toots]

27. Please explain what is Democratic about middle road ofter years of right

ward tilt. The middle is now what would have been far right in the sixties and you call that the Democratic ideal. You are not in any manner a Democrat IMO. You are a sell out of America and true Democratic ideals.

[MrBenchley]

37. There's years of rightward tilt

because America wants no part of the bilge, hysteria and stupidity being peddled by the far left.

"The middle is now what would have been far right in the sixties"
Yeah, and the far left is STILL out of touch with reality and lashing out at Democrats, more interested in being childish fuckwits than in actually remedying the situation.

[LincolnMcGrath]

20. Some fools say things like "Pimping for flag burning," Others know the

debate is about right and wrong inre; the Constitution.

Did you catch that ABOVE?

For someone who flies off the handle at the mere mention of any criticism of democrats (unless its him doing it, of course), isn't rich that he chose to prove the most oft claim made here at DU and on the street. That capitulating is always worse than standing your ground.

Someone IM me when it becomes clear to all Democrats on DUers that burning the flag is a protected right, whether or not the 23% that John Dean speaks of like it or not.

[Ken Burch]

39. OK, I'll tell you what we on the "far left" believe in

1)peace.

2)full employment.

3)the end of all forms of discrimination.

3)restoration of the massive GOP/DLC cuts in social services.

4)a clean environment and full use of alternative energy.

5)electoral reform so that we can have real elections.

6)an economic system that doesn't grind down the many for the benefit of the few.

7)a Democratic Party and a nation in which all have a real say, not just big donors and corporations.

That's what I believe in, anyway. Is that list so terrible, Benchers?
Does it really deserve your hatred?
(sorry I didn't mention gun control, but it isn't more important than all the rest.)

[understandinglife]

14. I think we can all agree that watching children starve to death must stop.

I think we can all agree that watching the poor drown must stop.

I think we can all agree that watching the ill suffer, as they slowly die, must stop.

I think we can all agree that watching people beg for food must stop.

I think we can all agree that killing innocent people and calling it "collateral damage" is beyond criminal.

I think we can all agree that each person deserves to be taught how to read, write and calculate.

I think we can all agree that each person deserves to know that their vote is counted and that only one vote is allowed for each person.

Just for starters.

It might actually be worthwhile to develop the Democratic Party platform solely on the above and see just how many folk would be supportive.

Likely way more than ever before.

Ready to give it a go?


Peace.

[tomp]

29. perfect!

a truly excellent amplification of the point.

let's see who dares to disagree with this platform.

[LittleClarkie]

15. I find the argument that a majority would get us Conyers as head of the

Judicial Committee and other such goodies, regardless of concerns with individual races and the people we're electing, compelling.

Then again, the other arguement, that a Dem that votes with Republicans doesn't gain us alot either, is also a good point.

But then, there's the further argument that, in the south at least, a Conservative Dem is what can get elected, and is the best we can hope for in such areas, is also a good point. There are just some places in the country a true Progressive just isn't going to get elected. A populist, maybe.

Oh, I'm just rambling on a Sunday, I guess, and not answering your post exactly. But I guess I'm just after sheer numbers at this point. I want a majority of Dems. I'm not sure I care how we get them.

[struggle4progress]

16. If we imagine politics as campaigns, in which every two years --- or

every four years -- we try to reach out to the public with a bundle of slogans intended to define and motivate some political center, we will always lose.

The public is subjected to a constant stream of propaganda from the corporate admen, some designed to sell products, some designed to sell policy, but much designed to distract attention from real issues, to muddy waters, and to prevent people from thinking clearly or acting effectively. Without a constant counterpoint, we lose.

Unless we ourselves are organized, in communities across the country, to provide a constant counterpoint to the constant disinformation and the constant message "You can't do anything about it anyway" -- that is, unless we are constantly reminding people that they have a right to a democratic workplace, to clean air and water, to education and healthcare, unless we constantly allow people to discover for themselves that their political enemies are mere human beings and that people power can beat mere money, unless people recognize our activists as people who regularly fight for meaningful issues -- we will continue to lose.

Our problem is inadequate long-term commitment to community organizing.

[vickitulsa]

30. You express my beliefs on this topic perfectly.

I think I read this same post or one much like it in another thread a short time ago, like within the last couple of weeks maybe? I'm not certain, because my short term memory is getting really bad -- another disability to add to my others, arghh!!

But if so, or even if not, I hope you re-post this one just like it is or with more elaboration again and again in appropriate DU threads, so more members will see it.

Until we get a better concensus of some sort and ease up on the shouting matches, rancor and discord, I don't think we'll make much progress!

I also support what understandinglife wrote above in this thread. Politics are complex, but perhaps we need to stay with some really important "basics" in order to avoid the divisiveness that is rendering even DU ineffective.

The OP is helpful, IMO. My primary concern is that we here at DU simply must find a way to get along and support each other and the right candidates, or we'll lose and lose again. Bad for us, bad for every American, bad for the world!

[w4rma]

17. To a point.

struggle4progress's post right above mine is more accurate.

[Donna Zen]

19. Definitions are a bitch

The middle will always move according to the tug-o-war of the two sides. When the left moves to the right, the middle moves with it.

At DU there are posters who love to identify past presidential losses with the left. What is conveniently--and I'm beginning to think deliberately--forgotten is the environment of those losses. We lost the south after the civil rights legislation. Lyndon Johnson predicted that we would and we did. I would never want a revised history that excludes that legislation no matter how many damn elections we loose. And of course there is the matter of the beltway bandits who run those Democratic races. The issues were fine, the people running the show were jerks who became rich jerks. The candidates were never radical leftist, or leftists at all.

Roe v Wade ignited the Christian crazies. And yes, that ruling has lost us elections...how many of us want to turn back? Huh?

I have no problem with Democrats wanting to stress winning issues. I have a problem with Democrats who believe the road to the middle lies in "stealing republican issues" and tweaking them to be palatable to whomever. That is not pragmatism or compromise, that is the third-way. Let's say that a third-way Democratic runs on just-a-little bit of privatization of Social Security. That is NOT a Democratic position, that is a sell-out. And it is those sorts of contortions that screw over the American people. The bankruptcy bill was a sell-out, just as the anti-middle class trade bills are sell-outs.

The second problem that I have is Democrats who see fit to bolster bush's ridiculous behaviors. This morning Senator Feinstein was on with Wolf Blitzer. She said that bush was doing a good job with the Middle East crisis. Bull. Wes Clark has been on for two straight days and made it very clear that what we are seeing is a failure of bush's foreign policy. Today he said that bush has dropped the ball on Syria, Iran, and N. Korea. That is why we see countless threads about spineless yadda yadda.

The arguments here are generally unfocused because no one defines much of anything. What does "liberal" mean? Who or what are leftist's positions? Millions of Americans want "out now" including the asap people. We're sick of it. Where is the center? Psst...keep trying and you'll never find it. Progressive? Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and an imperialist. Go figure.

WT2, one late night on the web I read a great article written by someone who was fairly high-profile and had interviewed many presidents in and out of office. Oh how I wish I had saved it. In the article, he said exactly what you wrote in the OP. It matters what is said in campaigns because once elected those issues become the governing philosophy. He said that this is more of a modern phenomena because of the carefully crafted photo ops and image makers. Eventually, the person becomes trapped in that persona and can't break out. He had interviewed Nixon many times, and found the Nixon he had originally known was gone by the end.

[welshTerrier2]

21. "trapped in that persona"

from a reply i made on TC's thread:

i'm sorry to say that a very different message is being sent today ... some have argued that many of us are perhaps ill-informed about some of our reps; that's certainly a valid point ... but nevertheless, the bigger picture does not convey a party standing up for civil rights the way the Kennedy's and LBJ did in the deep south ("that would cost us the south for a generation or more") ... they knew an electoral price would be paid but they did it anyway ...

i see you made virtually the identical point here ... i am humbled by this, DZ ...

your other point, that we throw around terms like progressive and left without much, if any, definition is also a killer ... i often write that the "political spectrum" is a myth ... is it left, right or center to argue for clean elections? how about concerns about a government that caters to special interests? many here would like to argue this is a conservative ideology ... frankly, it's just an abuse of democracy ... there's nothing conservative about it ... and are those who see a foreign policy that sacrifices American lives for corporate gain lefties? couldn't we just be Americans who think it's wrong to abuse our military in this way?

what i see is not only a failure to define our own terms but a party that has not adequately established a clear identity ... see my post on this here => http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2716633#2716692 and also the recent Teixeira article here => http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11435

in an above post, i saw a reference to a recent statement by Wes Clark that "There's no doubt what our Party stands for" ... i wish i could agree ... i think we've taken that fundamental belief a little too much for granted ... i think we need to be very, very careful not to make assumptions ... for example, we assume we're the "jobs party" ... we want people to have access to better jobs and more jobs ... does anyone believe the American people have a clue whether we actually have ideas on how to achieve this goal? and we want "fiscal responsibility" ... Clinton left with a huge surplus; bush created a fiscal mess ... well, OK ... but what now? does anyone believe the Democrats will be willing to make the tough calls to restore fiscal sanity? does anyone know how they will go about it?

i really worry that the current "vagueness sells" strategy will at best let us scrape by in November; at worst it will add to the tens of millions who have grown so cynical with all the political lies that they no longer vote at all ... and i fear that most of these non-voters were formerly Democrats ...

great post, DZ!!

[Czolgosz]

22. I was going to post a link to "The Politics of Definition" - A MUST READ!

-- but you beat me to it.

[welshTerrier2]

23. good job, Czolgosz!!

i'm officially granting you the full credit for a good idea!! you done good!!

i hope all DU'ers get a chance to read the article ... it's critically important ...

[Donna Zen]

26. Cynics are made not born

WT2...I swear to you as someone who has worked for the party for years, whose mother was an elected Dem. for 30 years, and whose great-uncle was one of Roosevelt's boys, and I am feed-up. That reminds me, I have a Dem. supper meeting this week.

In The 2% Solution Mark Miller identifies much of the problem. He said that the "new" Democrats understood how to save money, but they had no vision (or balls) as how to spend money. The surplus that was accumulated could have been invested in the needs of the people, but instead it was left to bush who quickly gave it to buy off his cronies. Miller gave several examples of this including the "Chips" program, a nibble at the problem of uninsured children. Once Clinton saw that this was a workable program, he just left it; Miller faults him for not fully expanding it. Instead the program is always up for grabs. It should be remembered that Clinton didn't top 50% in either election. That cannot build the party, something that should have been done over those years. Programs.

Buying into republican bullshit definitions about "who we are" doesn't make the job any easier. Somehow because I pay attention, the pooh-bahs of the DLC think I must be a radical. Oh great. The consultant infested Dems. couldn't stand up for Moveon, or Kos, and now they want to sell-out the entire internet. Meanwhile, I've never heard a republican going after Rush or Robertson or Coulter. And for those who advised me to get more religion...oh please...take your insults and shove them. I may not have taken up wearing a huge cross around my neck like Hillary Clinton, but I'm perfectly capable of taking care of my religious needs.

It is the vision that creates the narrative, and the programs that realize the vision. I enjoy reading Ruy Teixeira, but writing about it is not enough. He's correct, people want to know where people stand. Actually, at the local level when Democrats are actually known within the community, we do very well--even in the South.

If we are an umbrella, we leak. In election after election, voting rights of African Americans are being denied. What has been done about that? With a few wonderful and notable exceptions, nada, because those who get the mics every Sunday probably don't think it polls well. And yet, isn't that standing for something?

As for the discussions at DU. I join in very few of those. The people are fine, but I think it would improve things around here if people would just drop the labels and out-right name calling. I can talk with people about Iraq or health care or education...whatever, but the labels end all discussion. Kinda like calling countries "Axis of Evil" and then wondering why they buy weapons. I have a belief that most people are smorgasbord voters: for me, a little conservative about money, very liberal about health care, adament about honesty, and a surprise or two.

I'm railing now, so I'll stop. As for General Clark's "assumption"...well, I think he's 1) trying to rally the base and 2) very, very worried about what is happening in our one-party state. Oh, and his son, Wes, said that the Dem. consultants are killing the party. IIRC, Teixeira is now advising Hillary. I could be wrong, but I think that I read that somewhere. I wonder if all of these blooming organizations are wilting into the same old limp posers. I think I'm fast approaching the cynics abyss.

Thank you for the links with your usual complete and excellent answer.

[kentuck]

24. Welshterrier is correct...

Politics is about ideas. It is not about left, right, or center. Some ideas are considered left and some are considered right. I suppose the center ideas take the best ideas and split the difference? But that is not an idea that belongs to the center. They are only stealing an idea of the left or the right and diluting it to make it more palatable for personal political reasons, it seems to me. To compromise with ideas of the right does not serve a positive purpose for Democrats. This has done great damage to the Democratic Party, in my opinion.

[unkachuck]

25. things will not be any worse....

....than what they are right now under complete repug rule....they are now cutting into their own support; more extreme policies will split that support....and I'm still here breathing....

....I want to feel proud to be a Democrat when I vote, not scared....

....I'm prepared to go to the polls on election day (with my friends) and vote for every Democrat on the ballot, IF, we're going to directly benefit; surely those to the right in the Party and of the center, should understand profit....no progressive policies/positions, yields no progressive programs, yields no benefit for us, yields no votes for you....

....think of it as reciprocal denial....you deny us our progressive policies/positions/programs and we deny you the majority....seems fair to me....

[Q]

31. It's the Dem's turn...

...to see what it's like to spend decades in the minority.

Starting with the attempted coup against Clinton and the successful one against Gore...the party fell into a confused state with factions like the DLC grappling for control of the party.

The end result is a party without any real leadership.

The party needs to find a common ground again...perhaps even going back to its roots and once again becoming the 'party of the people'. The rich and their industries are well represented...as the 'commoners' find themselves without a party.

There hasn't been a 'middle' in our country since Clinton...so there is no sense in looking for it.

What 'divides us' is a leadership on both sides that is willing to put themselves and their interests above that of the people.

The Dems may find themselves in the desert for a very long time before a leader steps forward with the courage to tell and live the truth.

Q.

[LincolnMcGrath]

33. Nice to see you again Q

:hi:

[welshTerrier2]

35. Q!

dammit, i lost my bet ...

i had bin Laden plus two months in the poll but you showed up first ... i thought you had wandered off onto the ice flows ...

welcome back!!! drop in on us once in a while ...

it would be a great thing to look at rebuilding the party from the ground up ... it's always good to take a fresh look ... change could energize everyone ... it would be great to send out the troops to talk to the tens of millions who are so disgusted they just don't vote anymore ... we need to really listen to them and start meeting their needs ... as cynicism grows, Democrats lose ...

[SlipperySlope]

32. I'll K&R that

Don't agree 100.00 percent, but at least we are looking at the problem.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LincolnMcGrath]

38. Kick for the flag burning comment above

[Pushed To The Left]

40. The right wing has been doing it for years

They have taken ridiculous right wing positions and managed to sell them to the public as mainstream. I think our views on equality, justice, opportunity, and fairness are actually more mainstream than the hardcore right wing views of the other side. Liberals need to be proud to be liberals! John F. Kennedy, one of the most beloved Presidents of all time, made a speech on why he was proud to be a liberal. Now politicians run away from the "label" because they are afraid it will hurt them. Too many liberals and moderates have bought into the right wing talking points that are spewed constantly on the radio. I think the first step to redefining the middle is for us to be unapologetic about what we believe! I'm proud to be a liberal Democrat!

[AtomicKitten]

41. Too little definition of the differences

will cause inertia in voters. Democrats need to define their message as a progressive agenda, not Republican Lite; not much point changing the thrust of one's vote if the difference is minutia.