[klmadfejno]

Voting against one's self interest doesn't mean you're voting for the good of the world. The often intended meaning of that statement is that you, as a lower class individual, are unwittingly empowering the upper class and exacerbating societal problems, and often implied that you don't realize you're doing this.

[LanceH]

"unwittingly"

On a scale of one to ten, how condescending do you think this is?

At some point the left needs to start treating people as people instead of pawns to be shuffled around. Combine this with the "with us or against us" mentality, and they generate their own opposition.

[klmadfejno]

About as condescending as someone deserves if they're pro Affordable Care Act, but anti-Obamacare. The average voter, on both sides, doesn't understand issues at a basic level, let alone hold a rational perspective of the nuances of their outcomes. Most issues, unlike the obamacare/aca juxtaposition, have a way to justify taking either side of the issue from a conservative or liberal framework. That doesn't mean constituents on either side are thinking about it that way.

Saying someone is voting against their own stated interests isn't likely to be persuasive to them, but it doesn't make it factually false. Most people don't really know what their political interests are anyway and just react to strawmen.

[aidenn0]

The words themselves imply that the only rational thing to do is to vote selfishly, which is trivial to reject.

[klmadfejno]

I mean, sure but that's because there's additional context.

The point is implying people vote for a policy to accomplish A, but instead are voting for !A.

[aidenn0]

If that's the implication, then I think the implication is wrong. It's not like they don't know they are voting to cut entitlements and lower taxes on the wealthy.