Sellouts to the Left. Sellouts to the Right.

[thegreenteagamer]

First Carson and Rubio sell out and back Trump, now Bernie has gotten behind the Clinton machine.

I think a lot of us are tired of the options before us.

Just gonna leave this right here....
Meanwhile, Johnson isn't bowing down.

All he needs is 15% to make the general debates, and I think America is ready for a third party option.

The last time a third party (at the time) candidate won was Abraham Lincoln, the consistently-rated-best-by-historians president in American History. You don't always have to choose between two piles of crap.

I wonder how long until the inevitable flame war locks this up. Worth it.

[Kazuka]

I say we should all write-in Satan. Lesser evils just are not doing the job anymore.

[TOZ]

You think Satan isn't a lesser evil?

[thegreenteagamer]

Here's a much more serious link, and considerably longer.

[Conservative Anklebiter]

*Shrugs*

[Sundakan]

"Sellout" is a bit strong. I would be firmly on the Bernie train if he were still a viable option, but "the people" have spoken on that count. At this point, Hillary is the lesser of two evils (or at the least, the devil we know) if only by a hair.

Him endorsing her and basically saying "don't cling to my sinking ship" is about the only move left at this point. When the game is rigged from the start, you may as well throw in with someone who will at least maintain the status quo versus a wildcard who shows little sign of being able to make a meaningful impact on anything once he has office.

[KingOfAnything]

Sanders got a lot of what he wanted from the Democratic Platform. He's not so much a sellout as he is demonstrating how democracy is supposed to work - building a majority through reasoned compromise.

Sanders' alternative, the obstinate hold-out approach, would be much less effective at achieving his policy goals.

[captain yesterday]

Yeah, I don't see how Bernie is selling out.

[thegreenteagamer]

The thing is it doesn't have to be "two evils" - the only reason third parties are marginalized in this country is people continue to ignore them.

[thegreenteagamer]

captain yesterday wrote:

Yeah, I don't see how Bernie is selling out.

You spend months bashing someone else and immediately jump on their bandwagon the minute you lose? Exactly as much of a sellout as Rubio with Trump.

[captain yesterday]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

The thing is it doesn't have to be "two evils" - the only reason third parties are marginalized in this country is people continue to ignore them.

People will ignore them until they get someone that's interesting.

[Kazuka]

TOZ wrote:

You think Satan isn't a lesser evil?

He's more of an average evil.

Now, if you wanted a greater evil, there's always Cthulhu or Putin.

[Nohwear]

Phil, Prince of Insufficient Light 2016.

[captain yesterday]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

captain yesterday wrote:

Yeah, I don't see how Bernie is selling out.

You spend months bashing someone else and immediately jump on their bandwagon the minute you lose? Exactly as much of a sellout as Rubio with Trump.

He lost a long time ago, he only just endorsed her.

[thegreenteagamer]

Timing is irrelevant. He spent months talking about how she was wrong for America. Months. Now all of a sudden that's not true?

[Lemmy]

Couldn't everyone vote "blank" and demand new elections with new candidates? It's like the two big political parties decided to choose their worst candidates just for the hell of it. oO

[Kazuka]

Lemmy wrote:

Couldn't everyone vote "blank" and demand new elections with new candidates? It's like the two big political parties decided to choose their worst candidates just for the hell of it. oO

No. The general public doesn't actually elect the President.

The purpose of the vote is to tell the Electoral College how we want them to vote.

Basically, all those people who believe the individual citizen's vote doesn't matter? They're right. It's the Electoral votes that matter. That's how a President can lose the popular election but still win the Presidency; they just have to win enough Electoral votes.

[captain yesterday]

Who would you endorse in his situation.

Is he supposed to take his ball and go home, or, he can say "good game! Now let's go crush this other a&+%&~@!"

[KingOfAnything]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

captain yesterday wrote:

Yeah, I don't see how Bernie is selling out.

You spend months bashing someone else and immediately jump on their bandwagon the minute you lose? Exactly as much of a sellout as Rubio with Trump.

Sanders didn't betray or abandon his cause. He accepted defeat, fought to change the Democratic platform, and reached a mutually agreeable compromise.

Rhetoric like yours is what concerns me about American politics.

[Nohwear]

captain yesterday wrote:

Who would you endorse in his situation.

Is he supposed to take his ball and go home, or, he can say "good game! Now let's go crush this other a#$$~*%!"

This and this again!

[Albatoonoe]

We have to pick between two evils because the system is broken. And not voting won't fix it. Bernie is smart enough to realize that there is one clearly worse option for us. Hillary may be wrong, but Orange Julius Caesar is so much worse.'

But nooooo, abstain or vote third party. It's not like Hillary voted with Bernie 93% of the time or anything.

Apathy will kill this country and hand it to bigots. Vote wisely, people. We must make things work the best we can.

[Fireman Gob Montag]

This is going to be an interesting thread.

[Nohwear]

I am sorry if this sounds patronizing, or some such, but I say that those who disagree with OP back away for a bit and let those who feel betrayed to vent.

[Lemmy]

Kazuka wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Couldn't everyone vote "blank" and demand new elections with new candidates? It's like the two big political parties decided to choose their worst candidates just for the hell of it. oO

No. The general public doesn't actually elect the President.

The purpose of the vote is to tell the Electoral College how we want them to vote.

Basically, all those people who believe the individual citizen's vote doesn't matter? They're right. It's the Electoral votes that matter. That's how a President can lose the popular election but still win the Presidency; they just have to win enough Electoral votes.

Ah, yes... I keep forgetting the US and France still use electoral colleges...

Isn't it ironic how the two nations most associated with Freedom and Democracy and the only two democracies in the world to use such an obsolete election model?

[Nohwear]

Lemmy wrote:

Kazuka wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Couldn't everyone vote "blank" and demand new elections with new candidates? It's like the two big political parties decided to choose their worst candidates just for the hell of it. oO

No. The general public doesn't actually elect the President.

The purpose of the vote is to tell the Electoral College how we want them to vote.

Basically, all those people who believe the individual citizen's vote doesn't matter? They're right. It's the Electoral votes that matter. That's how a President can lose the popular election but still win the Presidency; they just have to win enough Electoral votes.

Ah, yes... I keep forgetting the US and France still sue electoral candidates...

Isn't it ironic how the two nations most associated with Freedom and Democracy and the only two democracies in the world to use such an obsolete election model?

I do not understand your use of sue in this context, please clarify.

[Lemmy]

Nohwear wrote:

I do not understand your use of sue in this context, please clarify.

It was the word "use" + a typo. XD

I edited my post to make it clearer (Also, I meant "electoral colleges" instead of "electoral candidates"). ^^

[PathlessBeth]

Lemmy wrote:

Kazuka wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

Couldn't everyone vote "blank" and demand new elections with new candidates? It's like the two big political parties decided to choose their worst candidates just for the hell of it. oO

No. The general public doesn't actually elect the President.

The purpose of the vote is to tell the Electoral College how we want them to vote.

Basically, all those people who believe the individual citizen's vote doesn't matter? They're right. It's the Electoral votes that matter. That's how a President can lose the popular election but still win the Presidency; they just have to win enough Electoral votes.

Ah, yes... I keep forgetting the US and France still use electoral colleges...

Isn't it ironic how the two nations most associated with Freedom and Democracy and the only two democracies in the world to use such an obsolete election model?

Britain does essentially the same thing for Prime Minister. The main differences are

1. Their electoral college is also their legislature, and
2. They don't have gerrymandering.

[thejeff]

Albatoonoe wrote:

We have to pick between two evils because the system is broken. And not voting won't fix it. Bernie is smart enough to realize that there is one clearly worse option for us. Hillary may be wrong, but Orange Julius Caesar is so much worse.'

But nooooo, abstain or vote third party. It's not like Hillary voted with Bernie 93% of the time or anything.

Apathy will kill this country and hand it to bigots. Vote wisely, people. We must make things work the best we can.

Either Apathy or Purity. Though Apathy's far more common.

"I won't support any candidate who does anything I don't like" is a pretty lousy game too.

We have the choices we have through democracy. For all the "system is broken" stuff, we had primary contests and these are the candidates who won. There's a bunch of stuff that makes it complicated, but they're really not a bad reflection of what the primary voters wanted - Bernie lost some states he might have won if the primaries had been open to independents, but he also won some states he might have lost if they'd been primaries instead of caucuses. Trump might have lost against a smaller more condensed field, but he definitely won a plurality and was still beating the last two contenders handily.

[CBDunkerson]

I consider Hillary Clinton the least objectionable Republican candidate for president in my lifetime. She is also very likely to win... and the only other candidate with a plausible shot would be a complete disaster.

Thus, Sanders supporting Clinton may be 'selling out', but... not 'selling out' when you have already lost is just dumb. Sanders traded the good will he had with many voters to push Clinton to accept some of his positions. That's a GOOD sell.

[PathlessBeth]

Sanders got what he wanted out of the campaign. At the end of the day, there isn't all that much of a policy gulf between Sanders and Clinton. There was a policy gulf between them back in the '90s, but one of the effects of this campaign process has been to push Clinton closer to Sanders. Clinton won in part by turning into Bernie Sanders. Sanders isn't selling out: he spent the entire campaign trying to change the Democratic Party platform. Not supporting the party and nominee who he helped shape would be a betrayal of his principles.

At the same time, Sanders recognizes that he lost the election. Even though he made progress on the issues, more people voted for Clinton. In a democracy, you have to accept that sometimes you will be in the minority. The American people picked two candidates, neither of whom are Bernie Sanders. Sanders is going with the candidate who is reasonably close to his views, and opposing the candidate who disagrees with him on everything.

[thejeff]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

The thing is it doesn't have to be "two evils" - the only reason third parties are marginalized in this country is people continue to ignore them.

Third parties are marginalized in this country because we use a first past the post electoral system, not a proportional one.

Lincoln wasn't really a third party candidate in the modern sense. The Whig party had collapsed and didn't run a candidate in 1860, nor had it in 1856. The Republican Party in 1860 was the leading contender to replace it, having won control of the House and a number Senate seats in the previous cycles. The Republican candidate for President had lost in '56, but had come in far ahead of the 3rd place Know Nothings.

After Lincoln's election, Republicans quickly became the second major party and remained so ever since.

It's precedent for a party to collapse and be replaced, but not for any kind of stable 3 or more party system to exist. It's possible we're in the middle of a shift like that, though Republican domination of Congress and State governments definitely argues against it.

The idea that 3rd parties would be effective if people just didn't ignore is just wrong though. There aren't majorities for Libertarians or for Greens or any of the other groups. And in our system, if don't win a majority in whatever district you're concerned with, you've got nothing. Johnson's currently polling higher than we've ever seen a Libertarian AFAIK, but it's around 20%. What states does he win? What's his path to 270 electoral votes? Does the party have people running in Congressional elections? Are they winning any? 20% gets you nothing.

If we had a proportional, parliamentary system, they'd wind up with as bunch of seats and would likely be needed to partner with another party to form a government. In our system, nothing. A wasted vote.

[zauriel56]

Gary Johnson has looked like an ever brighter spot to vote to me, just saying, GO LIBERTARIANS!

[Pillbug Toenibbler]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I wonder how long until the inevitable flame war locks this up. Worth it.

No, it isn't worth it. I can understand people are frustrated and angry, but dumping toxins here does nothing good for the health of this remarkably sane gaming community.

thegreenteagamer wrote:

The thing is it doesn't have to be "two evils" - the only reason third parties are marginalized in this country is people continue to ignore them.

The way the system is set up, yes, only two parties have a realistic shot at getting one of their candidates (and political platforms) elected. By design, we don't have a coalition government, which has its own strengths and weaknesses.

[Pillbug Toenibbler]

Kazuka wrote:

TOZ wrote:

You think Satan isn't a lesser evil?

He's more of an average evil.

Now, if you wanted a greater evil, there's always Cthulhu or Putin.

At this point, Cthulhu is looking pretty banal. Putin is ambitious, ego-driven, and--unlike the King in Orange--seemingly competent.

[thegreenteagamer]

Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

The way the system is set up, yes, only two parties have a realistic shot at getting one of their candidates (and political platforms) elected. By design, we don't have a coalition government, which has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Abraham Lincoln was third party at the time. The Republicans ousted the Whigs, why not Libertarian take out Republicans?

[Rednal]

Kazuka wrote:

He's more of an average evil.

Now, if you wanted a greater evil, there's always Cthulhu or Putin.

For what it's worth, I actually voted Cthulhu in my local primary. He seemed like the better option. XD;

[thejeff]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

The way the system is set up, yes, only two parties have a realistic shot at getting one of their candidates (and political platforms) elected. By design, we don't have a coalition government, which has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Abraham Lincoln was third party at the time. The Republicans ousted the Whigs, why not Libertarian take out Republicans?

As I said above, the Whigs were basically already dead. The Republicans controlled the House and held seats in the Senate, the Whigs didn't run anyone for President in that cycle or the previous one.

There's a chance we're approaching a similar situation, but the Republicans aren't yet in nearly bad enough shape and the Libertarians aren't in a position to capitalize on it if they were.

If a third party wants to look viable, forget the Presidency, win some state elections - a few governors, control some state houses, get some Congressional Reps in office, then we'll talk.

[bugleyman]

The reality -- unpleasant though it may be -- is that a vote for Gary Johnson is wasted. I can only hope that Johnson peels off more potential Trump voters than Clinton voters.

As far as I can tell, Trump is the Joker: He just wants to watch the world burn.

[bugleyman]

Republicans need to oust the "no compromises" fringe if they want to remain relevant.

[thejeff]

bugleyman wrote:

Republicans need to oust the "no compromises" fringe if they want to remain relevant.

But they can't. That "fringe" is the Republican base. Their most reliable dedicated primary voters. Any candidate that bucks them loses.

Everytime that happens more moderates drift away from the party, leaving the fringe more and more in control of the next set of primaries. It's a vicious cycle and I don't see how they break it.

That base also votes more reliably in midterms as well as primaries, so it always looks like a recovery 2 years after the loss. Makes it easier to keep moving.

[captain yesterday]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.