| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, new avatars!!!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, they expect things to tighten up as the election gets closer.That's conventional wisdom.
Of course, there's not much conventional about this cycle.
Or wisdom
Exactly this. The 3rd party may not replace one of the big two, but it may alter thinking within one of the big 2. Either way, mission accomplished, and no vote wasted.If 3rd parties start pulling significant numbers of protest votes then people with similar ideologies within the major parties know they have backing to be more vocal about ideas less mainstream within the major party. This can cause drift within the larger party towards your preferred ideologies.It's not naive, it's fighting condescension. If enough people vote for a 3rd party to knock one of the other two out, it's progress, or evolution of a sort. Don't tell me my vote is wasted anymore than gaming is a waste of my time. Right in the neck.Yeah, and if I could pick the winning lottery numbers in advance, I'd be rich. Neither one is going to happen.
A third party candidate will not win without systemic changes (or, as the jeff noted, one of the existing parties collapsing...in which case the party isn't really a "third" party). If voting for someone who cannot win isn't a waste, I'm not sure what is.
In the U.S., there is actually a much more effective way of altering one of the two parties' ideologies: vote in the primaries. In the U.S., there is actually a much more effective way of altering one of the two parties' ideologies: vote in the primaries. Even one hundred years ago, the two major parties didn't have anything close to the policy platforms they have now. Parties do not have ideologies beyond those of their nominees, which in turn depend on their voters. The only thing even remotely "fixed" about the two big parties are their names. There is no ideological test required to vote in a primary. In some states, you do have to register as a "member" of the party, but there are no requirements for doing so (beyond the normal voter regestration requirements). You can be a registered Republican and vote for the Democrat in every general election, and you'd still be eligible to vote in Republican primaries. You can even switch your voting registration based on which party has a more competitive primary that cycle (many Democrats registered to vote in the Republican primary during the 2012 cycle, since the Democratic primary was largely uncontested. The same thing happened in reverse in the 2004 primaries).
Point being, if you don't like either major party's platform, you can vote in the primaries for a candidate who is closer to you. If all the people who call themselves libertarian had voted for Rand Paul in the Republican primary, we may well have ended up with a Paul vs Clinton match, and we'd all be arguing over Paul's plagiarism scandal instead of Trump University. If more people who say they hate Clinton had showed up to vote for Sanders, we would have Sanders as our Democratic nominee.
Our current president says "don't boo, vote!" That advice applies equally as much to primaries as to general elections. Especially if you feel you dislike both major parties.
This makes a bunch of false assumptions.
First, it assumes that the person isn't also voting in the primaries.
Second, that there are actually candidates in the primaries. At most levels, that isn't really the case, especially if your preferred party has an incumbent. A large Green party vote in a district may convince a primary challenger to challenge a more conservative democrat on the left in the next election though. Something the potential challenger wouldn't see without protest votes.
Third, it assumes that the people are registered to one of the 2 major parties,and that you can freely switch between them. The numbers of registered members of a party is used politically. Not to mention which party you are registered to can have significant effects on your job prospects. There is a reason tons of civil servants in NY are registered as republicans despite holding strong democratic values. Not to mention in some states you need to declare your party affiliation before all the candidates are in the ring. In NY, you had to declare party affiliation in October for the vote in March.
Fourth, it assumes that the only primary that matters is the presidential one, when down-ticket races are probably more important.
In NY at least, there are usually candidates from 6 or so parties on every race. Its just a matter of if it is a different candidate from the main party, since your name can appear on the ballot under multiple party lines.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A large Green party vote in a district may convince a primary challenger to challenge a more conservative democrat on the left in the next election though. Something the potential challenger wouldn't see without protest votes.
In the U.S., there is actually a much more effective way of altering one of the two parties' ideologies: vote in the primaries.
But it's even more effective if the Green party candidate were to actually challenge the conservative Democrat during the primaries, or in other words, were to run as a Democrat and try to effect change starting with the primary election campaign.
This isn't just hypothetical. This is how the Religious Right took over the Republican party in the 1980s. This is also how the Tea Party took over the Republican Party in the 2000s. No third party has managed to shift the needle significantly since the Whigs were one of the major parties, but there have been lots of revolutions-from-within.
A large Green party vote in a district may convince a primary challenger to challenge a more conservative democrat on the left in the next election though. Something the potential challenger wouldn't see without protest votes.
In the U.S., there is actually a much more effective way of altering one of the two parties' ideologies: vote in the primaries.But it's even more effective if the Green party candidate were to actually challenge the conservative Democrat during the primaries, or in other words, were to run as a Democrat and try to effect change starting with the primary election campaign.
This isn't just hypothetical. This is how the Religious Right took over the Republican party in the 1980s. This is also how the Tea Party took over the Republican Party in the 2000s. No third party has managed to shift the needle significantly since the Whigs were one of the major parties, but there have been lots of revolutions-from-within.
And in both of those cases you had organized groups actively working to make the change. You can't spontaneously generate those. Without organized backing you stand little to no chance of mounting any kind of successful challenge to an incumbent, and even with that backing the odds are never in your favor.
And in both of those cases you had organized groups actively working to make the change. You can't spontaneously generate those. Without organized backing you stand little to no chance of mounting any kind of successful challenge to an incumbent, and even with that backing the odds are never in your favor.A large Green party vote in a district may convince a primary challenger to challenge a more conservative democrat on the left in the next election though. Something the potential challenger wouldn't see without protest votes.
In the U.S., there is actually a much more effective way of altering one of the two parties' ideologies: vote in the primaries.But it's even more effective if the Green party candidate were to actually challenge the conservative Democrat during the primaries, or in other words, were to run as a Democrat and try to effect change starting with the primary election campaign.
This isn't just hypothetical. This is how the Religious Right took over the Republican party in the 1980s. This is also how the Tea Party took over the Republican Party in the 2000s. No third party has managed to shift the needle significantly since the Whigs were one of the major parties, but there have been lots of revolutions-from-within.
Without organized backing, you have an even lower chance of mounting any kind of successful challenge to an incumbent running as a third party.
Have you ever noticed that very few high jumpers have cleared more than 8 feet? That's obviously a very difficult task. And the few who have done it have done it without wearing a suit of armor. And no one has ever cleared 9 feet, or even 8' 1".
Obviously, if you want to high jump 9', you need to think out of the box; your secret should be that you make your world record attempt while wearing plate armor.
Basically, you're saying "it's unlikely that I will succeed doing something that has been shown to work within living memory, so instead I will try to do something that has never been successful within the past two hundred years." I'm very glad for your sake that you're not choosing the soft option..... <roll eyes>
Without organized backing, you have an even lower chance of mounting any kind of successful challenge to an incumbent running as a third party.
Have you ever noticed that very few high jumpers have cleared more than 8 feet? That's obviously a very difficult task. And the few who have done it have done it without wearing a suit of armor. And no one has ever cleared 9 feet, or even 8' 1".
Obviously, if you want to high jump 9', you need to think out of the box; your secret should be that you make your world record attempt while wearing plate armor.
Basically, you're saying "it's unlikely that I will succeed doing something that has been shown to work within living memory, so instead I will try to do something that has never been successful within the past two hundred years." I'm very glad for your sake that you're not choosing the soft option..... <roll eyes>
You mean like the Socialist Party, whose policies were taken over by the New Deal Democrats when they started to gain traction? I'm not saying that the 3rd party will be effective in getting elected. I'm saying that increasing their support will cause their policies to get subsumed by the larger parties. That's why it's a protest vote.
And in both of those cases you had organized groups actively working to make the change. You can't spontaneously generate those. Without organized backing you stand little to no chance of mounting any kind of successful challenge to an incumbent, and even with that backing the odds are never in your favor.Without organized backing, you have an even lower chance of mounting any kind of successful challenge to an incumbent running as a third party.
I can think of few Republican or Tea-Party platform goals that I can stomach, but I have to give them credit: they understand how to organize and build support at the very local level--mayors, county commissioners, school board folk, election supervisors, and other administrators--and then grow upwards. That was how Ralph Reed and his !ssholes successfully infected the party and pushed their agenda, and that's how the Tea-Partiers did it too.
I still don't understand how the DNC thinks they can build a future foundation for getting non-Republican Lite folk elected and making progressive goals happen without a long-term 50-State Strategery and lots of hard work. Too often, I think the DNC is copying from the Miami Dolphins playbook.
Edit: "Strategery"?! Damn it, Dubya! You've Pontypooled me! {shakes fist}
Pillbug, you don't think Sanders was the candidate of choice of the Occupy Wall Street crowd, or that Clinton moved to the left to attract his voters? She certainly didn't start her campaign supporting a $15/hour minimum wage.
Pillbug, you don't think Sanders was the candidate of choice of the Occupy Wall Street crowd, or that Clinton moved to the left to attract his voters? She certainly didn't start her campaign supporting a $15/hour minimum wage.
Yeah those are two successes out of how many? That's just part of what needs to be the plan. There are so many good progressive ideas and smart people that get them off the ground... and then? The Dem party doesn't organize into the cohesive (or more cohesive) party it needs to be to carry more of their goals down the field and over the goal line. To make profound beneficial changes in the American society and economy is going to take decades of constant dogged hard work, including a more unified control of their message and a national narrative. They are too much like a megaclowder of cats.
The Repubs have infighting, but they regularly pull together and work like fire ants or termites. And they're (too) damn effective.
And I think Clinton's starting position wasn't pro-$12/anti-$15 from the start, but "A $15/hour minimum might have some noticeable negative effects on small business in rural/more-affordable areas of America than it does in metropolitan/more-expensive areas."
The Repubs have infighting, but they regularly pull together and work like fire ants or termites. And they're (too) damn effective.
Oddly enough, I've seen that exact charge levelled at the Democratic party. :P
The Repubs have infighting, but they regularly pull together and work like fire ants or termites. And they're (too) damn effective.Oddly enough, I've seen that exact charge leveled at the Democratic party. :P
Really? The current & recent-past Dems? Huh.
The Repubs have infighting, but they regularly pull together and work like fire ants or termites. And they're (too) damn effective.Oddly enough, I've seen that exact charge levelled at the Democratic party. :P
All of the post 2008 recovery wealth increase has gone to the .1%
Unless they're successful at being stealth republicans, i don't see how successful they could be.
|
It seems to me that our "winner-take-all" voting scheme guarantees a two-party system. If there are three or more relatively large parties in a given region, one party is likely to merge with another in order to form a larger party with a better chance of winning. If I remember correctly, the current Republican party resulted from the merger of four parties.
How else can a candidate win when 65% percent of the electorate despise him? If there are three candidates who split the vote 32%/33%/35%, the third one wins.
Years ago, I was a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). They instituted a scheme called "approval voting". If there are n candidates, a voter can select as many as n-1 when voting. If a voter chooses two or more candidates, the votes are added, not divided. That is, if Smith, Jones, Nguyen and Lee are running, and I approve of Smith, Lee and Nguyen (but I detest Jones), and I vote for those three, each receives 1 vote from me, not 1/3 of a vote. I have heard that this method produces the victory of the candidate whom most people like best.
I wish we used that system in the USA.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the health of the candidates seems to be the issue of the moment. Aside from the Trump campaign's releases - including an obviously false assessment of Trump's own health - they've now had a spokeswoman (who is not a doctor) diagnose Clinton with dysphasia. Given the campaign's recent Brietbart News hire, this feels like the start of a series of increasingly outlandish lies. (And given the previous assertion of Ted Cruz's father being involved in the JFK assassination, that's not an easy bar to keep raising.)
*Readies the popcorn*
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as the "world being a s@$% show," it's much better than most people give it credit. There are 4 major wars going on, with another 10 medium-grade conflicts. The Western Hemisphere is some of the most peaceful it's ever been, the largest conflict being the Mexican Drug War. Columbia is down to ~300 deaths/year in it's internal conflict and that rounds out the report for North and South America.
Africa certainly has some troubling spots, but the southern quarter of the continent is at peace right now.
Europe is largely conflict free, completely if you exclude Russia and it's aggression.
We live in a world where we get news from every corner and we hear about every incident in a major city in every country. Some do go largely unnoticed still in mainstream media, but it's easy to pick up on if you're paying attention. The sense that the world is crumbling doesn't come from actual analysis of the situation, but rather heightened awareness of what is going on. In the 50's and 60's, our media didn't give 2 s#$#s about what happened in Africa. 50 years before that, it was brushed off as "something those tribals did."
Data routinely shows that the world is more peaceful and is continuing on a trend towards fewer deaths in conflict. There are spikes, but the wars are getting smaller. Yes, Syria is awful and it really, really sucks that they're killing each other, but Syria is a really, really small portion of the world.
Aside from the Trump campaign's releases... they've now had a spokeswoman (who is not a doctor) diagnose Clinton with dysphasia. Given the campaign's recent Brietbart News hire, this feels like the start of a series of increasingly outlandish lies. (And given the previous assertion of Ted Cruz's father being involved in the JFK assassination, that's not an easy bar to keep raising.)
Pierson previously claimed Obama started the war in Afghanistan (he was actually still an Illinois state senator) and also claimed Obama was responsible the death of DNC speaker Khizr Khan's Army son (again, Obama was still a senator). She has a record of misinformation, ignorance, and outright lies.
If anyone is likely suffering from dysphasia, it's Ms. Pierson, and the idiots on CNN that keep giving her bullsh!t air time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from the Trump campaign's releases - including an obviously false assessment of Trump's own health
For those who haven't seen it, I really strongly encourage you to read the assessment in question, and a doctor's analysis of its contents. You can find them both here.
I mean, daaaaaaaaaamn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aside from the Trump campaign's releases - including an obviously false assessment of Trump's own healthFor those who haven't seen it, I really strongly encourage you to read the assessment in question, and a doctor's analysis of its contents. You can find them both here.
I mean, daaaaaaaaaamn.
comparing that to a third grader writing an excuse note is an insult to the hard work and effort many a third grader has put into fake notes.
For the sake of comparison, here is the letter from Clinton's doctor about her health.
|
|
Data routinely shows that the world is more peaceful and is continuing on a trend towards fewer deaths in conflict. There are spikes, but the wars are getting smaller.
Similarly, poverty, hunger, crime, and various other forms of human misery have been in rapid decline globally for many decades now.
The world is a vastly better place than it was a century ago, and it seems plausible that many of these problems will be completely eliminated a century from now.
Data routinely shows that the world is more peaceful and is continuing on a trend towards fewer deaths in conflict. There are spikes, but the wars are getting smaller.Similarly, poverty, hunger, crime, and various other forms of human misery have been in rapid decline globally for many decades now.
The world is a vastly better place than it was a century ago, and it seems plausible that many of these problems will be completely eliminated a century from now.
OTOH, we have far more capacity to do damage than we did even a century ago, much less earlier. That we haven't done is yet is good, but shouldn't leave us complacent.
And the damage we're doing through climate change is serious and long term and already causing problems - droughts are thought to be part of the reason for the collapse in Syria. That's a hard counter to those trends.
I'd guess we'll be a lot better off a century from now. Or a hell of a lot worse. Without a whole lot of chance in between.
Yeah I worry about hitting a point of diminishing returns; as we improve further improvement gets harder.
I do think there is a point where you actually break out of that and then finishing the task is easier but it's a question if we can get to that point and then finish instead of letting up and moving on.
I do think we are at a good place and getting better, but as always there is worries about things that could cause us to stop.
Let's see... oh, in other news, the Clinton Foundation has occasionally come under fire for being suspected of vote-buying and such. It just announced that it will not accept foreign or corporate donations during Clinton's term if she is elected, nor will Bill Clinton be doing paid speeches during that period.
This looks to me an attempt to avoid appearing to have a conflict of interest, although I suspect that won't stop Trump's supporters from talking about previous donations and speeches causing bias.
Let's see... oh, in other news, the Clinton Foundation has occasionally come under fire for being suspected of vote-buying and such. It just announced that it will not accept foreign or corporate donations during Clinton's term if she is elected, nor will Bill Clinton be doing paid speeches during that period.
This looks to me an attempt to avoid appearing to have a conflict of interest, although I suspect that won't stop Clinton's supporters from talking about previous donations and speeches causing bias.
|
Yeah I worry about hitting a point of diminishing returns; as we improve further improvement gets harder.
I do think there is a point where you actually break out of that and then finishing the task is easier but it's a question if we can get to that point and then finish instead of letting up and moving on.
I do think we are at a good place and getting better, but as always there is worries about things that could cause us to stop.
I suspect that the point of diminishing returns is inevitable. These things are like computer security. You can plan to eliminate 99% of risk, but eliminating that last 1% requires you to turn off the computer and smash it with a rock, since, to be useful as more than a $2000 game of solitaire that doesn't require cards, the computer's gotta be connected, and therefore vulnerable. At a certain point, eliminating that last bit of whatever (murder, disease, conflict, pollution, racism, injustice) is going to require such draconian measures as to be worse than the disease it's trying to cure.
'Cut it by 99%' isn't quite as sexy a slogan as '*Eliminate!*', but there's only so much we can do, and if eliminating that last 1% of something means that we've got nothing left to address an entirely different problem *at all,* then there's gotta be some triage done.
Yeah I worry about hitting a point of diminishing returns; as we improve further improvement gets harder.
I do think there is a point where you actually break out of that and then finishing the task is easier but it's a question if we can get to that point and then finish instead of letting up and moving on.
I do think we are at a good place and getting better, but as always there is worries about things that could cause us to stop.
I suspect that the point of diminishing returns is inevitable. These things are like computer security. You can plan to eliminate 99% of risk, but eliminating that last 1% requires you to turn off the computer and smash it with a rock, since, to be useful as more than a $2000 game of solitaire that doesn't require cards, the computer's gotta be connected, and therefore vulnerable. At a certain point, eliminating that last bit of whatever (murder, disease, conflict, pollution, racism, injustice) is going to require such draconian measures as to be worse than the disease it's trying to cure.
'Cut it by 99%' isn't quite as sexy a slogan as '*Eliminate!*', but there's only so much we can do, and if eliminating that last 1% of something means that we've got nothing left to address an entirely different problem *at all,* then there's gotta be some triage done.
Oh believe me I am very aware, I do think with certain problems we face though there is a point where diminishing returns ends, you reach a plateau and then it does get easier to finish the problem.
It's related to the "snowball" effect that Dave Ramsey recommends for getting rid of debt.
Of course that doesn't mean we don't have diminishing returns in the between here and there or that we'll be able to overcome them to get to the point I'm talking about.
And even then... stuff happens.
Sorry. Typo. XD It's been fixed.
|
|
The world is a vastly better place than it was a century ago, and it seems plausible that many of these problems will be completely eliminated a century from now.OTOH, we have far more capacity to do damage than we did even a century ago, much less earlier. That we haven't done is yet is good, but shouldn't leave us complacent.
And the damage we're doing through climate change is serious and long term and already causing problems - droughts are thought to be part of the reason for the collapse in Syria. That's a hard counter to those trends.
I'd guess we'll be a lot better off a century from now. Or a hell of a lot worse. Without a whole lot of chance in between.
That's why I only said it was "plausible" that we would resolve most of the big problems.
Basically, we have finally reached the point where technology is enabling us to do so... but there is still the question of whether we actually WILL.
That's an issue where politics still holds a lot of sway. You mention climate change... wind power, solar power, and electrical storage are all reaching the cost and capability points they need to in order to deal with that problem. With political support we could already have done so and might still be able to before things get much worse... OR politicians could continue to pretend the problem doesn't exist, actively oppose new technologies to continue propping up fossil fuel interests funding their campaigns, and unleash unprecedented disaster on the world.
And that's just one of many issues where everything could go very very wrong.
Paul Manafort - the campaign chairman who was recently tied to what looked like under-the-table payments and pro-Russia activities in Ukraine - has officially resigned from Trump's campaign.
Paul Manafort - the campaign chairman who was recently tied to what looked like under-the-table payments and pro-Russia activities in Ukraine - has officially resigned from Trump's campaign.
Hmmm...didn't see that coming after he survived the shake-up earlier this week. I wonder if the campaign anticipated Manafort's Ukraine troubles worsening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paul Manafort - the campaign chairman who was recently tied to what looked like under-the-table payments and pro-Russia activities in Ukraine - has officially resigned from Trump's campaign.Hmmm...didn't see that coming after he survived the shake-up earlier this week. I wonder if the campaign anticipated Manafort's Ukraine troubles worsening.
Probably too nuanced.
I think Bannon came in, actually took over some of his duties, and Manafort resigned in a huff.
Paul Manafort - the campaign chairman who was recently tied to what looked like under-the-table payments and pro-Russia activities in Ukraine - has officially resigned from Trump's campaign.Obviously coming and obviously this is what the Bannon & Conway hires were setting up for, no matter how much the campaign denied it.
Perhaps, but then why not do it all at once? Surely they'd want to get changes in campaign staff out of the news as quickly as possible, rather than stretching them out over days?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paul Manafort - the campaign chairman who was recently tied to what looked like under-the-table payments and pro-Russia activities in Ukraine - has officially resigned from Trump's campaign.Hmmm...didn't see that coming after he survived the shake-up earlier this week. I wonder if the campaign anticipated Manafort's Ukraine troubles worsening.Probably too nuanced.
I think Bannon came in, actually took over some of his duties, and Manafort resigned in a huff.
Upon further examination, I was probably far too flippant about this.
on the other hand, Trump last night expressed "regrets" over past comments, which I think is a campaign first.
Granted I am not sure how long this attempted turn around will last, but it does suggest some attempt to get the campaign back on track.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Trump says he "regrets some things he said" then this morning releases his first television ads blaming Immigration and Hillary Clinton for all our troubles.
Hahahahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahahahaha.