Sometimes I wonder how people could get the idea that Democrats are elitist, smug, and out of touch.
there is no connection at all between what was said and your comments, which amount to nothing more than insults.
Yes. You are throwing your vote away. Or at the very least you are using your vote to make a moral statement that has no effect besides putting the other party in power. There is no viable path for voting third party to actually DO anything that staying home would not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I wonder how people could get the idea that Democrats are elitist, smug, and out of touch.
there is no connection at all between what was said and your comments, which amount to nothing more than insults.
Yes. You are throwing your vote away. Or at the very least you are using your vote to make a moral statement that has no effect besides putting the other party in power. There is no viable path for voting third party to actually DO anything that staying home would not.
You aren't entitled to anyone's votes, b+*$&ing about how third parties are screwing it all up is propagating the assumption that these votes will just go to your party, when the reality is, people vote third party because they hold a pretty intense dislike of both parties. People who don't feel strongly about it aren't likely to "throw their vote away"
Frankly if the DNC keeps losing close races because people dislike them enough to go for a third option, even if its a losing one they should maybe take a hint.
I don't find your rebuttal convincing.I get that people can think it. The point is those people are wrong.
Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.
I'm sorry but its not a surprise that lots of racists and sexists are going to vote republican. Its a surprise (to some) that he beat clinton. You cant emphasize the narrow margins of his victories and then chalk it up to the same racists and sexists when trump wins via fewer people than Romney lost by. You think maybe there weren't 80k people out there who got stiffed in the clinton economy and aren't willing to vote for someone with that last name ever?
I can tell you i grew up in a PNW dying timber town that FIRMLY held the hate for that president over the spotted owl.
So you're suggesting that Clinton lost Oregon and Washington because of the spotted owl?
That seems like a dubious claim.
I don't find your rebuttal convincing.I get that people can think it. The point is those people are wrong.
Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.
I'm sorry but its not a surprise that lots of racists and sexists are going to vote republican. Its a surprise (to some) that he beat clinton. You cant emphasize the narrow margins of his victories and then chalk it up to the same racists and sexists when trump wins via fewer people than Romney lost by. You think maybe there weren't 80k people out there who got stiffed in the clinton economy and aren't willing to vote for someone with that last name ever?
I can tell you i grew up in a PNW dying timber town that FIRMLY held the hate for that president over the spotted owl.
So you're suggesting that Clinton lost Oregon and Washington because of the spotted owl?
That seems like a dubious claim.
Yes, your strawman does indeed sound dubious.
|
Wake up, people. When folks are getting tossed into prison for daring to laugh at the emperor's lackey, it isn't the future of the Democratic Party we should be concerned about; it's the future of democracy. Who is likely to win the next election only matters if there IS another election.
Seriously, we're there. It's time for that conversation.
I heard arguments like this often during GWB terms. I'd like to hear your thoughts on how things compare. Are things worse now than then?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't entitled to anyone's votes, b$#+%ing about how third parties are screwing it all up is propagating the assumption that these votes will just go to your party, when the reality is, people vote third party because they hold a pretty intense dislike of both parties. People who don't feel strongly about it aren't likely to "throw their vote away"
Our constitutionally baked in winner take all system gives no advantage to getting 1, 5 or even 48% of the vote. While 2 parties isn't in the constitution, it inevitably drops out of the game theory given the rules the constitution laid out.
There is no way for a third party to win (thats just math)
There is no way for a third party to hit critical mass to become a contender
There's nothing that requires that you actually like the party you're voting for. If you're a rational human being you acknowledge all of the facts above. If you're a moral human being you act to minimize harm and maximize good. That means DOING something. Yes, republicans in office hurt people. Republicans in office get people killed.
Third party voting isn't sending a message to the man, or speaking truth to power, or sending a wake up call to the democrats. It's good people effectively staying home and doing nothing while republicans triumph.
Frankly if the DNC keeps losing close races because people dislike them enough to go for a third option, even if its a losing one they should maybe take a hint.
This objectively doesn't work like that. Moving closer to the greens costs them money from their corporate overlords which costs them votes.
The political landscape is getting worse. Republicans have rigged the system for their advantage through gerrymandering and voter suppression and if they're not ousted soon we're going to be looking at an entire generation of unopposed republican rule, more wealth disparity, and invading countries for profit. You're going to contribute to that.. why? Because the corporate shill democrats aren't ideologically pure enough for you to connect with your being?
Suck it up. Hold your nose, get drunk and hire a taxi, give money to that sara mclaughin sad puppies song commercial .. do what you have to do but vote democratic because it needs to be done.
Suck it up. Hold your nose, get drunk and hire a taxi, give money to that sara mclaughin sad puppies song commercial .. do what you have to do but vote democratic because it needs to be done.
That is the kind of thinking that emboldened the Democratic establishment to run the second most disapproved of candidate in history. And she lost to scum. (I laughed at the Republican primaries, but at least they tried to prevent Trump. The Dems bent over backwards to stack the deck for Clinton.)
'Suck it up and vote' is a crap strategy, and it fails. While I would like to think it couldn't fail worse then 2016, the globe is full of worse "leaders". Reagan -> W Bush -> Trump ->? isn't a good trajectory.
The other major issue with Suck-it-and-Vote, is that it only gets applied to progressive types. The Dem leadership isn't telling that to guys like Chuck Schumer and their big money donors. The real message isn't, "We all need to compromise", it's "My way, or go-f-yourself". But their way isn't working for the American voters, and it's not working for winning elections. Also, Clinton outspent Trump almost 2:1 - where are the votes that made selling-out worth it?
Right now the Democratic establishment are the party of pointing fingers, and trying to shift blame to everyone but themselves. It's Russia, it's Comey, it's Jill Stein, it's wikileaks, it's Sanders, it's disobedient voters, etc. The Democratic Establishment IS the problem. The big money donors, a$!$&~!s like Haim Saban - they ARE the problem. Sell-out corporatist windbags like the Clintons ARE the problem.
The voters are telling you that they want people (and their policies) like Sanders, Warren, Ellison, etc. If y'all are not listening, it's YOUR FAULT, not the voters!
EDIT: A good article in the intercept.com about money in politics.
How Much Does a Politician Cost? A Groundbreaking Study Reveals the Influence of Money in Politics.
Baker’s [explanation for why Volcker should not be reappointed] was startlingly direct: Possible repeal of Glass-Steagall was the signature issue used by investment bankers, led by then-Goldman Sachs executive Robert Rubin, to raise money for the Democratic Party from their cohorts on Wall Street. Getting rid of Glass-Steagall, Baker explained, would alter the balance of power between the two major parties by depriving the Democrats of a central revenue stream.
So Volcker was replaced by Alan Greenspan, who gleefully supported the elimination of Glass-Steagall in 1999 — as did Robert Rubin, who became treasury secretary under Bill Clinton.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Help Send 4 Activists to MN for Activist Training Camp
Please help send Slightly Lumpen Student Comrade, Young Gay Autistic Comrade and High School Student Comrade to summer late spring camp in Minnesota. Although Mr. Comrade is also on the list, he wants everyone to know that he is unhappy that SLSC included him in the fundraiser because he is "a grown man with a job and can pay his own f$&#ing way."
It's unclear as to whether any of them will be able to stay to help with the Ginger Jentzen campaign.
So has anyone here read through H.R. 1628 yet? I'm reading through it now and am creating an annotated pro/con table (yes, I fully expect the con side to weigh a lot more by the end), but not being expert on the subject of healthcare, I imagine it'll take a good while to finish.
Like it or not -- I don't -- on election day 2016, either Trump or Clinton was going to be elected the 45th president.
Your vote did one of the following:
1. Helped Clinton;
2. Helped Trump; or
3. Had no effect whatsoever
There is no fourth option. That is a fact that is implicit in a winner-take-all system. Ignoring it doesn't change anything. Wishing it were different doesn't change anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The democrats and republicans have you all well trained.
If you are going to throw down that kind of insult you at least need to back it up with something other than mere derision.
You haven't.
You can't.
Show me any workable path for breaking the two party system that isn't take over an existing party or just let the other party run un opposed.
I don't know why canada didn't crank out a two party system (larger regional differences and parties?)
What I don't get is why Americans don't vote 3rd party, maybe not for the president, but certainly for the house or senate. If I were faced with a typical Conservative or corporate Democrat I'd think picking a 3rd party would be an easy choice.
And you may as well stay home. Because
Lets say the green party (the really left party) gets 30 percent of the vote. A monumental achievement for a third party. Lets say they get that in EVERY state. What do they get?
Absolutely nothing. No seats. And since they're competing for either democratic votes or staying on the couch, they probably just handed the election to the republicans. That would move the democrats tot he left next time, but thats no guarantee that they can get into office then.
Making the more progressive position win so often that the opposition simply dies out is the only way you can change the government. Its frustratingly slow, and incremental but it works. Interracial marriage used to be a hotly debated topic, now it's not. Why? People voting for that platform either died or changed their minds (mostly died) to the point that being in favor of banning it will be an almost insurmountable obstacle to being elected.
That is how policy can change. If you think a third party can do the same, SHOW me how.
Your vote did one of the following:
1. Helped Clinton;
2. Helped Trump; or
3. Had no effect whatsoever
There is no fourth option. That is a fact that is implicit in a winner-take-all system. Ignoring it doesn't change anything. Wishing it were different doesn't change anything.
Here is the thing - like most of the country, I live in a "safe state". My vote (for president) was never going to change anything. Selecting the next president isn't an option for a huge number of voters.
My vote does two things.
1) Gives legitimacy to the system. It allows those who benefit from the system to claim legitimacy or even a mandate. It gives all my political power to people who don't represent me at all.
2) Keeps third party candidates on the ballot for the future.
I'm totally willing to concede that my vote is basically useless. However, it is the only pittance the system grants me. Why would I squander it on the very people who work to keep me powerless? The only thing more useless then voting 3rd Party or not voting, is voting for an establishment Democrat or Republican.
Yes, your strawman does indeed sound dubious.I don't find your rebuttal convincing.I get that people can think it. The point is those people are wrong.
Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.
I'm sorry but its not a surprise that lots of racists and sexists are going to vote republican. Its a surprise (to some) that he beat clinton. You cant emphasize the narrow margins of his victories and then chalk it up to the same racists and sexists when trump wins via fewer people than Romney lost by. You think maybe there weren't 80k people out there who got stiffed in the clinton economy and aren't willing to vote for someone with that last name ever?
I can tell you i grew up in a PNW dying timber town that FIRMLY held the hate for that president over the spotted owl.
So you're suggesting that Clinton lost Oregon and Washington because of the spotted owl?
That seems like a dubious claim.
It's not a strawman at all. He pointed out that people in the PNW held a deep seated hatred of the Clintons as part of his argument for why she lost the election, based on a single issue that was relevant to the PNW.
Did she lose the PNW? No, she didn't. So it seems like an issue that didn't cost her Oregon and Washington is probably not the reason she did lose Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Unless you want to claim at voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan cared even more about the spotted owl than voters in Oregon and Washington.
Trump voters had a median income of $71,000, while Clinton voters income came in around $56,000.
Based on that, which group do you think is more motivated by economic distress to pick a candidate?
My vote does two things.
1) Gives legitimacy to the system. It allows those who benefit from the system to claim legitimacy or even a mandate. It gives all my political power to people who don't represent me at all.
Donald trump lost the vote by 3 million people and is still president. Bush lost florida , the popular vote, and still became president. Not adding legitimacy to the system is like not spitting in the grand canyon and saying "ha! Now you'll never be filled".
Its an intangible, meaninglessness, feeling. it doesn't DO anything. It doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't help anyone.
I'm totally willing to concede that my vote is basically useless. However, it is the only pittance the system grants me. Why would I squander it on the very people who work to keep me powerless? The only thing more useless then voting 3rd Party or not voting, is voting for an establishment Democrat or Republican.
Voting for an establishment democrat keeps republicans out of power. That is NOT an inconsequential thing. Look at what they do when they're in power. A MINIMUM hundred thousand dead Iraqi citizens, sending 5,000 americans to their deaths for dick cheneys profit margin, cutting healthcare for millions americans , gutting if not eliminating the EPA, inverting a tax code so that all the deductions go to millionaires and none to ordinary people...
Those are real. Drastic. Life altering if not life ending consequences. That is worth more than your feelings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shrug.
As I said, I live in a safe state. THERE IS NO AFFECT MY VOTE CAN HAVE ON WHO IS ELECTED PRESIDENT. That is how the people who made the system designed it. You and 10,000 of your closest friends can vote for Clinton, or Trump, and NYS's electoral votes are going to Clinton. (Other then the two points above,) your vote for her or him is going to have the exact same effect on who is president as my vote for Jill Stein or Mickey Mouse.
Our entire system of government is based on an intangible, meaninglessness, feeling. The ruling duopoly selects who can run for president (with any real chance of victory) and people in like 8 or 9 states choose electors who then choose who sits in the office for the next four years. During those years, neither party does a damn thing to fix the problems that they exploit to maintain power.
In swing states, you can make an argument for some sort of Democrat fueled incrementalism. The problem is, with a few exceptions, things remain on a decades-long downward trend for the vast majority of the country. Not because the Democrats can only undo what the Republicans did before they lose power, but because BOTH parties push a neo-liberal agenda. Both parties bomb the f*@% out of the Middle East. Both parties cut social services. Both parties rig the economy in favor of their ultra wealthy donors. Both enforce a surveillance/prison State, war on drugs, etc. If voting Democrat fixed any of these issues, things would have been very different the last 20+ years.
EDIT: And before anyone gets all bent out of shape, Democrats and Republicans are NOT THE SAME. Yes, Republicans are worse on most issues, but selecting establishment Democrats has been a decades long failure on some of the most important issues faced by the vast majority of Americans.
Show me any workable path for breaking the two party system that isn't take over an existing party or just let the other party run unopposed.
One could argue that "take over an existing party" is more or less how it usually works, although there have been exceptions.
In the First Party System, the two majors were the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists. The latter eventually dwindled to a minor party from continued loss of votes, and when the former got big enough, it fractured into the Democratic Party and the Whigs.
In the 1850s, most of the Whig membership then defected to the new Republican Party.
If you have 3 parties 34% of the votes could win you the seat, with 4 parties 26%, the real problem you have is that the media is the biggest beneficiary of US elections and thus they have no reason to upset that apple cart. Trump was terrible for the country but great for ratings and so that's one of the big reasons you have president Kodos rather then president Kang.
Unfortunately, that's not how it works in America. To become president, the nominee needs 270 electoral votes, full stop. If we have three candidates and none of them reach the required 270 electoral votes the House votes on who wins based on the three candidates that got the most votes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just so we're clear: your argument is that ALL of Donald Trump supporters are racist and sexist. You're rejecting the very notion that people could have voted for Trump for any other reason?
It's not a strawman at all. He pointed out that people in the PNW held a deep seated hatred of the Clintons as part of his argument for why she lost the election, based on a single issue that was relevant to the PNW.
Did she lose the PNW? No, she didn't. So it seems like an issue that didn't cost her Oregon and Washington is probably not the reason she did lose Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Unless you want to claim at voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan cared even more about the spotted owl than voters in Oregon and Washington.
Trump voters had a median income of $71,000, while Clinton voters income came in around $56,000.
Based on that, which group do you think is more motivated by economic distress to pick a candidate?
Nope, that isn't my argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, that isn't my argument.Just so we're clear: your argument is that ALL of Donald Trump supporters are racist and sexist. You're rejecting the very notion that people could have voted for Trump for any other reason?
It's not a strawman at all. He pointed out that people in the PNW held a deep seated hatred of the Clintons as part of his argument for why she lost the election, based on a single issue that was relevant to the PNW.
Did she lose the PNW? No, she didn't. So it seems like an issue that didn't cost her Oregon and Washington is probably not the reason she did lose Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Unless you want to claim at voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan cared even more about the spotted owl than voters in Oregon and Washington.
Trump voters had a median income of $71,000, while Clinton voters income came in around $56,000.
Based on that, which group do you think is more motivated by economic distress to pick a candidate?
then why are you arguing? Our point is not that none of the republican supporters are sexist and racist, our point is that there are many other reasons why people might have supported the Cheeto, and marijuana and spotted owls could have been two of those reasons. There well may have been a bong smoking, owl hating Trump supporter in Oregon, who was never going to vote for Hillary if she promised him ice cream and blow jobs.
I'm sure there's lots of sexist & racist Trump supporters. That wasn't what we were arguing though.
I'm saying that racism/sexism were a BIGGER factor than economic concerns.
See the difference between what I just said and what you said earlier? You summarized my position as being "Trump voters are ALL racists/sexist". That is not the same as it being a bigger factor.
Yes, there are real economic concerns. If you stop to consider it though, those same economic concerns would be true for African-American and Hispanic working class voters. Yet only 27% of Hispanic voters broke for Trump and only 8% of the African-American vote. Seeing as African-Americans have a much higher poverty rate, a much bigger % of them fall in the "working class" than whites do. If Trump voters were motivated by purely economic pain and not racial views, he'd have done much better with those communities. He did do better than Romney, but that's not really saying much (and only by a small margin).
For all the talk of how the rural white voter has been left behind, the urban black voter has fared even worse over the past few decades. Every economic problem felt by the white working class is felt by the black working class, but worse.
That means that there must be some OTHER reason that is getting these two populations to vote differently.
I'm sure the two party system is working most of the time
I am not arguing that it's working. I'm arguing that we are stuck with it. it is immutable reality. You do not wish immutable reality was different, you take immutable reality as it is and use your knowledge of it to make life better or at least suck less.
If you're going to accuse me of being well trained you have to show how it's not immutable reality and you're not doing that.
What I don't understand though is why you think have no choice?
Then you are not listening. Its really not me, it's you.
If you have 3 parties 34% of the votes
It doesn't work like that. Political parties are not random mishmash's of ideas, especially after the polarization the US has been going through. If you have a platform that appeals to more than a few percentage of voters you are going to draw off of one party more heavily than the other.
If you do that even by a few percent, you hurt your cause. The party you're drawing from then HAS to incorporate you or lose. Not doing so is like trying to disarm yourself in a gun fight and just go to fists. You're relying on your opponents desire for a fair fight and experience shows that that's a non starter.
The tea party is a perfect example. Not ALL tea party members are republicans... but almost all of them are. Even that small pool of voters could hurt republicans , so republicans take them into the fold and lean in their direction to avoid the split.
And lets say by some miracle you do get a few members to the senate. Congratulations, the opposition party is running the government. They can hold bills up in committees or prevent bills from coming to a vote, shutting down anything you want done.
Each party maintains the blockade with the threat of the other. I don't think i'm out of place thinking that getting a not trump president is worth another hillary clinton.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So why not vote 3rd party then?
Because, as i have repeatedly outlined in exact, excruciating detail, voting third party CANNOT get you a third party candidate. It can only get you a worse second party candidate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do not dare to insult the fuhrer.
Next come the panel vans and disappearances. And yet there will still be people telling me I'm overreacting.
Because, as i have repeatedly outlined in exact, excruciating detail, voting third party CANNOT get you a third party candidate. It can only get you a worse second party candidate.
This. SO MUCH THIS.
So why not vote 3rd party then?Because, as i have repeatedly outlined in exact, excruciating detail, voting third party CANNOT get you a third party candidate. It can only get you a worse second party candidate.
Third parties generally peel off voters from one party, not equally from both. So if one third party starting picking up a lot of progressive votes, they probably wouldn't be significantly undermining the Republican party.
So when it is time for elections, The Republicans can pretty easily pull off a win as the democrats and third party divide their voter base
I just don't see a scenario where a third party can steal votes from both parties equally (the left and right extremes are pretty far removed in goals from one another), or see the timing of two separate third parties rising to power at the same time in such a way as to sink the main parties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was Bernie not an independent candidate?So why not vote 3rd party then?Because, as i have repeatedly outlined in exact, excruciating detail, voting third party CANNOT get you a third party candidate. It can only get you a worse second party candidate.
No. He was running as a democrat for the democratic party ticket: trying to take over the democratic party. THAT you can do...
@Guy: Depends on what seat the candidate has. The most recent numbers are about 3% in the House of Representatives (larger, lower body of Congress), and 13% for the Senate (smaller, upper body).
Candidates in lower offices receive less help, and could probably be replaced more easily.
No. He was running as a democrat for the democratic party ticket: trying to take over the democratic party. THAT you can do...Was Bernie not an independent candidate?So why not vote 3rd party then?Because, as i have repeatedly outlined in exact, excruciating detail, voting third party CANNOT get you a third party candidate. It can only get you a worse second party candidate.So I think the confusion was what thejeff pointed out, I knew Bernie ran for the nomination of the Democratic party but I understood that he was still an independent Senator.
So, what do you think the chances are that you can primary a candidate and take over the party? Last primary election seemed to suggest that the DNC isn't afraid to work behind the scenes to stack the deck. If you tried to primary Feinstein for example, what are the chances that they won't pulls some of the stunts they did in the primaries?
Primary-ing a candidate and taking over the party isn't a realistic option. It might look so because of Trump's victory, but he exploited a very narrow, previously existing voting base to get into office. The sort of thing you're asking about only works with a parliamentary government, which we do not have here in the US.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was chasing down some random facts to look up from the above conversation and came across this article which I don't think I saw last November. Haven't finished it yet, but it hit enough of my sweet spots to post.
Blame Trump’s Victory on College-Educated Whites, Not the Working Class
EDIT: Pretty short actually. I guess I only had two paragraphs to go.
Well for some anecdotal i'm a college educated white and I didn't vote for the guy.
Neither did I. I'm not sure if I count, though; I dropped out three times.
3 times? were you going for is a charm and got your out instead?