2012 US Presidential Election Superthread

[deep]

3rd party voters, WTF???


There are two possibilities and only two, after the election either Obama or Romney will be president. You can weigh in by voting for one of them, or just don't vote.

Voting for any of the 3rd party candidates has the same effect as not voting, except you are someone that went to the polls and went through all the motions of voting only to have your vote have as much value as all the people that do not vote.
Now, I know what you are thinking, you wanted to vote your conscience. Why choose a 3rd party candidate. Why not write in MLK JR. or Gandhi or Abraham Lincoln?
These are all great preferences, if you only want people to know who your real preference is, if it could be anyone but one of the only two real candidates.
perhaps I should write in, Angelina Jolie. She's a great person and choice .

 

[PennyLanePHINS]

I think the point of voting for a 3rd party is to raise issues that person stands for. And also, people who don't want to vote for someone who basically bought the election...for example, the "Big two" have spent around a billion dollars...Imagine if that money went to something better, like cancer research.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

That's a pretty narrow-minded statement.

 

[deep]

I think the point of voting for a 3rd party is to raise issues that person stands for. And also, people who don't want to vote for someone who basically bought the election...for example, the "Big two" have spent around a billion dollars...Imagine if that money went to something better, like cancer research.

and that has as much value as writing down, John Galt.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

If you, along with the rest of this country, could break out of that narrow-minded thought process, we could actually have options to choose from!

 

[Irvine511]

If you, along with the rest of this country, could break out of that narrow-minded thought process, we could actually have options to choose from!

and this is what brought us Bush in 2000 and 8 years of unspeakable ruin.

 

[digitize]

If you, along with the rest of this country, could break out of that narrow-minded thought process, we could actually have options to choose from!

No we wouldn't. The only way that we would have options to choose from is with the elimination of the winner-take-all system that almost every state uses for appropriation of electoral votes, as well as the elimination of the provision sending electoral college votes without a majority to the House. My dream world would have an instant-runoff-based popular vote.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

No we wouldn't. The only way that we would have options to choose from is with the elimination of the winner-take-all system that almost every state uses for appropriation of electoral votes, as well as the elimination of the provision sending electoral college votes without a majority to the House. My dream world would have an instant-runoff-based popular vote.

Well that's a completely different story. I was more just referring to not being stuck between mayo and mustard when you want ketchup.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

and this is what brought us Bush in 2000 and 8 years of unspeakable ruin.

The Electoral College brought you Bush. The nation spoke, and the nation wanted Gore. Florida spoke, and Florida was dead evenly divided between Bush and Gore.

And why does it always have to be such a bad thing? What about Ross Perot in 92 and 96? I strongly do not believe in '2nd place votes', but his candidacy either did nothing or gave the elections to Clinton. The Libertarian platform arguably takes more votes away from Republicans anyways.

 

[deep]

it is not a choice of mayo, mustard or ketchup

it is the beginning of the World Series and this season, you can bet on Detroit or SF.

but some of you are Sox fans or Cubs fans, you say your favorite team is the best
you can bet your money on them, the bookie will take your money.
And when I tell you that you are wasting your money, you can call me narrow minded. But only Tigers or SF bettors have a chance to win.

 

[Liesje]

3rd party voters, WTF???

Voting for any of the 3rd party candidates has the same effect as not voting, except you are someone that went to the polls and went through all the motions of voting only to have your vote have as much value as all the people that do not vote.

Except that I'm casting forty votes on my ballot tomorrow, not just one. I guess if to you that one doesn't count you can think that but it's not the same as not voting because not voting means not casting any of the forty votes. If it were a close call in my state I would (and will) absolutely vote red or blue. If there is already a clear winner half an hour from the polls closing then I might as well stick it to 'em and vote third party POTUS (or write someone in).

 

[deep]

I salute you for those other 39 votes, they are important and matter. I just wrote a longer post in the other thread about voting on all ballot items. I could have said that vote will have as much effect as leaving it blank on the outcome of the winner. Voting for one of the two possible winners, your vote will be included in the dialouge.

Everyone knows that Gore won the national popular vote by approx 500,000. No one can tell me how many votes Nader got nationally. We know what votes he got in FL and perhaps NH. Aside form that no one cares.

A Stein, Ron Paul, Johnson, Roseanne Barr vote all have the same value. It seems most all of the Stein voters are saying if their vote mattered they would probably vote for Obama. Obama should/ could win this national vote by say 3%. If in all the safe states, 40 plus of them, if 5% of the progressive voters that prefer Obama over Romney vote for Stein, what will that do to the national vote? Romney could win by 1,000,0000 to 3,000,000 votes. If that happens a EC vote winner Obama would find himself without support of many purple state Dems in both the House and Senate. None of his appointments would be approved.

 

[deep]

I have heard it said more than once, that this is

The most important election in our lifetimes!!!

for the record, and with all certitude, that is bullshit.

The most important election in our lifetimes was 2000
and we got it wrong,
that is the biggest reason we are in the deep shit we are in now.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I have heard it said more than once, that this is

The most important election in our lifetimes!!!

for the record, and with all certitude, that is bullshit.

The most important election in our lifetimes was 2000
and we got it wrong,
that is the biggest reason we are in the deep shit we are in now.

That's... Mitt Romney's ad campaign?

Yeah, this is the most important. As was the last one. And the one before that. And before that. And before that. I'm young, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that being said since I can remember... so... 2000.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

You're so fixated on this notion of 'who they like better'.

I don't like either of Romney or Obama at all. There is no second place. Sure, I'd rather have consistency in our presidencies and perhaps that's the only reason why I could justify 'wanting' Obama to win, but my vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson, with no second place handout to either candidate.

I have Libertarian viewpoints. I will not vote for a candidate who does not share those. I will vote third party until then. If it so happens that the black sheep of the party gets put on the ticket next time, you'll see me vote for them.

I'm exercising my right to vote, so back off, you're not making a difference.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yeah, I'm with LuckyNumber...I'd say EVERY election has been/is/will be pretty important.

I also agree that people should be allowed to vote for whichever party they wish. If we've got the options there, might as well let people take advantage of picking them if that's who they really want to vote for.

 

[Pearl]

The 2000 election was the first important election since 1992. The 1996 election was about nothing, compared to later presidential elections. In 2000, it was all about getting a new president because Clinton's time was up. Since then, each election has been treated as if the nation's life was on the line.

If you think I'm being silly for saying 1996 was simple, well I was 14 at the time. And it seemed like that election was about keeping Clinton in because he was cool or getting rid of him because conservatives were already having a shit hemorrhage over values being destroyed in America. There were no big issues back then like the economy, social issues, war, healthcare, etc.

2000 had the same thing, and it seemed like Bush and Gore were almost the same (remember the SNL skit? "We're both going to be president!"). But Bush got in, and then 9/11 happened and two wars were started. Those events have made each election in this country a major headache because both sides make it sound like the world will come to end if the opposition got in.

I don't expect to see a presidential election being simple like in 1996 for a long while. The polarization of America just keeps getting worse.

 

[Irvine511]

The Electoral College brought you Bush. The nation spoke, and the nation wanted Gore. Florida spoke, and Florida was dead evenly divided between Bush and Gore.

And why does it always have to be such a bad thing? What about Ross Perot in 92 and 96? I strongly do not believe in '2nd place votes', but his candidacy either did nothing or gave the elections to Clinton. The Libertarian platform arguably takes more votes away from Republicans anyways.

While I'll never believe that a bunch of elderly Jews voted for Buchanan in Browaed County, Nadar votes that would have gone to Gore would have been the difference.

 

[digitize]

You're so fixated on this notion of 'who they like better'.

I don't like either of Romney or Obama at all. There is no second place. Sure, I'd rather have consistency in our presidencies and perhaps that's the only reason why I could justify 'wanting' Obama to win, but my vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson, with no second place handout to either candidate.

I have Libertarian viewpoints. I will not vote for a candidate who does not share those. I will vote third party until then. If it so happens that the black sheep of the party gets put on the ticket next time, you'll see me vote for them.

I'm exercising my right to vote, so back off, you're not making a difference.

I think there's a world of difference between voting for Gary Johnson because you are a libertarian who is fundamentally ideologically different than Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, and voting for Jill Stein because you're more liberal than Barack Obama.

On another note: I am curious to see how Florida plays tomorrow. Nate Silver (yeah, yeah, I know, I mention him too much) put it back very slightly in the Obama column this evening. I'm considering it more or less a complete tossup.

 

[anitram]

I think Florida is a toss-up, but an irrelevant toss-up in the end.

I know that I've been pretty bullish on Obama's chances but I still say this thing will be called earlier and easier than people here think. Aside from maybe Irvine.

 

[Irvine511]

I look at the polls, and I look at te language being sed by the campaigns. The Romney folks are talking about momentum, and how the polls are wrong, an how there's a secret story that isn't being told, and how people are going to be surprised.

To me, that sounds like a campaign that knows its going to lose.

Sure, they could be right. Obama could lose. But I be surprised.

I live in a Battleground state. In the past three weeks, the Obama campaign has knocke on my door 4 times asking if I was planning on voting and making sure I knew where to go and if I needed a ride.

Today, I came home from work to find an Obama card with a handwritten note reminding me to vote with the address and what ID to bring.

I'm as close to a sure thing they've got.

I don't think the "ground game" is being overestimated. It seems extremely sophisticated to me. My guess is it will work.

We'll see

 

[anitram]

Very, very much looking forward to Elizabeth Warren taking back Teddy Kennedy's seat. That one will be special.

 

[INDY500]

Just one prediction:

At 6:01 Indiana will be called for Mitt Romney and become the first of many 2008 Blue states to reject Barack Obama's agenda to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America.

 

[Irvine511]

You can say that his policies haven't worked, but can we please stop with the Obama isnt a real American horseshit?

 

[PhilsFan]

Voting for a third party candidate in the presidential election is as bad as not voting at all. Both are complete cop outs.

 

[INDY500]

You can say that his policies haven't worked, but can we please stop with the Obama isnt a real American horseshit?

His words.

 

[digitize]

Just one prediction:

At 6:01 Indiana will be called for Mitt Romney and become the first of many 2008 Blue states to reject Barack Obama's agenda to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America.

I honestly don't know how the hell Obama won Indiana in 2008 in the first place.

 

[PhilsFan]

His words.

Are you trolling or are you unaware of the concept of context?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

It's sad to say, but I think Florida will be a red state tomorrow.




I understand why someone would question why that upsets me, and to be honest it's because I am more sympathetic to your typical Democrat than I am to your Republican (because I value social freedoms very highly).

That is to say... the Democrats represent some important, good freedoms with bad economics. The Republicans look to deny those very same freedoms, for some illogical, ass backwards reason, but hold some 'okay' economics. Neither go far enough to ensure them.

 

[anitram]

Just one prediction:

At 6:01 Indiana will be called for Mitt Romney and become the first of many 2008 Blue states to reject Barack Obama's agenda to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America.

"many".

I'll quote that tomorrow night I have a feeling.