My media knowledge of that election coverage starts and stops at the RATM video for Testify.
Clinton won the Washington primary yesterday but will recieve no delegates because the establishment already awarded them to the old white guy in the race in a silly, voter repressing caucus earlier in the year.
Clinton won the primary by more votes than the total number of people who voted in the entire caucus, yet will lose the delegates in the state 74 to 27 because the establishment already decided the caucus will count and not the primary.
Rigged! It's rigged!
Ahh my mistake. I'd start the countdown to Shorten cracking it, but the ALP Right already seems to be doing a good enough job for him.
Only rigged when It benefits Clinton, DUH
Wish the CA primary was this week. Just have it over with. There are demonstrations every weekend at Balboa (which is my backyard) so it's screwing over my parking situation and the constant horn honking is irritating haha. Lots of angry revolution talk through speaker phones
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Change it to "if you don't vote for Clinton you therefore vote for Trump" and it is true.
A vote is a tool. That's all.
Wait, why the hell does Washington have a caucus and a primary?
Is there also going to be one presidential election by secret ballot and then a second by verbal declaration? With the exact weighting of results determined by the temperature on the day of each vote?
No, that's not true. Depending upon issues that people hold disproportionately near to them, that is not true. You can't be such an idealist over it. There are people out there who legitimately do not like Trump or Clinton and aren't abandoning some fictitious moral obligation to side with a party.
How is he being an "idealist"? It's just common sense. You can speak to the merits all you want, but the practicality of it is; in a 2 party system if you don't vote for the major candidate that is running opposite of the person you don't want as president then you are voting to help that candidate.
No, that's not true. Depending upon issues that people hold disproportionately near to them, that is not true. You can't be such an idealist over it. There are people out there who legitimately do not like Trump or Clinton and aren't abandoning some fictitious moral obligation to side with a party.
in the parliamentary system you can vote your conscience and expect your chosen MPs to make a deal with whoever they find least loathsome, but not here.
How is viewing every single voter as an asset to his side being an idealist? I don't know, maybe because it's oversimplifying the dynamics and reasons for voting.
If I'm voting for Clinton, therefore I am not voting for Trump. If I'm not voting for Clinton, therefore I am not not voting for Trump (or, I am). That's pretty much denying the antecedent in a nutshell. You're supporting argument is a total logical fallacy. It doesn't hold up.
You're the one being an idealist, that's why I find this argument so amusing. You're speaking to the "dynamics and reason" behind a vote, we're just speaking to the actual outcome.
You can have moral, economic, personal reasons behind a vote, but at the end of the day that doesn't matter. It's just a number for or against a candidate.
100 people vote:
Major candidate 1 gets 50 votes
Major candidate 2 gets 49 votes
Write in candidate gets 1 vote
So the person who wrote in helped candidate 1 win, reasoning behind their write in doesn't matter.
I'm not being idealistic. I'm being realistic. People vote for different reasons, whether you like it or not. That will always happen. Ideally it would just be a pure numbers game, where you could rally voters of similar ideologies. But you can't. And you can't ever expect that to happen.
You can pretend like one voter who wrote in a candidate is responsible all you want. He or she is not. 50 voters chose to vote for candidate 1. All 50 of those voters are why candidate 1 won. The write-in candidate's voter didn't magically end up with 50% of the power. That's to assume he got to vote last. He/she has the same power as everyone else. 1%. And a total of 50% chose candidate 1.
There's NOT an obligation for everyone to compromise morals for your ideal world.
But your reason doesn't matter. There isn't a moral or economic checkbox on the back, once the card is in the box it's just a for or against, that's it. Your reasons and your ideals drove you to the ballot box, but after that you're just a 1 or a 0. That's why I said you're being idealistic, you're still talking about the why, they why no longer matters.
I didn't say that voter is responsible, I said they helped candidate 1 win.
That's not how it really works.
First of all you can't vote your conscience if you are in a contested riding because so many parties can mean that the vote is split with a loathsome person coming out on top in the end so you have to vote strategically. Second, you most certainly cannot "expect" your MP to make a deal with whoever they find the least loathsome, voting is nearly uniformly along party lines.
Thanks for the important points of clarification.
And you can say "your reason doesn't matter" all you want. But it does. Once the card is in the box, it's ONLY "for." To suggest "or against" would be to suggest that I have a literal "not candidate B" choice.
Regardless of what you might think, our two party system is merely de facto. And if you think people have an obligation to commit to it, you're telling them not to have any core beliefs. And at the end of the day, it seems like you're not listening to what the people of this country have been so awkwardly screaming about with their support over the likes of a Trump or a Sanders -- they want something different because they're tired of A1 and A2. They want candidate B. The only reason why they look so silly (so as to suggest Nader voters actually inadvertently threw the 2000 election) is because you insist upon inducing this social tragedy of the commons.
And I'll just say all I see is more idealism and more denying of the antecedent. And don't figuratively point your finger at me. I am choosing to vote for Clinton, because I am on board anyone-but-Trump.
To suggest that you "own the result" if you didn't vote for the loser is stupid. The only people who "own the result" are the people who vote for the winner. Perhaps you can fault the more interesting candidate at the bottom, for choosing to run. But no, you can't fault the voters. There's not some expectation that their vote belongs to one side or the other. That's where you're wrong. There's NOT an obligation for everyone to compromise morals for your ideal world.
A lot has been made of Bernie Sanders’s appeal with independent voters during the Democratic presidential primary. He has won people who identify as independents in state after state, while Hillary Clinton has won people who identify as Democrats. Some Sanders backers have argued that this will translate to the general election; they point to general election polls that show Sanders doing better against Donald Trump than Clinton is.
The problem with this analysis, however, is that most independents are really closeted partisans, and there is no sign that true independents disproportionately like Sanders.
Most voters who identify as independent consistently vote for one party or the other in presidential elections. In a Gallup poll taken in early April, for instance, 41 percent of independents (who made up 44 percent of all respondents) leaned Democratic, and 36 percent leaned Republican. Just 23 percent of independents had no partisan preference. In the last three presidential elections, the Democratic candidate received the support of no less than 88 percent of self-identified independents who leaned Democratic, according to the American National Elections Studies survey. These are, in effect, Democratic voters with a different name.
Right now, Clinton is struggling with this group. According to a Gallup poll conducted May 15 to May 21, her favorable rating among Democratic-leaning independents was just 51 percent, compared with 73 percent among people who identify as Democrats. That’s a 22-percentage-point difference. Sanders and Trump, on the other hand, had gaps of just 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively, between independents who lean toward their party and their party’s pure partisans.
Sanders did slightly better with Democratic-leaning independents (71 percent favorable) than he did with plain-old Democrats (68 percent favorable), but that appeal does not seem to extend to true independents — those who are most likely to change party allegiances between elections and whose split between the Republican and Democratic candidates nearly matched the split in the nation overall in the last two elections, according to the ANES. In the Gallup poll, Sanders had a 35 percent favorable rating among independents who don’t lean toward either party. Clinton’s favorable rating with that group was 34 percent. Trump’s was a ridiculously low 16 percent.
One could argue that Sanders has greater potential with these true independents than Clinton: Just 63 percent of them had formed an opinion of him, according to the Gallup poll, while 83 percent had done so for Clinton. But it’s also possible that these true independents will turn against him in greater numbers as they learn more about him.
For now, though, Sanders’s big advantage over Clinton in general election matchups is his edge among Democratic-leaning independents, not pure independents. Currently, all the Democratic groups that like Clinton also like Sanders, but the reverse is not true. As my colleague Nate Silver and NBC News’s Mark Murray have both pointed out over the past week: Clinton has yet to win over a number of Sanders supporters, but Sanders does very well among most Clinton supporters.
But that we’re talking about Clinton’s need to win over Democratic-leaning independents rather than true independents is a hopeful sign for her campaign — these voters have tended to stick with the Democratic Party. If Clinton can lure these Sanders voters back into her tent, she’ll probably lead Trump by somewhere around 5 percentage points nationally, instead of the 2 percentage points she leads him by now. My guess is that she’ll probably win many of them over, considering that a large portion are normally reliable Democratic voters. This year is so crazy, though — who can really say?
Your anger is unwarranted, I haven't got personal with you.
I'm not arguing for or against a two party system, no one is. I'm not arguing for a compromise of values, no one is. You're still talking about the reasoning behind a vote, and of course that's important, but it doesn't matter once it's in the box. If all of FYM put a physical card in a box your card wouldn't look or feel any different than mine, it would just be something to count. Your reason wouldn't put anymore weight behind your 1 or 0 than mine. And your vote would help someone win.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Your belittling tone of being amused by me isn't personal, I know.
Except votes for Nader kept a movement alive. Votes for Gary Johnson keep a movement alive.