2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Thanks for the important points of clarification.

Thanks for being snide?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

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.

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

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

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.

What you own is not doing everything you could to keep a crazy person out of power. We've been given a lesson in how strategically one must vote in the parliamentary system, strategy exists here too, and it's not so much that one is entitled to a vote, but one loses much credibility, say, to criticize the Iraq War if one voted for Nader in Florida in 2000, fully aware of how close it was and how critical that state was well before Election Day.

People are free to choose purity over practicality all they want. They just own a measure of responsibility when they don't use the tool that they have in the most advantageous way possible to keep the crazy from power. It's not that it's my vote, it's that you are responsible for it and all its repercussions. It doesn't work to say "I voted for Nader but it's Gore's fault for losing to Bush."

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I'm just gonna leave this here...

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...-independents/

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?

So let's just try and break this MATH down.

Clinton is killing Sanders in the primary, but somehow Sanders keeps coming out ahead in polls matched up with Trump.

You could argue, as some have, that it's because if all these millions... AND MILLIONS... of independent BernieBros. And you'd be only half right at best and missing the complete bigger pixture.

Reality is the polls are that way because Clinton supporters for the most part would also support Sanders if he somehow pulled it out, but Sanders voters are still being just a bit sandy towards Clinton. Bernie or bust bro!

Trends would show you that most of these phony independents... pho-democrats, will give in and vote for Clinton when it's all said and done. You're not a real independent, bra!

Also reality... TRUE independents, not democrats who never registered, but true middle of the road voters see Sanders and Clinton evenly. Only a much bigger portion of these true independent, middle of the road swing voters, say that they really don't know enough about Sanders yet to make a true decision, whereas everyone knows everything about Hilldawg; meaning there's a lot more volatility with Sanders than with a known commodity in Clinton. He could do much better once it's him alone vs Trump, or he could do much worse. It's still unknown.

Huh.

Who woulda thought.

[Irvine511]

That's just an anti-Bernie rag.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BVS

Your anger is unwarranted, I haven't got personal with you.

Your belittling tone of being amused by me isn't personal, I know.

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

Except votes for Nader kept a movement alive. Votes for Gary Johnson keep a movement alive. They open the door for these political parties to go somewhere. Whether that's for a seat in congress or for spreading their beliefs.

If you're not endorsing a two party system, who should vote for these third parties? Isn't it ridiculous that we call them "third" parties, if we aren't in a two party system?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

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.

First, I apologize if my tone has been off today. I'm sick and flying cross country. I know you were talking to BVS above, but I mean this generally.

But can you think of anything that did more damage to the beliefs of the Nader movement than Bush/Cheney?

[BEAL]

Exactly. I feel the movement may have made more progress with Gore as President. Instead, the US, and the world took many steps backward.

Not sure if Clinton will keep some of these "left" views on the table when she is the nominee, but I think she will to try and sway the BernieBros to her in the general. If she's elected, hard to say. Things change once you're in office, usually because compromise becomes key versus ideology.

One thing we know for certain, if Trump wins, we will see the US go so far back into time that the country may never recover.

Also, found this article:

Hillary Clinton Violated State Dept. Policies By Using Private Email, Watchdog Finds : The Two-Way : NPR

Clinton and her email. She has done nothing that other SOS have done in the past. The only reason this is an issue, is because she's a Clinton.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Your belittling tone of being amused by me isn't personal, I know.

Well I apologize if you found my tone belittling. I just found your use of 'idealism' ironic when you're talking about the moral and conscience reasons for voting and we were talking about just the measurable numeric outcome.

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Except votes for Nader kept a movement alive. Votes for Gary Johnson keep a movement alive. They open the door for these political parties to go somewhere. Whether that's for a seat in congress or for spreading their beliefs.

If you're not endorsing a two party system, who should vote for these third parties? Isn't it ridiculous that we call them "third" parties, if we aren't in a two party system?

Well in order to put an end to a two party system, de facto or not, more has to be done on the other side of the ballot box. I think one has to be strategic at times with their vote, because at the end of the day it is just a number. If you're making a statement with your vote shouldn't you make sure it gets heard somehow? I think this is a dangerous election to be trying to make a statement, or in the case of how this conversation started, a tantrum.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by BEAL

The only reason this is an issue, is because she's a Clinton.

And has the audacity to want to be president.

[deep]

A lot of us blamed Ralph Nader voters for W in 2000. If they voted Gore then we would have had no W. That is true.

But if we had the safe 'new Democrat' Gore, which was much like the moderate Bill Clinton. We would have never have gotten the 'progressive' Barrack Obama. With all the 'change' he has brought. In 2008 the Dem party knew they could not shove progressives aside and go with the safe 'Hillary'. The progressives won the day and we got Obama. Obama owes his nomination and Presidency to the the 2000 Nader voters. Progressives that refused to sell out.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by BEAL

Not sure if Clinton will keep some of these "left" views on the table when she is the nominee, but I think she will to try and sway the BernieBros to her in the general. If she's elected, hard to say. Things change once you're in office, usually because compromise becomes key versus ideology.

But what compromise? If Clinton is elected President, it's likely Democrats will hold a bare Senate majority while Republicans will still control the House.

I mean, compromise is fine if you're trying to pass liberal legislation and earning some Republican votes by getting them to join your side and changing aspects of a certain bill to suit them...but that's what Obama tried for five years to no avail before he finally gave up. Watering down the ACA and even going as far as to actually attempt a "grand bargain" with severe cuts to the social safety net - neither of which led to any Republican support.

Therefore, any shift to the right by Clinton to pass legislation will automatically mean she's basically doing it with mostly Republicans at her side rather than Democrats, just as Obama is getting far more support for the TPP from the GOP than his own party.

There is effectively no compromise with the current GOP morons, not even to get the general functions of government moving along.

So, Clinton either tries to pass left-wing legislation and she will fail time and again, even if she makes concessions to the right. She'll even face the same problem for thinks like budgeting, seating the courts, etc. It's not even up for discussion because we've already been through this for the last seven years.

She'll have no problem earning Republican votes if it's some big fracking bill or Wall Street boost, but that's not a "compromise" - that's just selling out the left and that's what everyone on the far left is afraid of...the argument about compromise in here would be warranted if the Republicans were actually willing to play ball, but they're not, leaving us to twiddle our thumbs until enough of their voters die off and Democrats control congress once again.

[deep]

Bernie Bros, all Bernie supporters and true progressives need to stay the course like the Nader voters did in 2000,
Does anyone think if Hillary got the nomination in 2008 the country would be at the same place Obama has taken it. Cuba, Iran, North Viet Nam, gay marriage, supreme court appointments, even the ACC, would she have accomplished those things?? We certainly have had a more progressive 8 years under Obama then we would have had under a Clinton.
Again Nader voters pushed the party to nominate Obama in 2008 instead of the triangulating Clinton.

This election is a choice for the Democrats to move ahead or look back.

[BEAL]

And what progress will there be under trump?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[deep]

most likely a 4 year stagnation or set back, and then 8+ years of a progressive agenda moving the country ahead

[BVS]

A lot of damage can be done in 4 years...

[deep]

nothing could be worse than the 8 years of W, that I blamed on Nader voters

truth is Nader voters were honest people that knew a vote for Nader was not a vote against Gore and for W, it was a vote against W, and against Gore-Clinton type politics that were both not acceptable to them. Every 2000 Nader voter I know happily voted for Obama in 2008, and thinking about it, they are responsible for his nomination.

[Oregoropa]

Meanwhile in 'I wonder what Ted Cruz is up to?'

One of my best friends sat next to him on a Southwest flight today from Houston to DC. Said he watched "Creed" the whole flight.

At least he's not bilking the taxpayers for buying first class tickets and instead flew stowage class.

But as we always say . . .


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference