2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

[dazzledbylight]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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."

Yup.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Skipping back a bit, but I'm going to take a tack that is not often seen on Interference and side with LN7. I think "if you don't vote for Hillary you're voting for Trump" is overly simplistic and idealistic. Perhaps it's idealistic that a vote for Jill Stein or whoever is a vote hoping to inspire change in the future, but if you don't try to make change according to your own values at some point in your life you might as well just give up entirely and become a Democratic shill.

It is silly, in the same way that I couldn't tell if people are having a laugh when they say it was Nader's fault that Bush got elected.

It's ridiculously simplistic and only reaffirms my opinions on liberals.

[cobl04]

I mean I totally I get the argument, but I think it is pretty offensive to demonise people for voting for the person who most closely aligns with your values. A political vote is a very personal thing, and if no one starts small, how will anything ever change?

[Axver]

Originally Posted by cobl04

Skipping back a bit, but I'm going to take a tack that is not often seen on Interference and side with LN7. I think "if you don't vote for Hillary you're voting for Trump" is overly simplistic and idealistic. Perhaps it's idealistic that a vote for Jill Stein or whoever is a vote hoping to inspire change in the future, but if you don't try to make change according to your own values at some point in your life you might as well just give up entirely and become a Democratic shill.

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

It is silly, in the same way that I couldn't tell if people are having a laugh when they say it was Nader's fault that Bush got elected.

It's ridiculously simplistic and only reaffirms my opinions on liberals.

Without addressing the 2000 election specifically, in a system as firmly two-party and first-past-the-post as the US presidential election, it's not simplistic - it's pragmatism.

A third party run can be successful if it starts from a sufficiently popular base and does not simply cannibalise from one side of politics without eating enough to overtake both opponents. The whole reason Australia introduced preferential voting is because FPTP three-cornered contests can and do lead to the victory of the least popular candidate.

Look, what do you prefer? Clinton to beat Trump in a pure two party contest, or for some random minor parties to cannibalise enough of the left-wing anti-Trump vote that Trump scrapes to victory? You can't be idealistic in FPTP systems. You just can't, or you hand victory to your most hated option.

This is why I hate FPTP so much and advocate for preferential systems wherever possible. In Australia I can satisfy my Green, social democrat, and democratic socialist inclinations quite merrily without worrying that I will contribute to a Coalition victory in a tight race. In New Zealand I don't have that luxury for my local member, so I hold my nose and vote Labour because fuck the Tories. Likewise, if I voted in the US, much as I would rather vote for Jill Stein, I would hold my nose and vote Democrat because fuck the Republicans. My vote in that situation goes where it is most useful: the party most likely to keep the right out.

PS Vlad, your derogatory use of the word "liberal" is strange when you clearly hold liberal positions on social policy.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by cobl04

A political vote is a very personal thing

I would suggest public office is the exact opposite of personal.

if no one starts small, how will anything ever change?

If it's an FPTP system, start small and build your platform through other means, then enter the race when you have a critical mass to pass the two established parties.

Anybody who expects the US party system to shift to include a powerful third party needs to seriously reassess their expectations, given the current two-party system (for all the ideological shifts of the parties themselves) has endured at every election since 1860. No Westminster system can claim that. Cannibalising a small part of the far left Democrat vote in the name of ideological purity doesn't seem to be achieving a lot except slightly lowering the "post" the Republicans must pass for victory.

[dazzledbylight]

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 that's why Nader voters should have only voted for him in safe States, so he could keep some influence.

There's a progressive radio host name Thom Hartman (rip Air America Radio) who is the Brunch with Bernie radio host lHe was telling progressive people back in the mid 00's to go join their local Dem party and go up the ladder over years to change it from within

Really, that"s what the right wing Republicans started to do after their decimation of their party in LBJ v Goldwater.
I was 11 when that happened, so the history was something I learned decades later.
They set up the long game to take over State legislatures that then also would appoint the State's Secretary of State who controls certain voting issues (it's very late here ).
In Fla 2000 I think it was Katherine Harris (Republican).

And they also draw the District Lines . it may be true that they took that to ridiculous new heights to thrawt Dem voters

[dazzledbylight]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

It is silly, in the same way that I couldn't tell if people are having a laugh when they say it was Nader's fault that Bush got elected.

It's ridiculously simplistic and only reaffirms my opinions on liberals.

It's at least partly Nader's fault W got elected.

[deep]

Explain

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by Axver

This is why I hate FPTP so much and advocate for preferential systems wherever possible. In Australia I can satisfy my Green, social democrat, and democratic socialist inclinations quite merrily without worrying that I will contribute to a Coalition victory in a tight race. In New Zealand I don't have that luxury for my local member, so I hold my nose and vote Labour because fuck the Tories. Likewise, if I voted in the US, much as I would rather vote for Jill Stein, I would hold my nose and vote Democrat because fuck the Republicans. My vote in that situation goes where it is most useful: the party most likely to keep the right out.

You know, I still get stumped by these two titles. I can't tell if they're meant to be the same thing or there are differences between the two.

PS Vlad, your derogatory use of the word "liberal" is strange when you clearly hold liberal positions on social policy.

Not sure why it's "strange", it's very common among leftists. And I'm fairly sure you understand that 'liberal' entails more than just being progressive socially.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by cobl04

I'm going to take a tack that is not often seen on Interference and side with LN7.

I don't know if this is supposed to make me feel better or worse 😂

Originally Posted by Axver

Look, what do you prefer? Clinton to beat Trump in a pure two party contest, or for some random minor parties to cannibalise enough of the left-wing anti-Trump vote that Trump scrapes to victory? You can't be idealistic in FPTP systems. You just can't, or you hand victory to your most hated option.



This is why I hate FPTP so much and advocate for preferential systems wherever possible. In Australia I can satisfy my Green, social democrat, and democratic socialist inclinations quite merrily without worrying that I will contribute to a Coalition victory in a tight race. In New Zealand I don't have that luxury for my local member, so I hold my nose and vote Labour because fuck the Tories. Likewise, if I voted in the US, much as I would rather vote for Jill Stein, I would hold my nose and vote Democrat because fuck the Republicans. My vote in that situation goes where it is most useful: the party most likely to keep the right out.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that if a third party candidate chooses not to run, it could be beneficial to whichever side they might be taking votes away from (I also think it's silly to single out the left; this election's big third party candidate, Gary Johnson, will be taking mostly from the right).

I'm disagreeing with the idea that "if it's close enough" to your views, you owe an obligation to to vote against what's not your views.

Though not the likeliest of scenarios, I wouldn't be surprised if Johnson and Stein pull just shy of 10% of the vote. We are facing the two most disliked candidates in modern history. Look at it from the reverse side... if a republican absolutely cannot stand Hillary Clinton, is he or she obliged to vote for Donald Trump? Someone that simply doesn't stand for what they stand for. Why wouldn't they just vote for Gary Johnson and push for major party status and equal ballot access for the libertarian party? That's a very realistic goal, for this election.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by dazzledbylight

Well that's why Nader voters should have only voted for him in safe States, so he could keep some influence.

At some points in this thread, we've been individualizing groups of people unnecessarily. This is sort of the opposite, though. Nader supporters aren't/weren't just a set of numbers that you can allocate. This is what I was calling "ideal." In a perfect world, you could balance everything everywhere and Nader could get all of his votes happily.

I made a point about this in totally unbalanced states -- why don't the 100,000 Nader voters in Florida play ball and trade their votes with Texas democrats, who apparently have no responsibility whatsoever? Let all 100,000 Florida voters vote for Gore in place of the Texas Democrats that would've, and they can vote Nader!

The above scenario I describe actually was attempted. Nader's Traders! A ridiculous idea that undermines the electoral college entirely. Got a lot of states mad for what was essentially attempts at crowd organized election fixing.

I honestly think that this argument will just keep circling around and around though. There's a fundamental disagreement. I don't agree with denying the antecedent. Those responsible for electing Bush were the republicans who voted for him. Inadvertently, Ralph Nader's decision to run aided in Bush's victory. More importantly, Al Gore's inability to be a good enough candidate for those voters lost him their vote. Most importantly, Florida's balloting was effectively made to fuck Al Gore, likely thanks to the Republican Party of Florida.

[cobl04]

I read an article on FiveThirtyEight that said Johnson was getting around 10% of the vote in some polls.

[LuckyNumber7]

Well that probably won't hold up, but right now it makes sense. People are "moving to Canada" with their vote, so to say. I'm sure when the debates kick up, a lot of people will start to "pick the lesser of two evils." But I wouldn't be surprised if those third party candidates stand a chance to get their voter threshold that they need to expand (~5%).

[Mack_Again]

Originally Posted by BVS

You guys just don't understand math.

Trump: 2+2 = whatever you want it to be, we just print more.

Sanders: 2+2 = millions, the messiah could feed the nation with just one fish and one piece of bread.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

wait i thought 2+2=5

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

In a close election like 2000, your throwaway vote could have made a difference and we would have been spared the horrors of the Bush presidency. You can't sit back and pretend like you have no responsibilities here whatsoever for said vote because the parties have failed to cater to you and "earn" your precious vote.

I'm not going to pat you on the back and applaud your dignity and purity.

In fairness to Nader voters, it's not as if 9/11 and what followed in terms of the Bush presidency was foreseeable. Yes, you could have thought at the time that he'd be a worse president than Gore because of certain of his policies and the way he used the religious right at the polls, but nobody could have predicted the depth of his administration's incompetence.

Today you have the benefit of hindsight, but back then, and I do remember that election very well, it simply was not as if you had a great Obama-type candidate running against Sarah Palin. It simply was not seen or perceived that way, and a lot of it had to do with the fact that the original Bush president wasn't great but wasn't a disaster either and the family was generally viewed as fairly intelligent, professional, etc.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Mack_Again

wait i thought 2+2=5

Thanks.

[Hewson]

Is everyone here who blames Nader for W also unhappy with Ross Perot for preventing HW from being re-elected?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

In fairness to Nader voters, it's not as if 9/11 and what followed in terms of the Bush presidency was foreseeable. Yes, you could have thought at the time that he'd be a worse president than Gore because of certain of his policies and the way he used the religious right at the polls, but nobody could have predicted the depth of his administration's incompetence.

Today you have the benefit of hindsight, but back then, and I do remember that election very well, it simply was not as if you had a great Obama-type candidate running against Sarah Palin. It simply was not seen or perceived that way, and a lot of it had to do with the fact that the original Bush president wasn't great but wasn't a disaster either and the family was generally viewed as fairly intelligent, professional, etc.

I don't remember it that way at all. Yes, Bush said things like he wasn't into nation building, and the scope of his vision for domestic policy was a tax cut for the wealthy, but I was also living and working in Europe at the time and fielding questions from drunk, distressed Europeans about the possibility of a Bush presidency. I shared many of their concerns. I remember the born-again thing as being dangerous, as well as the eagerness to start small wars. The GOP had taken a dangerous turn during the 1990s, with Buchanan and his 1992 convention speech that still makes my blood run cold, and Bush was seen as the idiot puppet through which various groups representing bad interests (guns, oil, environmental destruction, fundamentalist social policy) had found their socially acceptable voice.

I agree, no one thought it would get quite so bad, but there were clear differences, and warnin signs.

And it underscores the silliness of dismissing the two parties of being the same.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Is everyone here who blames Nader for W also unhappy with Ross Perot for preventing HW from being re-elected?

I'm unhappy with Perot for not running more, he gave us some of the best Carvey SNL.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

And that's some white privilege.

Ugh. Just stop. Everybody on the left would suffer under Trump. It's also ironic that you keep bringing up this line when the situation for black Americans both economically and socially has become worse for them since Obama took office.

I also don't see how Trump would be even remotely as bad as Bush. Not only would he not being taken seriously by members of his own party, but he has a lot of weird populist and pseudo-leftist beliefs and proposals which automatically make him to the left of practically everybody that ran for the Republican nomination. I could honestly give a fuck that he's a racist because

1) So are the other Republicans. They just use more subtle forms of dog whistling. I find it ironic when people post angry missives about Trump on Facebook and ignore the fact that he's merely going along with the same tactics the party has used for decades...a Trump Presidency is less right-wing than Ted Cruz, Rubio, etc. so they shouldn't have been actively hoping that Trump would fail in his quest for the nomination, especially when polling showed Trump to be the worst candidate for the general election.

2) And it's not like Trump can on his own just enact some anti-Civil Rights laws, and even if he got his own party to go along with it, the Supreme Court would rule against practically all of it as discriminatory for obvious reasons, even with their right-leaning slant. Therefore, most of his opinions are just that, opinions. Frankly, I don't mind it if I were to live with neighbors that were closeted racists but caused no problems and kept their home exteriors clean, etc. since it's not like most people have much of a relationship with people they live near. At the end of the day, all that matters are the actions and Trump can't really act on half that shit.