|
Frijolero posted:I'll be voting Sanders in primary and Jill Stein in the final. I wish I could vote Sanders, but California's primary is so late he wouldn't be on the ballot even if he does run (also I refuse to register as a Democrat) Will gladly vote for Stein again, though.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
Frijolero posted:lol A Jill Stein voter calling someone else a loser. Truly incredible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Please don't vote for the green party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:I never asked for convincing on Clinton and I am not saying she's no different than Republicans. What I asked was: Are there any redeeming qualities to Clinton? I think Hillary isn't without her flaws but she's intelligent, dedicated, clever, and (as important as this ever is) she looks and sounds more Presidential than almost any competitor. If I agreed with her policy platform I would be thrilled to have her as its champion, frankly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
There were much better protest-vote candidates in 2012 than Stein. Anderson, for example.Chantilly Say posted:I think Hillary isn't without her flaws but she's intelligent, dedicated, clever, and (as important as this ever is) she looks and sounds more Presidential than almost any competitor. If I agreed with her policy platform I would be thrilled to have her as its champion, frankly. She's the best politician of the national-level Democrats that aren't Harry Reid, Bill or Obama. Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:I call bullshit on this. Our presidential system, in terms of electability, has a lot to do with the candidates personality, as it dictates that candidate's popularity and thus voter's willingness to vote for that candidate, lest vote at all. Especially considering how many PACs and gaffes can make or break a candidate's electability. And that still matters. What you're thinking of in my mind is more of a british parliamentary election, in which the people do in fact vote for parties and not for PM candidates, which does mean in that case that who the PM is as a person doesn't matter. Now there is certainly the question of how good the candidate is at selling that, which is somewhat related to how well their persona matches who they are. Some are hilariously bad (Rand Paul) and some are really good (W Bush). But who they are as a person, not a lot. Frijolero posted:lol Again, I realize you think you are springing in here to upend our staid ideas and be some dynamic and clever person, but you aren't. You are boring, and I quite assure you that I'm not even slightly riled. There is nothing new with you, and we will see a few like you every week until Election Day - you have gotten nothing but my canned response to whenever this happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:she will reflect the current democratic coalition. The income and wealth equality branch is still failing to deliver, so they won't represent a major break from the standard Obama position to a more Warren like position. I'm less pessimistic about this than you are, but we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:lol She's a Democrat. She supports Democratic positions. Her legislative focus was around health care issues, for the most part. It was always an issue she was invested in, ever since she was First Lady. She was a sponsor on something like 3,000 bills while in the Senate, so feel free to read up on them. Only 50 or so of them actually passed, because the reality is that Senators don't actually accomplish all that much. After that, she was Secretary of State, and did what the President told her to do while giving her personal opinion behind the scenes. And control over Supreme Court nominations is not a "slight benefit". Imagine if John McCain had gotten to appoint two Supreme Court Justices. Say goodbye to same-sex marriage, abortion, the Affordable Care Act, and every other progressive government action of the last half century. Seriously, vote for the loving Democrat. I don't care if it's a literal donkey running, vote for the Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:I don't think Jeb's as easy of a choice as Mitt Romney. There were a lot of R's who didn't care for what the Bush years did to the party, and W's still so unpopular he generally doesn't show his face in public. He seems the most likely candidate, I'll give you that, but I don't see it as a lock. It's not so much a choice as having the people who actually run these things in his pocket. Mitt's biggest threat was what, Gingrich suddenly tear-assing through SC which forced him to dump $20 million on FL a week later? But Newt didn't even have a campaign office or staff at that point in his book tour, so it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. Like I said, if there were fewer joke/grifter candidates running or if somehow everyone not part of the party establishment were to figure out early on all their individual pet issues would be better served buying off the same guy and backing him like yesterday, then maybe that person will have a fighting chance against Jeb, but probably not. Like last time, they're too fragmented and concerned with peddling product to the rubes or scoring a better media deal, and Jeb's pretty much the only one actually in it to be president. The most credible threat so far is Walker, and that's all name recognition which is fading anyway (reminder: Huckabee was consistently leading polls at this point in 2011). And what does he offer? A complete toady for business interests? Since Jeb totally isn't that as well, on top of not looking like he just huffed a bag of freon. Nobody in the position of cutting the big checks is going to think yeah let's get the guy from the Special Olympics posters to represent us as opposed to the blue blood with a lifetime of connections to everyone on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Look, very few people actually 'like' Clinton, but she's got all the money so you might as well buckle up. She's not going to allow herself to get blindsided by an insurgent campaign again, even if there were a candidate that would or could run such a campaign. She's hawkish, she's pro-business, and she's an entrenched, career politician, but the most important thing is she's a Democrat. She'll probably at least have a few SC nominations, and the balance of the supreme court is precarious as it is. Also, as someone pointed out, the republican agenda is, fairly explicitly, to undo EVERYTHING Obama has accomplished. That alone is probably a good enough reason to vote, even if you're 'only' voting against the Republican party. This is if you're a Democrat/On the fence. If you're a Republican please vote for Rand Paul because I wanna see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
I really liked Hillary's announcement video. I liked the narrative of starting something, I liked the humility, I liked the populism, and I liked the in-your-face multiculturalism. I'm at peak Team D optimism right now. I've been loathe to consider voting for Hillary in the past, but over the past few years I've come to realize that I would be OK with a caretaker presidency that is vaguely in the same vein of the prevailing Obama doctrine: Semi-functional government bureaucracy, skies full of drones instead of major wars, and a stable-to-gently degrading orbit around the blackhole of capitalism. Until something happens to fundamentally change the dynamic of the GOP, Hillary is the president America deserves. Sanders and Warren won't run, can't win, and wouldn't be able to effectively govern even if they were elected. Failing that, I'd be happy with another term of ultimately minor but nonetheless entertaining provocations a la Trollbama. For my money, Hillary is the candidate best equipped to deal with the GOP's poo poo for another four years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:There were much better protest-vote candidates in 2012 than Stein. Anderson, for example. To be honest, I was torn between Anderson and Stein in 2012. I ended up going Stein because their positions were fundamentally the same, but only one of them had anything remotely resembling a chance of maintaining ballot access. If the Greens had nominated one of the usual kooks associated with the party, then sure, I'd have voted for Rocky, but as long as all things were the same (and Stein was actually pretty grounded for a Green Party nominee) I might as well make sure they kept ballot access because that is more important in the margins than ideological purity. But the legitimate gripes with the Greens are precisely why I haven't registered with them (or Peace and Freedom, for that matter).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:I wish I could vote Sanders, but California's primary is so late he wouldn't be on the ballot even if he does run (also I refuse to register as a Democrat) That's a bummer. Sanders is my first choice, but he continues to align himself with the Democrats. I love Stein. She actually visited my city, which was absolutely wild because we are not that big of a city and are pretty much dead politically. She was incredibly humble and intelligent. Series DD Funding posted:Please don't vote for the green party. Franco Potente posted:A Jill Stein voter calling someone else a loser. Truly incredible.  Chantilly Say posted:I think Hillary isn't without her flaws but she's intelligent, dedicated, clever, and (as important as this ever is) she looks and sounds more Presidential than almost any competitor. If I agreed with her policy platform I would be thrilled to have her as its champion, frankly. Fried Chicken posted:Again, I realize you think you are springing in here to upend our staid ideas and be some dynamic and clever person, but you aren't. You are boring, and I quite assure you that I'm not even slightly riled. There is nothing new with you, and we will see a few like you every week until Election Day - you have gotten nothing but my canned response to whenever this happens. Ok mister! I will get out of your way! I am sorry for being boring  I will let you get back to your biting political commentary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Please don't vote for the green party. Agreed. I voted for them in 2012 despite disagreeing with their anti-nuclear energy stance. But since Stein is also anti-vaccine, I'm going to find another hopeless third party to vote for this time. Should I choose the Socialist Party or the Party for Socialism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I'm less pessimistic about this than you are, but we'll see. I'm curious, what was your read of the Chicago election? Or is there something else you are seeing that I've missed? Chuey going down was the source of my opinion that while the left part of the democratic coalition is growing, it still isn't delivering. Sure there is Warren, but Warren swept into the primary so that's not really anything for their strength, and once she was the candidate the party splits are rather inconsequential. The ability for movement progressives to push on primaries still seems lacking for now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
1) American elections are FPTP. 2) You cannot vote twice. #2 means that every time you vote for someone, all of the other parties/candidates also lose a potential vote (PV). Ergo: voting for Jill Stein means the Democrats and Republicans both lose exactly one PV, voting for Hillary means the Republicans lose one PV, etc. in addition to the obvious result that your selected party/candidate gains an actual vote. #1 dictates that lost PVs reduce a party/candidate's likelihood of winning by a statistically insignificant (but not infinitesimal) amount, and given a long enough stabilization period, #1 also results in the emergent property that only two parties can possibly win (which is empirically true today in America). So if we pretend that only three parties exist (Republican, Democrat, Green), then we have three possible scenarios: Vote Republican: Democrats lose one PV and Greens lose one PV = Democrats' overall chances reduced by a tiny amount, Greens' overall chances remain unchanged = statistically insignificant advantage for Republican candidate Vote Democrat: Republicans lose one PV and Greens lose one PV = Republicans' overall chances reduced by a tiny amount, Greens' overall chances remain unchanged = statistically insignificant advantage for Democratic candidate Vote Green: Democrats lose one PV and Republicans lose one PV = Democrats' and Republicans' overall chances reduced by a tiny amount, Greens' overall chances remain unchanged = statistically identical result to not-voting Theorem: absent external concerns (like living in a deep-blue state, etc.), voting third party is identical to not voting at all. Now, you would think this didn't need explaining to people as if they were very small children, but it does. The only way to refute this result is to show that a third party can possibly win an American general election, in principle and in practice. So good fuckin' luck with that. Frijolero posted:I don't just vote Jill Stein, I actually ran for office under the Green Party. Huge loser right?? Have fun voting for Hillary "Welp I Guess I Have To" Rodham Clinton You ran for office without knowing all of the above already? mdemone fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
As that other dude said, a lot of people seem to be talking about voting for the lesser of two evils because ultimately it will be a Republican or a Democrat choosing the next (2 maybe) Supreme Court Justice(s).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Ok mister! I will get out of your way! I am sorry for being boring
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:It's not so much a choice as having the people who actually run these things in his pocket. Mitt's biggest threat was what, Gingrich suddenly tear-assing through SC which forced him to dump $20 million on FL a week later? But Newt didn't even have a campaign office or staff at that point in his book tour, so it probably wouldn't have mattered anyway. Like I said, if there were fewer joke/grifter candidates running or if somehow everyone not part of the party establishment were to figure out early on all their individual pet issues would be better served buying off the same guy and backing him like yesterday, then maybe that person will have a fighting chance against Jeb, but probably not. Like last time, they're too fragmented and concerned with peddling product to the rubes or scoring a better media deal, and Jeb's pretty much the only one actually in it to be president. Like I said, Jeb definitely, indisputably, has the best odds, but I don't consider him a 'lock', for the reasons I outlined earlier. The Republican primary is going to rival every other event in 2016 out of sheer entertainment value alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:I never asked for convincing on Clinton and I am not saying she's no different than Republicans. What I asked was: Are there any redeeming qualities to Clinton? Listen, I support your trollish, RATM position. There's not a drat thing controversial about what you're saying. Of course Hillary does not have any redeeming qualities, nor are her qualities of any issue whatsoever. As you should have well observed over the past six years, a president can only achieve what his or her political team can make a reality. The theme of D&D is that we are already doing enough, that we must take a safe position and elect a Democratic president, and that the only way the GOP is going to change or be defeated is if we wait our their inevitable demographic decline. I understand that your position comes from a place of refusing to simply vote for someone because of the (D) behind their name. What I really believe that you should do is not just vote for Sanders and Stein, but actively try to make it so that Hillary Clinton, the cipher whom you oppose, does not win. That would be the truly moral extension of your position; if the Democrats of America can provide us no better candidate than Hillary, then they should be punished through actively opposing their candidate. Hillary Clinton is literally the only speed bump between the GOP and taking all three branches of the government. There's really nobody here who can emphasize enough the mortal damage that a 2016 GOP three-branch government could do to this nation in just two years. They could make every one of their pet projects legal, and destroy everything they oppose. You think of the craziest scenario imaginable, they could and WOULD do it. All this bullshit where GOP state legislatures are banning talk about climate change, defunding education, making abortion illegal... no matter how terrible the insult to the liberal mind, the GOP will do that, then double down and do it again. All social welfare and entitlement programs literally defunded and destroyed. War in Iran. Another financial crash. Everyone here is properly pissing themselves in terror about the Supreme Court. You and I can make their worst dreams a reality. We can set back social progress 50, maybe even 100 years, just by spoiling and actively campaigning against Hillary Clinton. With a new court packed with conservatives, everything can be revisited: abortion, campaign finance, Obamacare, you name it, it can be retried and made legal in accordance with the will of the GOP. So, I'm proud of you for taking a moral stance on Hillary Clinton, forums user Frijolero, and am glad that you agree with me that we should make every effort to enable the Republicans to win and destroy America. Maybe THEN the Democrats and the left in America will be angry enough to elect someone really liberal to preside over the ashes. Be sure to convince as many people as you can to vote against Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Agreed. I voted for them in 2012 despite disagreeing with their anti-nuclear energy stance. But since Stein is also anti-vaccine, I'm going to find another hopeless third party to vote for this time. Should I choose the Socialist Party or the Party for Socialism? If your state allows voting differently for president and vice-president (a few don't), then why not vote the one party for president and the other for vice president?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:I don't just vote Jill Stein, I actually ran for office under the Green Party. Huge loser right?? Have fun voting for Hillary "Welp I Guess I Have To" Rodham Clinton Oh, don't worry, I'm not American. I don't have to compromise my political values at the polling station.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Stein is an anti-vaxxer?!? Well that makes the requisite political calculus a lot easier to swallow, because that's loving insane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
I thought we agreed that accelerationism was to be put in another thread, at the kids' table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
It's always hilarious how self-styled progressives shun the need collective action to just shut the gently caress up and vote Democratic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
The Green Party is stupid because they try for a national level 'campaign' when what they ought to do is work from the local level up. Anything else just won't work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:There's really nobody here who can emphasize enough the mortal damage that a 2016 GOP three-branch government could do to this nation in just two years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmzuRXLzqKk
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Why do people even discuss third parties? They're not just politically infeasible; they're mathematically impossible in plurality systems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:The Green Party is stupid because they try for a national level 'campaign' when what they ought to do is work from the local level up. Anything else just won't work. But that won't work either. Can you really envision even the barest outline of a feasible process that would establish a third major political party in an FPTP system? I sure as hell can't. Look guys, I'm a communist too. But if you want a third party option, you have to tear down FPTP, it cannot happen otherwise. Now if you want to do that, I will support the hell out of such an effort, but do be aware that you'd be an insect flying toward the windshield of the entire political power structure of both parties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Why do people even discuss third parties? They're not just politically infeasible; they're mathematically impossible in plurality systems. We've had a handful of Independents get elected. The most high profile example I can think of is Jesse Ventura.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Agreed. I voted for them in 2012 despite disagreeing with their anti-nuclear energy stance. But since Stein is also anti-vaccine, I'm going to find another hopeless third party to vote for this time. Should I choose the Socialist Party or the Party for Socialism? Where did you hear that? Stein being an anti-vaxxer is news to me, and if true, would be a bit surprising given that she's a doctor who's published a peer-reviewed survey of toxins in child development in some detail. Now of course that COULD be exactly why someone would become anti-vaccine but it doesn't quite jive with my understanding, especially when the only thing I could dig up was where she seemed to adhere to a much more nuanced and reasonable reading of the "holistic health" point in the Green Party platform in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Why do people even discuss third parties? They're not just politically infeasible; they're mathematically impossible in plurality systems. Because GOP ops on reddit have convinced people that 'both parties are the same'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
mdemone posted:But that won't work either. Can you really envision even the barest outline of a feasible process that would establish a third major political party in an FPTP system? I sure as hell can't. as a third party you dont eliminate another party politically, you take over an existing party by making them adopt your agenda by showing it gets voted in. thats why you focus on the local level first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Yeah if you want to see the Civil Rights act completely dismantled vote 3rd party, let a Republican become president and you count the minutes until we're hosed. Getting a Republican President would be the worst possible thing especially if Walker is VP and Cruz is still running wild . I don't vote Democrat because I agree with the Democrats, I vote Democrat because I am terrified of Republicans at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Stein is an anti-vaxxer?!? Well that makes the requisite political calculus a lot easier to swallow, because that's loving insane. Their national platform as of 2012 also includes "Chronic conditions are often best cured by alternative medicine. We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches." Which is 100% false. It's in section II, subsection F of their platform document.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Chalets the Baka posted:Why do people even discuss third parties? They're not just politically infeasible; they're mathematically impossible in plurality systems. Especially after the last 5 years when TPTB showed that the way to drag a party's center towards an extreme of choice is by sinking a ton of money and effort into one faction of a main party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
I'd _like_ to vote for the Green Party, if they'd fix some of their issues. I suspect the Democrats will fracture into Dems and Green Party when the Republicans degrade into a rump party.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:That's a bummer. Sanders is my first choice, but he continues to align himself with the Democrats. Maybe because he understands how politics works and wants to actually accomplish things once and awhile?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
I thought that The Green Party at this point was taken over by really insane people, like the opposite of the Tea Party. Democrats and Republicans are never ever ever ever ever ever going to split as parties. it's just not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 08:49 |
|
|
LOU BEGAS MUSTACHE posted:as a third party you dont eliminate another party politically, you take over an existing party by making them adopt your agenda by showing it gets voted in. thats why you focus on the local level first. Of course you're right in that dragging the middle is the only route to leftist success, but you're still stuck with eventually having to call yourself a Democrat and build a coalition of voters who are significantly closer to the center, and you're right back in the quicksand if you ever want to transition that middle-dragging to a more national context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 19:11
|
|