|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah regardless of how stupid and spiteful he might be, the individual third-party voter has nearly zero agency in determining the final outcome of the election. i don't think it was stupid or spiteful for me to vote 3rd party in a safe-red state. maybe if there had been some momentum towards the dems in this state, but there wasn't any, especially for clinton but yeah, hillary made a lot of bad choices she didn't have to make. for example, she decided to attack people who (i assume) she wanted as future supporters. why would she split her own support like that? Condiv fucked around with this message at 13:59 on May 3, 2017 |
#
?
May 3, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Shrike82, I know you're trolling, I just want to know where this shitposting train is going. Leftists don't exist? Leftists enable fascists? We should all join third parties? Third parties enable fascism? I just want to see the culmination of the journey. What's your central thesis. Like Emden, he has no grand thesis in the waiting, only obnoxious shitposting.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i don't think it was stupid or spiteful for me to vote 3rd party in a safe-red state. maybe if there had been some momentum towards the dems in this state, but there wasn't any, especially for clinton I was complaining about this years ago that even if young people don't statistically vote, earning their trust by appealing to their interests will result in them being reliable voters when they are older. It might MAYBE even get them to vote now since it's possible young people don't vote because none of the ancient people in either party really gives a poo poo about their problems. I kept getting told that was a waste of time since they don't vote right now. Democrats are unable to plan for the future in terms of voter outreach and it's a real problem especially since their short term strategy isn't even working. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:09 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
I advocated not blaming third-party voters. Call them idiots and relentless assholes all you want, it is 100% true. But also 100% useless because how do you fix that next time around, you don't, can't change human nature and argue every single human being into not being a stupid spiteful rear end in a top hat. From a 1on1 chimp-brain social interaction standpoint, it even makes sense. In the Ultimatum Game even though it is always to one's advantage to accept even the minimum offer rather than get nothing, the risk that the person will spitefully refuse a severely unfair offer tends to result in more fair proposals. It's just that this strategy doesn't scale up to national elections with millions of people and catastrophic life-and-death consequences if a fascist wins, and when you can influence your party in other ways by organizing, voting in primaries, etc to get better candidates in the future without loving yourself over in the meantime. Still a lot of people will react with chimp-brain and punish themselves and everyone else if they feel taken advantage of, can't out-reason chimp-brain. Thus, the blame lies 100% with the Democratic party and their lovely candidate for arrogantly assuming that it doesn't matter what they do as long as Republicans are worse, Democrats will win by default, because they're the ones with the agency in this situation and therefore the duty to win the voters' approval.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Actually that strategy does scale up, even to things like elections, and perpetually choosing the 'lesser evil' is just a more elaborate ultimatum game that's been set up by people in power for their own benefit - by rejecting the terms of the game entirely, you blow up that system. Spite is good.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Voting third party is perfectly valid. It shows both sides that you are willing to withhold your vote until there are better options while still making your general political wishes known. Plus's unlike just staying home you can't be written off as lazy or unengaged. Also, lol at the idea that the Democrats will change anything as long as they know you'll vote for them no matter what. People need to stop being huge pussies and start demanding what they want.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Personally I think the effective way to let parties know is to vote strongly in the primary then rally behind the winner but gently caress it we can't even do that because it's too damaging to the fragile rear end centrist Democratic candidates to even run against them now once the party has decided preemptively who's the winner. Like Hillary Clinton and her supporters gave a poo poo about how damaged Bernie would have been (just like how rough they were against Obama) if he had somehow won.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Radish posted:I was complaining about this years ago that even if young people don't statistically vote, earning their trust by appealing to their interests will result in them being reliable voters when they are older. It might MAYBE even get them to vote now since it's possible young people don't vote because none of the ancient people in either party really gives a poo poo about their problems. I kept getting told that was a waste of time since they don't vote right now. Democrats are unable to plan for the future in terms of voter outreach and it's a real problem especially since their short term strategy isn't even working. Democrats seem unable to plan for the future period. I can't recall any democrat ever articulating an actual political strategy stretching beyond the next presidential election.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Actually that strategy does scale up, even to things like elections, and perpetually choosing the 'lesser evil' is just a more elaborate ultimatum game that's been set up by people in power for their own benefit - by rejecting the terms of the game entirely, you blow up that system. Pretty much. Being the least bad of two increasingly terrible options only works as a long term strategy if you assume the voters are friction-less spheres that make all their decisions through a series of cost benefit analysis flowcharts and math. I mean, it would work until things get bad enough and everyone just dies. Having our chimp-brain as a fail safe that grabs the wheel and starts breaking poo poo is why we survived as a species the first time some rear end in a top hat in charge of the tribe reasoned he could horde almost all of the tribes food. The rest of the tribe forcibly replaced this idea with a rock. Iron Twinkie fucked around with this message at 16:22 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, people in this thread are unironically calling Hillary abuela. That is incredibly cringy.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Holy poo poo, people in this thread are unironically calling Hillary abuela. That is incredibly cringy. thats the term hillary supporters used because she was so beloved by latino voters and she got less then obama did in 2012 lol the arrogance that democrats are owed voting blocks regardless of having no plan for anything than the status quo is why americans hate them
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Holy poo poo, people in this thread are unironically calling Hillary abuela. That is incredibly cringy. Don't you have some homeless people to sue
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's become a truism that the Democrat party needs to move left to win again but is there any empirical evidence that there's a desire for it? I agree that it isn't exactly rational to just assume that moving to the left will magically become super popular. But I still want it to happen because I think it would be a good thing. I also think that moving to the left would be possible with the right politician; even if I don't think people are clamoring for left wing policy, I also don't think they're so opposed to it that it couldn't be successfully sold to them. edit: Put another way, I don't think that "the people" really want any specific policy. I think that there's a very wide range of things that could be sold to them with the right person and message, and that the average person rarely has more than a couple strict ideological commitments. shrike82 posted:Yeah it's pretty funny how half of the leftists here didn't even bother voting in the election and are beating their chests about how the Democrat party needs to listen to them. I'm pretty sure this isn't true. I can only think of maybe 2 or 3 common posters in this thread who didn't vote or voted for some third party candidate like Stein (and that's ignoring the fact that if they did so in a non-swing state, there really wasn't any potential harm caused). Most of the other people, like most Sanders voters in general, still voted for Hillary in the general election. I completely agree with condemning people who didn't vote for her in swing states (since ultimately voting in the general election is a pragmatic decision), but there aren't many of those people and you're just blindly strawmanning everyone and, without any evidence, coming to the completely off the wall crazy conclusion that Sanders voters somehow caused Trump to win. Probably Magic posted:Shrike82, I know you're trolling, I just want to know where this shitposting train is going. Leftists don't exist? Leftists enable fascists? We should all join third parties? Third parties enable fascism? I just want to see the culmination of the journey. What's your central thesis. I'm starting to think that some of the people in this thread had a nasty break-up with a leftist or something, because otherwise their bizarre enmity makes little sense. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:15 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Didn't talk enough about the economy (because she underestimated Trump's appeal to working class voters). Majorian posted:It's not just that she didn't talk about it enough, dingus; . Majorian posted:I love that you think Hillary Clinton paying lip service to economic justice a handful of times means that she discussed it frequently enough, with enough conviction. Sad! VitalSigns posted:For people ideologically committed to neoliberalism, arguing about how much blame Hillary deserves and where is the sensible strategy. I said as much two weeks ago. JeffersonClay posted:Third way Clintonism, whatever that might mean, does not proscribe how campaigns should be run. criticizing the campaign for not listening to Bill Clinton or not running a winning campaign like he did gives third way clintonists cover. It allows them to blame Hillary and Robby Mook rather than the ideas and policies at the heart of her candidacy. If you think that the Putin's Puppet focus is a convenient excuse for democrats to deny the need for authentic leftist policy, I can't understand how you could see focusing on the competence of the campaign any differently. It doesn't matter if Robby Mook hosed up the campaign or if Putin hacked it, either option implies the ideas themselves were not at fault.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I'm pretty sure this isn't true. I can only think of maybe 2 or 3 common posters in this thread who didn't vote or voted for some third party candidate like Stein (and that's ignoring the fact that if they did so in a non-swing state, there really wasn't any potential harm caused). Call Me Charlie posted:That was 2012. In 2016, I voted for Trump after voting for Bernie in the primary. lol
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Voting third party is perfectly valid. It shows both sides that you are willing to withhold your vote until there are better options while still making your general political wishes known. Plus's unlike just staying home you can't be written off as lazy or unengaged. The tea party shows how stupid this thinking is. What you are talking about sounds good on paper but there's literally no evidence it has ever performed as claimed. On the other hand the alt right and tea party worked within the party to change it to their image and got real tangible results. Meanwhile what you are saying had literally never happened, whereas there's countless examples of us political parties changing because of internal pressures. Electoral systems matter a lot less than is claimed here, fptp is not the reason everything is bad. Because at the end of the day there is not a lot of difference between third parties in parliamentary politics and caucuses like the tea party. The house freedom caucus could be thought of as a third party that joins government with the standard us right wing and very little would be lost in translation. People who cry about fptp are just looking for the easy answer. Oh if we just change to a parliament everything would be different and we'd have full communism now!!!  no, not really: what would happen is the progressive caucus would split off, form governments with mainstream dems, and the end result would be functionally identical. This is precisely what Bernie does and there's no reason to believe a scaled up version would go differently (and wee can look to the republicans for many examples).In conclusion: Voting third party in a fptp system is objectively wrong: it does not accomplish, and had never accomplished, what proponents claim it does. There's not a single example in modern us politics you could point to and say third party voters did anything but throw the election to their ideological opponents. Ahhh this topic is so frustrating because people like you flat out ignore all the actual evidence in favor of evidencless theory. We can look at Nader! Nothing of what you said actually occurred and you don't get a more clear cut case study, for the dem side, on the topic. Iron Twinkie posted:Pretty much. Being the least bad of two increasingly terrible options only works as a long term strategy if you assume the voters are friction-less spheres that make all their decisions through a series of cost benefit analysis flowcharts and math. I mean, it would work until things get bad enough and everyone just dies. Having our chimp-brain as a fail safe that grabs the wheel and starts breaking poo poo is why we survived as a species the first time some rear end in a top hat in charge of the tribe reasoned he could horde almost all of the tribes food. The rest of the tribe forcibly replaced this idea with a rock. What are you even saying. On the one hand were have centuries of actual evidence and on the other we have you nonsensically blathering about spheres. What in the actual gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:lol Yes, he is one of the posters I was thinking of. I don't deny there are some people who made dumb votes, but 1. they aren't a very significant portion of Sanders voters and 2. they don't even cause any harm unless they're in a swing state. The problem is that you're tarring leftists in general as dumb people who voted for Trump or Stein or whatever, when that doesn't even apply to most leftists. I stick by my "had a nasty break-up with a leftist in the past" theory.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
It's kinda sad that you have to make personal attacks - "he must be a centrist because a leftist dumped him". But I guess that's par for the course for Sanderistas being blind about race, gender, or any issues outside of white needs. We're seeing the exact same white leftist accelerationism play out in France with white leftists literally saying there's no difference between Le Pen and Macron. Only someone without any ties to immigrant, ethnic minorities can say. But good that you can claim that you're ideologically pure while Trump continues to trample over minorities.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
I want more than two parties in this country, it's funny how we think having a diversity of political parties is a bad thing. Most people don't vote, and it's about getting them excited about voting for someone that will finally help them personally, how the hell is only having two choices supposed to represent the opinions and views of 300 million people. FPTP is archaic and needs to die.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
tsa posted:
*adjusts lanyard* and since we've established that the voter, is in aggregate, an economically rational machine that will always pick the most optimal or least unoptimal choice between two given options we can see on the final slide that Brexit did not occur, Macron will be elected in France, and Hillary Clinton is the current sitting President of the United States. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
tsa posted:The tea party shows how stupid this thinking is. Actually being utterly uncompromising with their party (DINOs! Cuckservatives!) has gotten them exactly what they wanted. Granted in this case that means Trump and a bunch of nuts in congress, but still. There's no reason the Democratic base couldn't make their leadership fear them in a similar fashion. Also if memory serves me right Gore still would have lost even if every Nader voter had voted for him. Same with Stein -> Hillary. The issue isn't people like me casting protest votes, it's people getting so disgusted with the system as a whole that they check out and stop voting entirely. Maybe Democrats should stop trying to bully their base into compliance and instead try inspiring people with something better than "Republican, but slightly less terrible"? Just a thought.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
The absolutely lovely SCOTUS verdict and Gore's recount strategy had a lot more to do with 2000 than Nader, who siphoned off voters from both parties. More Democrats crossed the aisle to vote for Bush in Florida than that, which is doubly as damaging as simply throwing away your vote, so maybe people should be madder at the actual "traitors" than people whose votes they feel they are owed. "Third party voters" are just an excuse as to why a party continues to lose elections. If it's coming down to the meager amount of votes a candidate like Stein takes away maybe you hosed up regardless. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 18:29 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's kinda sad that you have to make personal attacks - "he must be a centrist because a leftist dumped him". It's called a joke. There are about a million things more harmful in our current society than leftists (who are generally significantly less bigoted than the average person and more likely to vote for a Democrat), so it is very strange to be so bizarrely focused on insulting them.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Also if memory serves me right Gore still would have lost even if every Nader voter had voted for him. no 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Radish posted:The absolutely lovely SCOTUS verdict and Gore's recount strategy had a lot more to do with 2000 than Nader, who siphoned off voters from both parties. More Democrats crossed the aisle to vote for Bush in Florida than that, which is doubly as damaging as simply throwing away your vote, so maybe people should be madder at the actual "traitors" than people whose votes they feel they are owed. a) people who voted for Bush got their preferred candidate between Gore and Bush; those who voted for Nader didn't b) Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida. Appearing on a talk show after the election, Nader cited polls that showed that, had he not run, only 38 percent of his voters would have backed Gore versus 25 percent for Bush. Strangely, Nader held up these numbers as a defense against the spoiler charge. Yet the very data cited by Nader, if applied to Florida, shows that he took a net 12,000 votes from Gore -- more than enough to hand the state, and the electoral college, to Bush.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:a) people who voted for Bush got their preferred candidate between Gore and Bush; those who voted for Nader didn't
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
tsa posted:... Now that we have two major counter-example for your first claim, the whole "centuries of actual evidence" thing is bullshit on its face too, because obviously the Whigs aren't a party anymore and the Republicans are. Additionally, third party victories were a huge thing in the past: "By 1918, the Socialist Party of America had won 1,200 political offices, including electing 1 Congressman, 32 state representatives, and 79 mayors." So it's worked in the past. Don't make overly broad sweeping claims that don't apply to smaller elections or ignore inconvenient parts of history that contradict you.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
This article makes the case that if you applied national break down of "who would you vote for in a two party race?" then yes Gore gets the win from Nader's voters however if you look at individual state polls it's much, much closer and not enough to definitively say that he could overcome 500 votes. I can't find the 2000 CNN state exit poll he is referring to though so maybe he's full of it. It also requires right leaning third party candidates to not be running since they took possible votes from Bush. Regardless the point isn't that Nader voters made a totally rational decision and they got the option they wanted (most certainly did not and I'm sure would have voted for Gore if they could take it back; I'm curious if the same could be said for the people that crossed the aisle if they really got what they wanted from Bush as Democrats), it's that Democrats shouldn't be focusing on a tiny fraction of voters they think they can shame into supporting them because of an election sixteen years ago. 2000 is pretty irrelevant in 2016 since even if there was a lesson to be learned by the general public, it's much more difficult to lecture a nebulous bunch of people that want to vote third party that they shouldn't than it is to have candidates become more appealing to voters.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Just because you don't know about a line of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Kshama Sawant's election to Seattle's City Council a few years back is an example of third party voters electing a candidate much farther to the left. Sawant wasn't third-party in the sense being discussed because it was a two candidate race.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Radish posted:(most certainly did not and I'm sure would have voted for Gore if they could take it back; I'm curious if the same could be said for the people that crossed the aisle if they really got what they wanted from Bush as Democrats) this is a dumb argument to be making when we know that conservative Democrats exist today (and it's a big complaint even!), and they did so in greater numbers in the past!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Holy poo poo, people in this thread are unironically calling Hillary abuela. That is incredibly cringy. IIRC she literally hired some memetic crew to come up with that stupid name.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:this is a dumb argument to be making when we know that conservative Democrats exist today (and it's a big complaint even!), and they did so in greater numbers in the past! Conservative Democrats are certainly a thing but there's no way any of them could have predicted what was going to happen during Bush's term and voted accordingly. Gore being an unappealing candidate probably had more to do with them flipping than wanting a Mideast quagmire for instance.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Montana special election update: https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/859839910169202689
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Radish posted:Conservative Democrats are certainly a thing but there's no way any of them could have predicted what was going to happen during Bush's term and voted accordingly. Gore being an unappealing candidate probably had more to do with them flipping than wanting a Mideast quagmire for instance. i mean that goes for republican voters too tho (ps: don't nobody vote republican)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:a) people who voted for Bush got their preferred candidate between Gore and Bush; those who voted for Nader didn't As someone noted a few days ago, whenever we get into discussions like this it's worth looking at the macro, which is that 300+ million people have a choice of two parties, which is crazy.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:As someone noted a few days ago, whenever we get into discussions like this it's worth looking at the macro, which is that 300+ million people have a choice of two parties, which is crazy. it's not that crazy when you consider that under multiparty systems, possible orderings of coalitions between parties to form ruling coalitions are either a) baked into the system or b) so fragile as to render government unstable
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Sawant wasn't third-party in the sense being discussed because it was a two candidate race.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Montana special election update: I'm glad Obama forwarded his speaking fees into local elections 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Seattle's voting system is an open primary that pits the top two candidates against each other. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Seattle's voting system is an open primary that pits the top two candidates against each other. The fact that there are different kinds of elections beyond FPTP in the US, though, which are easier to win in or can't even have vote splitting (like ranked choice) is yet another augment against the extremely broad claim tsa was making. The other thing that contradicts his claim is that often, candidates run unopposed or there's no plausible way for a conservative candidate to win. His claim, remember, was "there is not a single example in modern us politics you could point to and say third party voters did anything but throw the election to their ideological opponents." It's a gross exaggeration and completely incorrect, especially at the local level of politics. sure but like I'd be more interested in ending FPTP first before worrying about building up third parties
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:59
|
|