|
I mean, if the last two years of Virginia politics aren’t worth your vote, nothing ever will be. So Blanding voters are pretty safely ignored, regardless of what happens today.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
I'm sure voting your conscience will truly result in the great things you're hoping for. All you have to do to win at politics is Feel really hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Voting is the thing you do with your brain. Donate with your conscience. Demonstrate with your conscience. If the only way to save democracy is to vote for a candidate you do not agree with over a candidate that you do, then democracy has already failed
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
People can vote for whomever the hell they want. They then get the government they deserve.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:41
|
|
|
Srice posted:Absolutely not and this logic is stupid as gently caress. I honestly don't understand this. In a close race, a leftist voting for a candidate that has no chance of winning only increases the odds of the conservative winning. How is that stupid?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:42
|
|
|
There's one thing I've never understood about the anti-third party argument. If a vote for Blanding is actually a vote for Youngkin because it's taking a vote away from McAuliffe, wouldn't a vote for Youngkin then technically be two votes for Youngkin because it's taking away a vote for McAuliffe and giving it to Youngkin? But in that case, how do Democrats ever expect to win when their opponent's votes count twice as much as theirs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:I honestly don't understand this. In a close race, a leftist voting for a candidate that has no chance of winning only increases the odds of the conservative winning. How is that stupid? Well, compared to the politics of Princess, both Youngkin and the democrat are conservative. Why would they vote for somebody who's politics doesn't agree with their own?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:If Youngkin wins, the takeaway for the Dems is going to be "progressive policy leads to electoral backlash that costs us our jobs." This will be their takeaway if the dem wins, but not in massive numbers. Honestly, it's likely to be their takeaway no matter what - the democrats took full control of the federal government in 2020 and blamed progressive policy because they could have won more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:If the only way to save democracy is to vote for a candidate you do not agree with over a candidate that you do, then democracy has already failed That's quite literally the American political system though and has been since it was started? Because the person who wins gets 100% of the power you have to go with the person who has the highest likelihood of winning and also agrees the closest to your politics. And McAuliffe at least will rubber stamp a lot of progressive legislation going through VA. I agree it should be different but without a massive upheaval and complete change of the constitution we're stuck with bullshit. Gripweed posted:There's one thing I've never understood about the anti-third party argument. If a vote for Blanding is actually a vote for Youngkin because it's taking a vote away from McAuliffe, wouldn't a vote for Youngkin then technically be two votes for Youngkin because it's taking away a vote for McAuliffe and giving it to Youngkin? Because generally people who want more progressive candidates don't protest vote by voting for superfascist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:I honestly don't understand this. In a close race, a leftist voting for a candidate that has no chance of winning only increases the odds of the conservative winning. How is that stupid? This assumes that the person was gonna vote for the specific democrat in question if there were no other options instead of staying home or leaving that entry blank (Don't wanna put words in that particular poster's mouth so I will just say that personally that is my experience when talking to people who have voted third party). Meatball posted:This will be their takeaway if the dem wins, but not in massive numbers. Yea, if they somehow win in a landslide then their takeaway will be that they don't need progressives to vote for them because their support is that broad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:If the only way to save democracy is to vote for a candidate you do not agree with over a candidate that you do, then democracy has already failed Yes, welcome to the conversation. Glad you could join us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:That's quite literally the American political system though and has been since it was started? Because the person who wins gets 100% of the power you have to go with the person who has the highest likelihood of winning and also agrees the closest to your politics. And McAuliffe at least will rubber stamp a lot of progressive legislation going through VA. I agree it should be different but without a massive upheaval and complete change of the constitution we're stuck with bullshit. Yeah, it's been broken for a long rear end time
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:That's quite literally the American political system though and has been since it was started? Because the person who wins gets 100% of the power you have to go with the person who has the highest likelihood of winning and also agrees the closest to your politics. And McAuliffe at least will rubber stamp a lot of progressive legislation going through VA. I agree it should be different but without a massive upheaval and complete change of the constitution we're stuck with bullshit. I see that you agree that it should be different so general question- how has this worked out for us so far? In the most recent democratic presidential primary?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:52
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:The hemming and hawing about McAuliffe potentially losing just seems divorced from reality here on the ground in VA. My mom asked me about how to vote before she left for a trip and she never votes on state level poo poo, but she wanted to make sure she punched the card for that tremendous loving turd. Wait, who did she vote for? Are you saying that people are being overly optimistic about McAuliffe or that he's sure to win? eta: Thom12255 posted:Frankly, I could see your mother voting for either candidate from this post.  Glad I wasn't the only one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
Peter Daou Zen posted:Well, compared to the politics of Princess, both Youngkin and the democrat are conservative. Why would they vote for somebody who's politics doesn't agree with their own? Because you should want policy enacted to be as close your view as is feasible in reality. If your preferred candidate has no shot, and it's a close race, you should vote for the candidate that can actually win and is closest to your views. Up till election day you should donate, volunteer, and do everything you can for your exact candidate. Then on election day make a judgment about the candidate that actually has a chance of enacting policy and is closest to what you'd prefer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:That's quite literally the American political system though and has been since it was started? Because the person who wins gets 100% of the power you have to go with the person who has the highest likelihood of winning and also agrees the closest to your politics. And McAuliffe at least will rubber stamp a lot of progressive legislation going through VA. I agree it should be different but without a massive upheaval and complete change of the constitution we're stuck with bullshit. So American democracy has always been a sham to funnel power towards people you disagree with who are willing to take hostages. Not a take I expected to see D&D admit to, but I can't disagree with the truth of the statement. AhhYes posted:Because you should want policy enacted to be as close your view as is feasible in reality. If the main party candidate knows would be third party voters who would prefer more leftwing positions will always cave at the last moment and strategically vote for them with zero concessions then why would they ever make those concessions? Demands for change with no consequences can be easily ignored. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Nov 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:55
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:There's one thing I've never understood about the anti-third party argument. If a vote for Blanding is actually a vote for Youngkin because it's taking a vote away from McAuliffe, wouldn't a vote for Youngkin then technically be two votes for Youngkin because it's taking away a vote for McAuliffe and giving it to Youngkin? I mean, yes? Every vote for a candidate is also a vote against that candidate's opponents. Simplist scenario, you have two candidates, A and B, and 100 voters. The results are A-50 votes B-50 votes. Then, let's say a voter for candidate A changes his vote to B. The new results are A-49 votes B-51 votes One voter changed his vote, but Candidate B now has 2 votes more than Candidate A.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:Because you should want policy enacted to be as close your view as is feasible in reality. But neither of these candidates are even close to the politics of Princess. This is like chastising people who voted for the Green Party in 2020, when neither Biden nor Trump came close to the preferred policies of the Green Party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:Because you should want policy enacted to be as close your view as is feasible in reality. No that doesn't make any sense. If your preferred candidate has no shot, and voting for them is actually giving a vote to a different candidate, then you should absolutely not volunteer or donate to that doomed candidate. You would be working to convince people to throw their vote away and then transfer it to the candidate they don't like. If you really do believe that longshot third party candidates are just vote traps that give votes to Republicans, then you should be opposed to third party candidates. Under your theory, third party candidates deform elections, they trick people into voting for the candidate they least want, because a third party vote is actually a Republican vote. Third party candidates are bad for democracy, and logically should be banned. If a vote for Blanding isn't actually a vote for Blanding, it's a vote for Youngkin, then that is an extremely hosed up election. Blanding should not be allowed on the ballot. No third party candidates should, they subvert the will of the voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
Does the GOP give libertarians as much poo poo? I feel like libertarians cost republicans elections all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:I see that you agree that it should be different so general question- how has this worked out for us so far? In the most recent democratic presidential primary? I mean, in the 2016 primary for Republicans the shittier side definitely got Their Guy in and then a bunch of poo poo rear end "moderate" Republicans bit the bullet and voted for a person they didn't necessarily agree with but gently caress it we're Republicans! Nix Panicus posted:So American democracy has always been a sham to funnel power towards people you disagree with who are willing to take hostages. Not a take I expected to see D&D admit to, but I can't disagree with the truth of the statement. I figured it's a pretty popular idea in D&D that America is a broken political system built by slave owning rich white men to keep power for themselves and we're all just trying to do our best in this nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
A vote for a third party is not a vote for the republicans. Just, mathematically it simply isn't. If you have a small town with 25 voters, 12 vote dem, 10 vote GOP, and 3 vote 3rd party, the dem still wins. If those three 3rd party voters had voted GOP, then GOP would have won. This is an extremely dumb example, but "vote for 3rd party is a vote for the bad guy!" is an extremely dumb point to make, so it deserves a dumb reply. A vote for a third party is a vote saying you don't really care who wins between the Democrat and the Republican. I disagree with that viewpoint: I think most of the time we should care, and most of the time we should want the Democrat to win. But assuming that's obvious, assuming that's so "correct" that anyone who doesn't see it is a fool is also wrong. We are all captives to this broken system and anyone confidently saying they know the way out is still just guessing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Could we not do this? Gonna +1 this, the internet tough guy aggro posts aren't necessary. That being said: Discendo Vox posted:Because it allows the user to derail the discussion to address an endlessly shifting counterfactual, and abuse any recognition of any good thing in preference to the unreal (and any user who expresses understanding of what is happening). This right here, if it isn't "posting about posters", it's sure as hell close enough to count, and I'm going to start slapping it if I see it again. Same for the votescolding that I'm seeing right now. You're allowed to disagree with people's choices, obviously, but stop trying to put people down for the crime of voting wrong by your personal standards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
I know when I learned about how the country was founded and the rules or in place I definitely nodded and said "Yes, this is the perfect base for democracy and any issues will be from future complications and not those dog poo poo ideas"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
Jack-in-the-Bach posted:Does the GOP give libertarians as much poo poo? I feel like libertarians cost republicans elections all the time. I would love to know when that has happened. But I feel like people in previous threads shared a lot of GOP angst over Libertarian candidates stealing "their" votes, especially back in 2020. That being said, most self-styled libertarians I know vote for the GOP anyway because most of them really just want low taxes and government cutbacks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:Because you should want policy enacted to be as close your view as is feasible in reality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:One voter changed his vote, but Candidate B now has 2 votes more than Candidate A. This is why we have to invent the concept of "half votes," emulating the "games behind" statistic used in sports standings! ram dass in hell posted:Is Terry on the left? He's certainly the leftmost possible governor for Virginia in 2022. But yeah vote how you want, VA goons (and NJ goons, and all goons voting in local elections today). I might disagree with it but I'm not going to call it "dumb as dogshit," or a vote for Youngkin. It's better than flat-out non-participation, so if you're voting for Blanding instead of nobody then go for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:There's one thing I've never understood about the anti-third party argument. If a vote for Blanding is actually a vote for Youngkin because it's taking a vote away from McAuliffe, wouldn't a vote for Youngkin then technically be two votes for Youngkin because it's taking away a vote for McAuliffe and giving it to Youngkin? The actual answer is that, if McAuliffe was your preferred candidate, voting for Youngkin would 'count' as two votes as illustrated by the classic Matthew Broderick film Election. But voting for Blanding and not voting at all have the same effect (within that single election), assuming Blanding was truly unable to win. So, yeah, voting for Blanding is superior to voting for Youngkin but equal to just staying home from the perspective of preventing Youngkin from winning or ensuring that McAuliffe wins. Edit: BlandING, YoUngkin. Tibalt fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Nov 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:If Youngkin wins, the takeaway for the Dems is going to be "progressive policy leads to electoral backlash that costs us our jobs." Whatever you think you're voting for by voting for Blanding will be even further away than it is now, and you'll have helped make it that way. Pretty good argument. Unless someone comes up with a better counter-argument, I'm gonna have to concur.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I would love to know when that has happened. I posed the question after briefly looking up prior va governor results, and noticed that McAuliffe won his first election in 2013 by a pretty slim margin, and the libertarian had more than enough to cover the spread. That of course assumes all of them would have otherwise voted republican.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Jack-in-the-Bach posted:Does the GOP give libertarians as much poo poo? I feel like libertarians cost republicans elections all the time. I think the GOP sees libertarians as potential GOP voters, so they don't call them stupid assholes who ruined everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
Fucker posted:Pretty good argument. Unless someone comes up with a better counter-argument, I'm gonna have to concur. Pretty sure the Democrats will punch left no matter how the election goes today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
I know TMac has a record since he was governor before, but aren't the same arguments people put forth now the same people had when they said Northram would just be some middling conservative dem who wouldn't do good things? Feels like that's being glossed over when people give reasons for not wanting to vote for a dem this time around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
Peter Daou Zen posted:No, it was a vote for the non Democrat. People aren't obligated to vote for ANYBODY. The proper response is to never speak to them again nor grace them with your presence for the holidays. Granny won't learn to vote Dem till she can't pinch your cheeks ever again. Dapper_Swindler posted:no it was before that. partly because of Nimby culture grievance poo poo that resonates with NOVA indies and conservatives and partly media and polls and race tightening. apperently alot of early votes were encouraged to get out and vote because of the fox poll. Which "fox poll"? The Fox News poll that showed Youngkin ahead by 8 last week, or another one? Because the last I saw Dems were outvoting by 2-1 in the early vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
Jack-in-the-Bach posted:Does the GOP give libertarians as much poo poo? I feel like libertarians cost republicans elections all the time. No, because at the end of the day, libertarians and Republicans want the same things - no taxes and as few regulations as possible. They differ in regards to business subsidies, but the Republican leadership knows that will never happen, and the rank and file don't care about that, reall; it's mostly taxes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
Fucker posted:Pretty good argument. Unless someone comes up with a better counter-argument, I'm gonna have to concur. I don’t believe republicans when they lie about electoral outcomes, I’m not going to believe Democrats when they lie about them either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
Fucker posted:Pretty good argument. Unless someone comes up with a better counter-argument, I'm gonna have to concur. If Youngkin loses, the takeaway for the Dems is going to be "progressive policy leads to electoral backlash that will cost us our jobs in the future." The nature of the establishment party is that the establishment is always correct, and regardless of what happens there will be a push to excise the leftmost voices from the ranks because it is inconceivable that a) the party could be wrong about something, and b) that there might ever be anything of value from the enemy. There is only ever treachery from inside, and in this instance, due to "center" being the same thing as "establishment," the problem is, and can only ever be, the left. How or whether someone votes isn't really relevant except in terms of whether or not your team is currently operating the bad system to extract wealth and resources and funnel it upwards to varying degrees. The system itself is bad and needs to be changed, quibbling about how one person voted is just a way of making yourself feel better about a situation you didn't ask for, don't want, and have very little power to do anything about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
Youngkin appears to have avoided Ken Cuccinelli's reputation as an archconservative blood-gargling psychopath (which is part of the reason the libertarian candidate got so many votes [6%]), but I'm not really sure why. I guess the standards for blood-gargling psychopathy are just a lot higher than they were in 2013. In any case McA is going to have to do better than the 47.75% than he did in 2013 to win this time, and his polling numbers seem to be hitting an upper limit around that place. Still think he wins today but I'm worried, naturally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:This is why we have to invent the concept of "half votes," emulating the "games behind" statistic used in sports standings! Thank you for understanding this. A third party voter is still an active voter who can be swayed by future concessions, and whose down ticket vote still counts and could be crucial to someone else. Vote scolding third party voters doesn't convince them of the error of their ways to vote for whatever candidate they already looked at and decided didn't represent them, it just turns them into an apathetic non-voter. Voting is not a zero sum game and it shows an extreme lack of basic understanding from those who insist otherwise. A vote for Blanding is not a shadow vote for Youngkin, because the alternative choice for a Blanding voter isn't McAuliffe - its staying home and not voting at all. Blanding votes are votes that otherwise would not have been cast at all, and are not 'stolen' from McAuliffe. Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Nov 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
Fucker posted:Pretty good argument. Unless someone comes up with a better counter-argument, I'm gonna have to concur. They do that anyways Voting for leftist candidates, regardless of their chances to win is the only way to push Democrats left. Your vote is the only leverage you have. Always voting for the Democrat bc they're the lesser of two evils gives them zero reason to legislate to you
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2021 16:19
|
|
