General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 37

Yeah, remember how good anti-bush rock music was? damn

 

That's what I don't understand about her. She isn't anti-LGBT or women's rights at all in her personal views. So I have no idea where her overwhelming republican support comes from. And I would typically assume someone like that is an uneducated ignorant moron, but she's actually really intelligent with a masters degree so I'm at a total loss.

 

A third party could never win in this country, if they were close they become the second party. The choice this year is Trump or Hillary, a vote outside of that is equal to abstaining. Life isn't fair.

 

It usually takes big events like this to moderate out a party. It's why the Dems did what they did in the late 80's after getting their asses handed to them in the 84 election. And it's about time for a realignment or party paradigm shift, it's been a while since there has been one.

Though I think a Trump loss would be as likely to lead to a splintered right wing too, as I don't think the Tea Party voters will go with the moderate GOP, at least at first.

But if they lose another Presidential election and the popular vote for the 6th time in 7 elections, the party elders are going to realize something needs to change or they're dead as a party.

 

I mean, it's possible she views other aspects (ie. economic) as more important than those social rights.

Or understand that if Trump is actually president, most of the extremist stuff he blabs about won't happen.


And I don't really see the implosion of the republican party happening when Trump loses; they'll probably just completely change their primary rules to more closely match the democratic party.


Now, if a "normal" (ie. non Tea Party or independent-leaning) Republican runs as a third-party, then things get interesting

 

No one is saying a third party would win, Trump and Hillary are both similarly garbage choices, voting for Hillary will further entrench neoconservatism in the Dem party, and voting third party is not equal to abstaining because abstention increases the proportion of votes for the winning candidate, and thus actually legitimizes the system and winning candidate to a degree while voting third party has the opposite effect.

 

I don't think the system is legitimized by a third party getting more or fewer votes when the percentage is still incredibly minimal. It just isn't a factor.

 

Which is why people should vote third party so the percentage isn't minimal! But that's actually besides the point, it's about the percentage of the vote of the winning candidate, a candidate who wins without garnering even 50% of the vote is seen publicly as less legitimate and helps shape public support for changing the system. Public support for abolishing the electoral college grew in the late 60s for example after the 1968 election when Nixon barely won the popular vote but won the electoral vote by a huge margin.

Voting third party is also better because it's more transparent. There are reasons for abstaining from an election that has nothing to do with the quality of the candidates, voting for a third party sends a clearer message.

 

i'm not really concerned about 'legitimizing the system,' more to do with whether voting is an effective means for change

 

There's still no message sent, the parties don't care. If you want to create actual change you have to change the party, this election the best way to do that would be supporting more progressive democratic candidates into the house/senate/local elections, that can lead to actual change in the party that will effect future elections. Jill stein getting 6% does nothing to legitimize that third party, and removes people from the process who could otherwise make an impact on the party. It's gonna take longer but that's the only arduous path available in this incredibly flawed system.

 

Parties certainly do care because it affects their ability to win elections. I mentioned nothing about legitimizing a third party. And you know you can vote Stein for president while voting for progressive democratic candidates for other offices right? Those aren't mutually exclusive.

 

jill stein getting 6% literally does legitimize that party because they get a guaranteed platform and money

 

That's true as well, breaking the 5% threshold is important.

 

anyway this conversation has been had like 5 times already in this thread i suggest you search for dom's posts on it

 

And still zero chance to win. A major party does not care about some 6% third party because they have too minimal an impact to matter. Hillary can win the election with or without people protesting with Jill Stein votes. That will lead to no changes in the democratic platform at all. Any third party support is entirely irrelevant to the system in place.

Focus on supporting progressive candidates for smaller positions, write in Dank Memes for president for the same amount of impact as a third party.

 

If you don't think Jill Stein getting 6% of the vote matters to the Democratic party than why are they trying to shame leftists into voting for the neocon by preaching party unity and fearmongering a Trump presidency? What do you think the bull shit narrative of a "vote for third party is a vote for Trump" is aiming at?

 

I have a list of things Hillary must do in order for her to gain my support. Very doubtful she will fulfill that list so it is probable I will be voting Jill Stein, unless Bernie does some wicked magic and comes back and wins the nomination

 

i'm not interested in campaigning for a progressive, i'm not a progressive, i have better things to do, thanks

 

It comes down to the sad fact that she and Trump are the only options. There will never be a viable third choice to be President this year (unless one of them suddenly dies). I think they're more worried about angry Bernie voters going for Trump than people not showing up or voting for a third party.

And let's be real, I'm against Clinton but a Trump presidency is terrifying. The system were in sucks, but getting people to vote against someone is a very viable strategy with only two candidates that have a chance to win.

 

I truly have no idea who I'll be voting for in this election. Tbh, I might even sit this election out since I'm almost indifferent at this point.

 

If you ask me, people not voting for Hillary because she isn't progressive enough for them are like people who don't run after a catchable fly ball hit somewhere near them and instead blame the person who threw the ball for not throwing it well enough.

 

its more like people not supporting a presidential candidate that doesn't represent their interests or beliefs

 

I mean, she flat out isn't progressive. I'll only vote for her to keep Trump out. Sad situation, but that's what I feel I have to do given the choices.

 

That's why the system is so flawed, the elected candidate will only represent maybe a third of the population max, and this year definitely less. You either vote for who most closely represents you, vote against who you hate, or don't vote because they're both shit and you don't care. I think this election might have one of the lowest turn out rates in decades because of how unlikable each candidate is.

 

Seriously depressing.