Your premise is irrational, because there's no way that voting 3rd party will change the outcome of the election.
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree, no point going round in circles.
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree, no point going round in circles.
You think a similar amnesty program is a viable solution today?
I don't know. If I had to guess (politically) - no.
But the fact that Reagan (the hero for all presidents since) signed it suggests that it is not impossible. It all depends on how in/secure people are feeling financially IMO.
If someone believes neither candidate speaks to them then they can vote for a fringe third party or not vote at all. That doesn't change the reality that whoever they vote for on the third party side is guaranteed to lose.
I agree on the two party bit, although there is no end in sight for the two party system since as explained before, any attempts to interfere with the current balance of power will result in one of the two parties attempting to subsume the new third party by simply expanding its policy platform to appeal to said voters. Previously, a Bernie Sanders style candidacy would've taken place as a third party, but was gradually embraced more by the Dem establishment when it looked like it had a bit of popular backing.
That's not my premise though.
My premise is if I don't believe in either candidate and both are terrible than "degrees of terrible" is not a compelling enough reason to vote for horrible person with horrible policies.
Or to put it another way I don't believe voting is all about voting for what you think will win. I think voting is and only is a moral question. Does this candidate deserve my vote? No. Then they don't get it.
You might disagree with my view point but its not irrational you nimrod
So what? I am not attached to this "only vote for things that you think have a chance of winning". That is not a philosophy I would choose to follow.
Unless Democrats get a strong and coherent message for the middle class that includes a comprehensive plan for immigration, more and more people will go Republican. We can all have countless swapping the blame sessions on uninspiring candidates and muddled messages.
That's your right as a voter. But let's not conflate your moral choice of voting for whoever you want with the illusion that voting for a third party will result in that candidate winning, when they are guaranteed to not win. If you want to feel great about voting for a losing candidate then knock yourself out; you have every right to do so.
This is an important point that I think a lot of left wing types don't quite get. The alternative to not voting for an establishment Dem is just as much voting Republican as it is voting for a progressive. If the Dems go too far off the reservation then the results may go the other way.
When did I say that?That's not my premise though.
My premise is if I don't believe in either candidate and both are terrible than "degrees of terrible" is not a compelling enough reason to vote for horrible person with horrible policies.
Or to put it another way I don't believe voting is all about voting for what you think will win. I think voting is and only is a moral question. Does this candidate deserve my vote? No. Then they don't get it.
You might disagree with my view point but its not irrational you nimrod
Unless you really think there's no difference at all between Hillary and Trump, the rational thing to do is to vote for the one you prefer, regardless of how much you dislike him/her.
I don't want to break a bone, but if I had to choose, I'd rather break a finger than crack my skull.
I think there are some people for whom immigration is the unchangeable #1 issue. Dems will never win those people. Dems can go right, but those people ave the actual genuine right-wing party always to vote for. The GOP has no problem moving further right every time the Dems do it - watch their movement in healthcare, welfare, crime, DACA, EPA, etc.
There are others for whom immigration is the main issue since it is the sum of other issues (like employment and welfare). I believe that some of these people can be reached by an economic message *without* a "tough" immigration message.
There are people for whom many other issues take precedence over immigration, and these will naturally be attracted by economic messages depending on their income.
Finally, there are people for whom immigration is the unchangeable issue because they are personally invested in it. For them, any move to the right by the Dems could threaten their families etc. They are natural Dem voters, and with a "tough" immigration line to appeal to the 1st vote-block, you might destroy this one.
Thus (and I am speaking very pragmatically) for me it makes sense for the Dems to always emphasise economic issues, and have a soft message in immigration (but different depending on region).
Let's have a brief thought experiment.
Let's say we lived in a town that was very conservative and there was a law in an election banning any gay or minority marriage to the main ethnic group. The town is 97% one ethnic group and conservative so its just about a given the law will pass. Polls have it around 85% YES and from your experience its definitely going to pass even though you know the town has a few more liberals that just don't vote because what's the point right?
Would you just vote Yes on the law because a No vote is "meaningless"?
A no vote is guaranteed not to win, so to you is there no reason to vote No on this law if it has no chance of winning?
That's the way I see it.
I'd imagine not voting would seem a more rational choice since voting yes would go against my personal views and voting no would be a wasted vote since it would have no bearing on the likelihood of the final outcome.
How is not voting more rational? It serves no purpose whatsoever. Voting No would not be a wasted vote. It shows public opinion, which can shift.
It serves the same purpose as voting no - since both choices would not affect Yes from winning. You can make an argument that if enough people voted no then yes would not win, but that's not what he cited in his example of a 97% conservative town that polled 85% Yes.
Then surely you can understand why some people would not vote for either candidate in the last US Election.
I personally don't see it as wasted though because it still gets recorded. Its still a record that some people opposed. If 85% voted yes and then rest didn't vote then the town could assert there is 100% support (hey look no one opposed!) for something which wouldn't be true.
Personally I just can't see the benefit of a "follow the herd" mindset of just voting for things that you think could win. As a said it creates a self-defeating negative feedback loop.
By the way this is a technique that dictators, conquerors, strong men, etc have used for centuries to maintain control.
Make loud vocal assertions that everyone supports you. This creates a fear from people who are afraid to go against the herd. And this way a bad person can maintain control through fear and herd mentality and no one willing to actually say what everyone is thinking because they think they are too alone.
No one is suggesting to do that, but given only 2 possible outcomes, vote for the preferable one.
I can definitely understand how some might not vote for either, but it doesn't in anyway suggest that voting for a fringe third party candidate would be any more productive than not voting at all.
The key in the US is for groups within each party to mobilize support of their ideas so that the party apparatus incorporates them into the platform. Then its the party's responsibility to sell the platform changes to the rest of the country during the election cycle. Case in point - Single payer and free education - both championed by Sanders, don't even have full support among the Democratic side, much less across the country at large. They have to have a good debate about this then sell their plan to the rest of the party so that these ideas are fully represented and left wing voters dont feel the need to vote for the likes of Stein and others outside the party, which in the end wont accomplish anything.
You are. You just seem locked into this self-creating either/or belief system and can't seem to respect that other people view things different from you. That is not "irrational" mate.
Call it too idealistic if you want, I could accept that but its most definitely rational even if you disagree.
Last edited:
If the answer is always to work within existing parties we will never truly have an anti war or pro worker candidate since both parties are dominated by corporate and military industry interests.
When did I suggest that it would be more productive?
First as my hypothetical was intended to show, I vote based on beliefs. Is this a good idea? yes or no. Is this a good candidate yes or no?
Second, I personally do see voting for neither as more productive for me as a person because I simply can't bear the psychological stress of voting to support something I vehemently oppose. The personal psychological trade-off is simply not worth it to me
I'd have to double check sites like fivethirtyeight but I was pretty sure most Americans support universal health care.
Polling is very tricky with language. I wouldn't be surprised if some polling from years ago showed lack of support for "single payer" simple because that term isn't very well known or intuitive. But poll for "universal healthcare" and pretty sure even in general America its still majority support.
When did I suggest that it would be more productive?
First as my hypothetical was intended to show, I vote based on beliefs. Is this a good idea? yes or no. Is this a good candidate yes or no?
Second, I personally do see voting for neither as more productive for me as a person because I simply can't bear the psychological stress of voting to support something I vehemently oppose. The personal psychological trade-off is simply not worth it to me
I'd have to double check sites like fivethirtyeight but I was pretty sure most Americans support universal health care.
Polling is very tricky with language. I wouldn't be surprised if some polling from years ago showed lack of support for "single payer" simple because that term isn't very well known or intuitive. But poll for "universal healthcare" and pretty sure even in general America its still majority support.
There hasn't really been an adequate debate about it outside of half of the Dem party. I'm sure more people would like it if there was. But again, it would need to be sold to at least a portion of the Republicans otherwise you could get a disjointed, scarcely useable concoction like Obamacare where some people love it and others are pissed because their premiums are going up.
There are no premiums with single payer.
How is the US presidential election having only 2 possible outcomes even debatable?
If there are only 2 possible outcomes, choosing (voting) the preferable one is rational.
Do you disagree with the bolded part?
I do.
Let’s agree to disagree then.
There's no just no party that is environment-friendly, isolationist, worker-friendly and at the same time immigrant friendly, committed to innovation as well as to support the uneducated workforce in low paying coal mining jobs, regulation-friendly but at the same time promoting more jobs, pro choice, committed to single payer healthcare and anti-death sentence. If a candidate/party ticks a couple or three of boxes, i'll be surprised.
As you know, I'm an immigrant myself, but you are seriously underestimating the challenge legal immigration, never mind the illegal immigrants pose to the country. I'm obviously ignoring fringe views like 'start a revolution and get the money from Jeff Bezos' clowns.
As you know, I'm an immigrant myself, but you are seriously underestimating the challenge legal immigration, never mind the illegal immigrants pose to the country. I'm obviously ignoring fringe views like 'start a revolution and get the money from Jeff Bezos' clowns.
Unfortunately for the Dems, I don't get the impression Oprah will resonate well among blue collar workers in the rust belt states that Hillary underperformed in.
Oprah's not a strong candidate though. If a candidate at all. Bernie/Biden would probably beat him.
I think Bernie would destroy him.
A lot of the voters who felt Trump would improve their situation and fight for them and are, perhaps quietly, losing belief in Trump and would likely reach out to the next one to offer them hope.
Bernie would definitely have the upper hand but it wouldn't be the blowout that many think. Trump and his cabal would unite the entire Republican party and some centrist Dems to fight against the prospect of "socialism" taking over. It would unite a lot of strange bedfellows who want to retain the current market driven model.
I do think he'd face some of the problems Raoul alludes to - namely he'd face a heavy Republican onslaught and for all we know there'd be some negative stories that come out about him etc that dent his chances. But I do think that if there's every a chance for someone centre-left like Bernie to come in then it's now, insofar as while he's quite polarising he'll be up against an equally polarising candidate on the right...anyone who's even remotely liberal would probably feel compelled to vote for him considering his opponent, including people who'd perhaps ideally be turned off by him.
I know the comparison isn't exact because of cultural/political differences etc, but in June last year we did see certain Tory constituencies in London going Labour in spite of the fact Corbyn's leader. Under normal circumstances they'd have appalled at the prospect of going for him, but due to Brexit they felt like the prospect of a left-wing but liberal Labour party was better than the anti-Europe Tory option they'd have been willing to vote for when Cameron was in charge. And - again, it doesn't translate exactly, but I do think it's relevant. Anyone who even remotely considers themselves to be centrist or liberal would be much more likely to opt for Bernie than Trump.
Any 'centrist' who'd advocate Trump over Bernie isn't really a centrist at all, and if you saw any actual Dems doing that I imagine they'd be shunned from the party - again under normal circumstances it'd be possible for a Dem to feasibly lean Republican due to the candidate, but with it being Trump I think it'd take a lot for them to do that.
Bernie's left-wing but he's not that extreme - he's hardly advocating a complete state takeover of all industry. The challenge, of course, will be reminding voters he's not that extreme.
I think the sooner people start to suffer more, like healthcare coats increasing or they notice no jobs are being created in their area. Noticing nothing is really changing, especially in areas like the Rust Belt, that will make a massive difference in turnout and Republican voter apathy or people switching sides etc.
Yeah true, but he is advocating for a complete revamp to the existing system wherein the ultra-wealthy would have to give up a lot of money and power, so that alone, would result in an all out war if he was nominated. Its not just because he's a lefty, its because he is advocating for a massive redistribution of wealth and power that those who already have both aren't going to easily relinquish. Therefore the level of money thrown at discrediting him would be unprecedented and would at a minimum, bring his positives and likability numbers down significantly from the euphoric numbers we saw during the 2015/16 primaries.
I am pretty worried about 2020. Having already spent two years of hoping Trump would just lose and do away we still have another three years to endure. The really scary thing is if the economy is still doing well in 2020 the election will be very winnable for him.
We'd have to see what the conditions are in late 2019 to see where we stand. The first step will be this year's mid terms. If the Dems sweep back in then they will feel emboldened during the 2019 primary season. If Trump holds serve by retaining congress then I suspect a less progressive Dem will rise to the top of the pack.
- Status