• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

This "I'm a progressive but if Hillary is the nominee, I'm not voting" shit is stale

Status
Not open for further replies.

boiled goose

good with gravy
This might actually be a good way to get me to vote for her, provided it's not half assed lip service.

exactly! I wish Hillary supporters would see this and push for this, instead of telling Bernie supporters to "fall in line". Heck, so many times they have even said that they like Bernie's ideas.
 
I can grantee we will see more Trumps in the future with Clinton, not less. This culture of greed and selfishness peddled in America by Clinton, Bush and whoever is what allows people like Trump to exist.

yep
except that Trump was around before Bush and his dad before the other Bush
 

phanphare

Banned
"I'm voting Sanders, but if he doesn't win the primaries I'm not voting for Hilary or Trump. My state is red anyway, so it won't matter."

Why bother voting at all then? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this logic. If Bernie had one, it still "wouldn't matter" because you live in a red state.

there's more than just the presidential race on the ballot
 

shoplifter

Member
Just because Obama (and Hillary) can't afford to publicly state their support for something, doesn't mean their actions aren't going to be working towards that goal.

Is this the 'we have to vote for it to find out what's in it' defense?
 

Mael

Member
So here is an aspect of the discussion that I think is interesting.

Clearly, I think most of GAF agrees that having the GOP in power leads to short term to medium term to maybe even long term damage to the country.

Now, is there any merit to the Bernie or Bust or Bernie or Trump strategy in the long run? The message to the parties would be that people are tired of the same old politicians and want populist candidates. If Hillary loses to Trump? Would the democrat party move left? Is there a scenario in which this is actually beneficial for the country in the long run?

We have seen the opposite happen in the GOP with Goldwater. When he lost, he made way for Reagan, whose legacy we are still dealing with today.

No, what Trump winning will tell the democrat is that the people liked trump and didn't like Clinton.
It also tells the D party that Trump's platform was more appealing than Clinton's so you're probably going to see the Dems moving further right too.
 
My only issue is that if people want to abstain, that's their right, but they should also take responsibility for the end result of their abstaining, for better or worse.
No, there is no greater responsibility on them than there is any other voter. The system must be able to tolerate people feeling this way or it is broken, and the parties must field candidates that do not make people feel this way or it will fail. The responsibility for these outcomes is on the system and the parties; the voting public is just a natural force responding to this input.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
It's more likely that if Hillary loses to Trump the party will move toward the center. Hillary is more liberal than Obama domestically, if Obama can produce results when Hillary can't the party will see it as a cue to put out another Obama, certainly not a Bernie.

It is possible that this happens, but given the primary, I would be surprised.
They also got demolished when they did this in 2010.

But yeah the democratic party is incredibly incompetent so anything is possible really :/
 

Vice

Member
This might actually be a good way to get me to vote for her, provided it's not half assed lip service.

They already agree on many issues though, to varying degrees.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-on-the-issues-2015-9
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/clinton-sanders-2016-issues/

I agree with almost everything here.



People keep saying this, and they miss exactly why some people support Bernie over Hillary. There are KEY differences, and too many, these differences are their most important issues today. For example, for me personally, issue by issue I agree on more issues with Hillary than with Bernie, but I agree with Bernie on the biggest issues.

Issues such as?
 

phanphare

Banned
And I understand that, but if they claim that there left vote doesn't mean anything, then,what does it matter? They already feel that their vote is worthless in a red state.

that's likely referring to the presidential election specifically, meaning that their state will likely go for the republican candidate anyway so voting for Hillary would be futile

No, there is no greater responsibility on them than there is any other voter. The system must be able to tolerate people feeling this way or it is broken, and the parties must field candidates that do not make people feel this way or it will fail. The responsibility for these outcomes is on the system and the parties; the voting public is just a natural force responding to this input.

very well said
 
Nope. A vote is counted as one.

As an example, my dad will vote Republican, I'm going to vote Democrat. As such, our votes ultimately don't do anything besides create a higher turnout as they cancel each other out. Now, if either one of us decided to not vote, it would inherently mean that either of our votes don't get cancelled out, right?

No, there is no greater responsibility on them than there is any other voter. The system must be able to tolerate people feeling this way or it is broken, and the parties must field candidates that do not make people feel this way or it will fail. The responsibility for these outcomes is on the system and the parties; the voting public is just a natural force responding to this input.

I never said that there wasn't. If you vote for Trump, inevitably you'll have to accept the responsibility for the shit he does. If you vote for Hillary and she fucks shit up, same. If you choose not to vote and it leads to Trump getting into the WH and fucking shit up, then you absolutely have to accept responsibility - especially because, frankly, if you vote for a president (or don't vote) and it ultimately has a positive outcome, you're going to boast about having done so, right? So isn't it fair to say that they should also take responsibility for their vote/lack of vote if it has a negative result?
 

Steel

Banned
It is possible that this happens, but given the primary, I would be surprised.
They also got demolished when they did this in 2010.

But yeah the democratic party is incredibly incompetent so anything is possible really :/

Democrats always get demolished in non-presidential year elections. And the Tea party surge was an anomaly.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
No, what Trump winning will tell the democrat is that the people liked trump and didn't like Clinton.
It also tells the D party that Trump's platform was more appealing than Clinton's so you're probably going to see the Dems moving further right too.

We did see the GOP go more right this time around after getting their asses handed to them twice in a row...

So yeah. I have little confidence in the democrats.
 

ApharmdX

Banned
They weren't going to anyway. They will be too busy playing an online shootbang surrounded in a haze of cheeto dust and mountain dew to go outside, stand in line and cast a ballot. Just want to take the easy way out.

What an absolute shitpost this is.

Not only do they matter, but they are the issues that matter
the most. The thing is they are not "sexy little starlets that look nice in a low cut dress in the media spotlight" like social issues are. Fixing an endemic economic issue takes years to pay off - and you risk not getting a payoff as a politician. When a majority supported social issue is address/fixed you get a great photo op and easy publicity for your next campaign.

Absolutely. The terrible economic agenda that we live under has been in-place for the past 35 years. Unconstitutional domestic surveillance has been in-place for 16 years. The military-industrial complex has been around forever. These are hard issues to tackle, with no guaranteed success and little payoff.

Too many voters on both sides are easily distracted by social issues. I think that we need to be on the right side of these issues, of course, but not to the detriment of fiscal or foreign policy.
 
Nope that's your belief not mine.

Do you honestly believe that in this two party system that your third party vote will have a chance at the presidency?

Like in many circumstances you're welcomed to your beliefs but that doesn't mean they hold any water in reality
 

Mael

Member
We did see the GOP go more right this time around after getting their asses handed to them twice in a row...

So yeah. I have little confidence in the democrats.

You know why Dems and GoP go further right?
Because they're rewarded by higher turnout and more elected officials.
If you don't vote at the local level for a more left candidate you're broadcasting the message that you don't want the country to move on the left.
 
exactly! I wish Hillary supporters would see this and push for this, instead of telling Bernie supporters to "fall in line". Heck, so many times they have even said that they like Bernie's ideas.

Like the vast majority of Hillary supporters already support her conversing with Bernie in how she can earn the support base he speaks to. Hell, many even support her making him an adviser for certain areas she's weaker in.
 

pgtl_10

Member
Liberals pride themselves on being informed, critical thinkers who base their policies on facts and research.

So don't say stuff like this. We have voting records and elections in the past that show that a low turnout helps conservatives get elected.

Don't tell what I cab and cannot say. I don't care about history. It is not my job to get someone elected. It is the candidates job.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Voting in red states isn't futile. It may have less of an impact, which yeah, totally frustrating. But if the electoral victory didn't match the popular vote consensus we'd have another shitshow on our hands
 
You know why Dems and GoP go further right?
Because they're rewarded by higher turnout and more elected officials.
If you don't vote at the local level for a more left candidate you're broadcasting the message that you don't want the country to move on the left.

Exactly. Voting outside of the general election is the most important thing a voter can do.
 

Jams775

Member
You know what a good arguement to make for voting Hilary would be at this point? (this is to Bernie supporters who are thinking of voting Trump or abstaining)

My theory is that if we get Hilary voted in as president and she does what she plans to do, it won't change any republicans minds on how they vote but all Bernie supporters get to say I told you so if things don't get better and eventually get to use that against the next set of candidates. So it's even harder for "you liked Obama/Hilary? How about another 4 years of that?" Now people will say, fuuuuuck that and finally vote for the Bernie-a-like.

I think that'd work out better than letting Trump in office and watching Rome burn which will eventually end up with another moderate Democrat back in office because Hilary supporters would have been the ones saying I told you so.
 

Kinyou

Member
As an example, my dad will vote Republican, I'm going to vote Democrat. As such, our votes ultimately don't do anything besides create a higher turnout as they cancel each other out. Now, if either one of us decided to not vote, it would inherently mean that either of our votes don't get cancelled out, right?
But isn't the relevance of votes always relative to the voter turnout? If someone abstains it would just mean that your and your dads vote are more meaningful because you're now voting in the name of the person who abstained.
 
Do you honestly believe that in this two party system that your third party vote will have a chance at the presidency?
Who gives a shit? There are other reasons people vote besides a pragmatic desire to get a "lesser of two evils" candidate in office. For example, they want to express their beliefs in a way that the system and political parties notice, or they want to help build the base of support for a party that reflects their ideas so it can be viable one day.
 

pgtl_10

Member
Do you honestly believe that in this two party system that your third party vote will have a chance at the presidency?

Like in many circumstances you're welcomed to your beliefs but that doesn't mean they hold any water in reality

This thread doesn't welcome anyone's beliefs. I don't vote only candidates like a place bets in Vegas.
 
I support Bernie's ideals, but as a candidate he is unrealistic and he never had a real shot at the nom. Hillary is a mercenary centrist and a corporatist, but she'll support social progressivism. A vote for her means a vote against the US getting its own Berlusconi and against empowering the worst actors in the country, so I'll vote for Hillary.

If you're feeling burned by Bern not getting further in the process, but you care about the ideals he stands for, then fucking vote in your local elections where you have more of a say in things, and where the process really matters.
 

Steel

Banned
Lots of nuance missing here both behind the democratic loss and the tea party surge.

The tea party surge was a response to Obama, they thought he was too liberal. They ran on how "terrible" Obamacare was. There's no mistaking that.

Add to that the fact that democratic turn-out is always low in between presidential election years, and....
 
It's even cooler that you think it is only two sides.

There are only two people who will become President. You have a choice between either one.

A vote for a third candidate only helps the candidate whose views are opposite of that of the person you voted for.

Consider for a second. When has a third party ever helped, versus hinder, an election in its direction? In every case, the third party helped get the direct opposite view get elected. It's just how it works. Maybe you don't like it, but it's not up to an opinion. It's what happens and we have a long history in the country showing this is how it works.

If you want to deny facts and historical records, I think you're in the wrong political party. The Tea Party generally discusses their stuff on other forums, not much of a presence on GAF.

Who gives a shit? There are other reasons people vote besides a pragmatic desire to get a "lesser of two evils" candidate in office. For example, they want to express their beliefs in a way that the system and political parties notice, or they want to help build the base of support for a party that reflects their ideas so it can be viable one day.

Can you name a third party presidential candidate whose votes influenced the direction of the party?
 
Like the vast majority of Hillary supporters already support her conversing with Bernie in how she can earn the support base he speaks to. Hell, many even support her making him an adviser for certain areas she's weaker in.

I was just going to say, it'd be neat if Bernie were to fill that role. It would probably be the best way to keep turnout up.

But isn't the relevance of votes always relative to the voter turnout? If someone abstains it would just mean that your and your dads vote are more meaningful because you're now voting in the name of the person who abstained.

It depends on who abstained, doesn't it? If a Republican abstained for instance, my dad's vote would just be filling in for that person.

Who gives a shit? There are other reasons people vote besides a pragmatic desire to get a "lesser of two evils" candidate in office. For example, they want to express their beliefs in a way that the system and political parties notice, or they want to help build the base of support for a party that reflects their ideas so it can be viable one day.

The only way a >two-party system can work is if we implement a second-choice-candidate system that lets you vote for a third-party candidate, but if they do not win, allow you to have a second choice of a Democrat or Republican. This would make people less afraid of voting for a candidate who has a lower chance of winning, but also avoid the risk that it could hurt the main party that you favour.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
You know why Dems and GoP go further right?
Because they're rewarded by higher turnout and more elected officials.
If you don't vote at the local level for a more left candidate you're broadcasting the message that you don't want the country to move on the left.

They are rewarded with more legalized bribes, which results in more ads, which results in more elected officials. Yes.

It might be a harsh thing to say but we are definitely always "duped" by politicians. Their legislative record does not reflect constituents in aggregate and yet with enough ads you can trick people into voting for you.
 

Mael

Member
It's even cooler that you think it is only two sides.
It's effectively a 2 sides election, that wouldn't be the case if there was a national party that was an alternative.
It's cool if you don't know the difference between zero and one.
there is no real difference between 1 vote for Trump and 0 vote for Clinton and 2 votes for Trump and 1 vote for Clinton.
If you bet on a coin toss if the coin fall on 1 side it doesn't on the other.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
The tea party surge was a response to Obama, they thought he was too liberal. They ran on how "terrible" Obamacare was. There's no mistaking that.

Add to that the fact that democratic turn-out is always low in between presidential election years, and....

How was the tea party funded and how was it propped up?

Obama had record breaking turnout. I can tell you why personally for me voting in 2010 was much less exciting than voting in 2008.
 
Probably every single one, since they forced candidates from the main two parties to cater to the audience they were losing to the third party candidate.

I want names. I want studies and research into historical trends and voting patterns on the positive influence of third party presidential candidates in United States history.
 

Mael

Member
They are rewarded with more legalized bribes, which results in more ads, which results in more elected officials. Yes.

It might be a harsh thing to say but we are definitely always "duped" by politicians. Their legislative record does not reflect constituents in aggregate and yet with enough ads you can trick people into voting for you.

And if you want to change that, you know what you have to do?
Engage in politic and make your candidate at the local/state level be elected so that your representative can change this.
Or you can sit on your ass and complain that you don't like your president.

How was the tea party funded and how was it propped up?

Obama had record breaking turnout. I can tell you why personally for me voting in 2010 was much less exciting than voting in 2008.
And thus we have the explanation for Tea Party's success.
 
I wonder if anyone has gone back and interviewed Nader voters from 2000 and asked them, today, if they would've voted differently if they would've known what followed...

Let me nip this a bit in the bud by saying that Nader voters are not solely responsible for W getting elected. The Supreme Court had a bigger hand in that.

You know, the same Supreme Court that will likely have 2 maybe 3 seats needing to be filled in the next 4-8 years

so keep on truckin' with that Bernin' down the house in the case that Bernie isn't the candidate. Surely that's the best means to progress, to allow for regression
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom