• 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.
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.
I absolutely love Condorcet method. I wish we would do it. :/ Fat chance tho.
 
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.

Doing my part in Seattle.
 
Hillary is not entitled to anyone's vote.

This. The shaming Hillary stans are doing to people that are not voting for her is terrible, hell even on GAF people are going batshit insane if you tell them you're not going to vote for her.

That's democracy folks, you might not like it but it is within their rights to do so. You are within your right to not like that too, but shaming people because of it is just shitty behaviour.
 

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
"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."

And this is how we get low turnout numbers. Maybe your state would turn blue if everyone that thought like you actually exercised the right that people throughout history have fought and died for.
 

shoplifter

Member
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


Florida wouldn't have mattered if he hadn't lost his home state. A state that the democrats had won the prior two cycles.
 

Steel

Banned
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.

Do you really think that Wall Street word for word wanted the tea party and what it stood for? Do you really think they wanted government shutdown and permanent gridlock that caused massive instability in the stock market?

No, they just backed it because they didn't like Obama regulating banks and the like, they rode the momentum and fed it. I think you give Wall Street(which isn't a hivemind) far more credit than they deserve.

And, let's be clear here, people showed up in 2012 just fine.

They thought he was too black.

Agreed on that, too, but you know how these things go.
 
I absolutely love Condorcet method. I wish we would do it. :/ Fat chance tho.

*nods* The only people who could reasonably enact a change are the people who stand to be harmed by the change. It would take civil unrest to push it through, and I don't know that people would get upset enough to take it that far.
 
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.
There is for the voter who you think should've changed that "0 vote for Clinton" into "1 vote for Clinton." You don't get to tell someone they have to do that. Sorry.
 
Florida wouldn't have mattered if he hadn't lost his home state. A state that the democrats had won the prior two cycles.

not what i asked or part of what my post proposed but let's tackle that anyhow, right?

You think Nader splitting some of the vote helped or hurt Gore? And would you say that we were better for Bush or could've things been better under Gore?
 

Buzzati

Banned
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

"Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
 

Mael

Member
This is shock of the decade.

Hey if you're a defense contractor that has a conscience you probably made big bucks with Bush while having you conscience clean that you didn't vote for him.

There is for the voter who you think should've changed that "0 vote for Clinton" into "1 vote for Clinton." You don't get to tell someone they have to do that. Sorry.

They do what they want, they better not complain about the results if they sit it out.
When you get Patriot Act 2.0 you better not complain that this is bullshit (seriously don't Trump would send you to prison or clean your assets).
 

Chris R

Member
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.

Not when it comes to the Electoral College.

I'll feel safe voting for a third party candidate (probably, again haven't decided 100% just yet) this year because my state will be red no matter what.
 

Lothars

Member
This. The shaming Hillary stans are doing to people that are not voting is terrible, hell even on GAF people are going batshit insane if you tell them you're not going to vote for her.

That's democracy folks, you might not like it but it is within their rights to do so. You are within your right to not like that too, but shaming people because of it's just shitty behaviour.
Not voting is terrible and really shows that you don't matter. I don't care if you vote hillary or not but not voting doesn't help anyone.
 

WEGGLES

Member
Not voting for Hillary because you want Bernie is like not ordering a hamburger at a restaurant because you wanted pizza, so you let someone else order dog shit for you.
 
"Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth

Again, i'm not putting the blame solely on Nader. Gore wasn't the best candidate and the Supreme Court shouldn't have voted the way they did, I grant anyone that.

But i pose these questions then: Did Nader running make America better? Could you find anything in the 8 following years that pointed to his running making a positive difference for progressives?

I didn't think so either
 

jtb

Banned
There is for the voter who you think should've changed that "0 vote for Clinton" into "1 vote for Clinton." You don't get to tell someone they have to do that. Sorry.

no one "has" to do anything, ever.

let''s not get bogged down in semantics: if you are a liberal who supports Bernie and you stay home or don't vote for Hillary against Trump, you are actively thwarting the progress of your political goals and of Bernie's political goals. it could be stupid, it could be selfish, it could be naive, it could be any word you choose. but, at the end of the day, the word that comes to mind is "counter-intuitive." it's that simple.

"shame" is irrelevant. if you place your "shame" over your political ideology, then I think it's fair to say your voting philosophy makes no fucking sense.
 
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

But this is the point i'm making. If they really feel like it would be futile, then it wouldn't make a difference if it was Bernie's or Hilary's name.

For the record, I do not believe that, but they're using that logic to do nothing. It doesn't make sense.
 
Not voting for Hillary because you want Bernie is like not ordering a hamburger at a restaurant because you wanted pizza, so you let someone else order dog shit for you.

And then have to deal with the dog shit smell in front of you for four years, and the lingering stench for much longer than that.
 
There is for the voter who you think should've changed that "0 vote for Clinton" into "1 vote for Clinton." You don't get to tell someone they have to do that. Sorry.

Again, it's not a matter of "you must do this," it's a matter of "you must be sure to fully understand what could happen from you doing what you're doing."

If the people abstaining ultimately go on to push the Senate and House further left, then awesome - if it ultimately winds up just being a typical Democratic turnout, I'll be really disappointed lol.

And then have to deal with the dog shit smell in front of you for four years, and the lingering stench for much longer than that.

And if you're a member of a marginalized group of people, you then will get your face dunked into it.
 

Cybrwzrd

Banned
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.

The siren song of keeping social issues in the spotlight over fiscal and foreign policy is so powerful. You throw out words like Social Justice or Pro-life and the basic uninformed voter from both sides has something easy to comprehend to get worked up over. What percentage of Democrats even care about let alone know of Glass-Steagall?

And this is how we get low turnout numbers. Maybe your state would turn blue if everyone that thought like you actually exercised the right that people throughout history have fought and died for.

Maybe my state would turn blue if they would put forward candidates I support. This isn't college football with blind fandom over the team's color.
 
no one "has" to do anything, ever.

let''s not get bogged down in semantics: if you are a liberal who supports Bernie and you stay home or don't vote for Hillary against Trump, you are actively thwarting the progress of your political goals and of Bernie's political goals. it could be stupid, it could be selfish, it could be naive, it could be any word you choose. but, at the end of the day, the word that comes to mind is "counter-intuitive." it's that simple.

"shame" is irrelevant. if you place your "shame" over your political ideology, then I think it's fair to say your voting philosophy makes no fucking sense.
Who says "shame" has anything to do with anything? Are you referring to the "shame" someone feels when they vote in a way that doesn't square with their beliefs in a way in which they are comfortable? Who are you to decide that the differences between Bernie and Hillary aren't big enough to care about on behalf of these people? Who are you to say that they're "close enough" for everybody's liking?
 

jtb

Banned
Who says "shame" has anything to do with anything? Are you referring to the "shame" someone feels when they vote in a way that doesn't square with their beliefs in a way in which they are comfortable? Who are you to decide that the differences between Bernie and Hillary aren't big enough to care about on behalf of these people? Who are you to say that they're "close enough" for everybody's liking?

in a world where they are both juxtaposed against Trump? yes, we have more than enough evidence (including very very similar voting records!!) for me to say, objectively, that Hillary is far closer to Bernie than Trump is.

the shame was referencing another post in this thread, not yours... should have quoted it

The siren song of keeping social issues in the spotlight over fiscal and foreign policy is so powerful. You throw out words like Social Justice or Pro-life and the basic uninformed voter from both sides has something easy to comprehend to get worked up over. What percentage of Democrats even care about let alone know of Glass-Steagall?

yes, how dare the Democrats defend the rights of minorities and women
 

televator

Member
Not voting for Hillary because you want Bernie is like not ordering a hamburger at a restaurant because you wanted pizza, so you let someone else order dog shit for you.

Hillary isn't quite as appetizing as a hamburger though... Maybe a hamburger dug out of the garbage, covered in maggots.
 
1912 maybe didn't end in as big of a disaster as 2000, but it's a much better example of how a third party can spoil someone from being elected. We've had a lot longer to study it and it was a much more clear election in terms of third party influence.

What would WWI have looked like with Taft at the helm? Would Taft had held a third term, due to being in the middle of WWI? If so, would the amendment limiting 2 terms be added in the early 1900s, instead of mid. Then what about FDR? With only two terms... and so on.

After the election, TR went back to being a Republican, some Bull Moosers went to Democrats, and it was business as usual.

So yea, third parties are influential. In getting the other side elected, We know this. We have history to show this. To deny it is to deny history.
 
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world

You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
 

shoplifter

Member
not what i asked or part of what my post proposed but let's tackle that anyhow, right?

You think Nader splitting some of the vote helped or hurt Gore? And would you say that we were better for Bush or could've things been better under Gore?


Of course it hurt him, but that's not to be blamed on Nader or people that felt a vote for him was more appealing. Be a better candidate, win your own home state and the Florida fuckery doesn't happen.

Winnable (granted that demographics are different to varying degrees now) states Gore lost, any of which would have won him the election:

Nevada ( Clinton won both cycles)
Colorado ( Clinton win 1992)
Ohio (Clinton won both cycles)
Florida (Clinton won 1996, granted JEB! in office)
West Virginia (D lost for first time since 1984)
Tennessee (Clinton won both cycles)

The only one of those states where Nader votes potentially mattered was Florida. You can't assume that people that voted Nader would have voted for Gore, or even voted at all.


1812 maybe didn't end in as big of a disaster as 2000, but it's a much better example of how a third party can spoil someone from being elected.

It mattered in a single state, which unfortunately for internet inventor Albert Gore was the one that ended up costing him the presidency because he couldn't carry states that his boss won.


Yes, when it's usually because they don't like her because of propaganda spread by Republicans, and subconscious sexism.

Stop. Just stop.
 

digdug2k

Member
I saw my first Facebook post from a Bernie supporter saying "I'll vote for Trump over Hillary" this week. It took a strange left turn into a "She's coming to get our guns" thing.

I like Hillary but I'm old. I think that's because, sitting in the "upper middle class" but living in an insanely expensive city to make it, I pay an insane amount of taxes right now. With 2 kids in daycare (also required to have a large combined salary, and a happy wife) and a house (which also has insane property taxes), we really barely break even. I just can't bear to vote for someone who wants to substantially increase that. I think that makes me a horrible selfish human. I've grown to accept that.

I'll say again, if someone wants to run a socialist party for President (or a "Democratic Socialist" if it makes you feel better about yourself), they should. They probably already do! It'll might cinch a Trump victory this year, since the racists, Christians, and libertarians seem to have no problem working together. But I'd rather have more parties than listen to people "holding their nose" while they vote.
 
Who says "shame" has anything to do with anything? Are you referring to the "shame" someone feels when they vote in a way that doesn't square with their beliefs in a way in which they are comfortable? Who are you to decide that the differences between Bernie and Hillary aren't big enough to care about on behalf of these people? Who are you to say that they're "close enough" for everybody's liking?

What has Hilary said or done that even remotely compares to what Trump says and claims he will do?

I'm not a Hilary supported for many reasons, but there is no comparison. I can't make someone understand the gravity of the difference between these two candidates (and we are dealing with two candidates, this is the real world, I'm sorry)

The "lesser of two evils" is a massive understatement. If people feel "shamed" because they would rather effectively do nothing to stop this little Hitler, then that's on them. But that is the reality of the situation. Sorry that it's a hard pill to swallow.
 
The dog shit is also covered in vomit and has e-coli

People really don't understand that the Donald is campaigning on just that, and not getting that if he wins then lots of people get the shit covered in vomit and disease that they have to eat and still deal with years later.

Yes, when it's usually because they don't like her because of propaganda spread by Republicans, and subconscious sexism.

Thank you.
 
There's already more than 40% of people who don't vote and you want more?

Yes, 60% of eligible voters would be ideal. The specific number isn't terribly important; what's important is reaching a threshold wherein the media and the international community can no longer deny that the U.S. government is illegitimate. This isn't a strategy that I'm invested in - I spend most of my energy on activism/direct action - but it would be a significant blow to corporate control of our government. If you want to see the end of the type of corporatism we are currently living under, it's extremely important not to endorse one of their representatives during elections. Voting for a Clinton or an Obama or a Bush sends the signal that you consent to be governed by the 1%.

Edit: Voting for Trump is an endorsement of nativism at best, fascism at worst, obviously.

If you care about change very much you engage in politic and try to get your choice elected.

Voting in the U.S. is not a political act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom