Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1366 of 4573 (822015)
10-17-2017 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1364 by Stile
10-17-2017 10:20 AM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Stile writes:
Let's try another line altogether.
Why do you think you get to decide what someone else's "best interests" are?
The way you're introducing your "another line altogether" is a return to an argument you tried before and that I rebutted before.
You do go on to make different points, but before I address them let me again reply to that old argument you just repeated and state, again, that I am not deciding what anyone's best interests are. The argument was that for almost anyone who is a Democrat, the election of Trump cannot possibly be anywhere near their best interests. If you want to argue that there's a sizable enough proportion to be worth talking about of those Democrats who didn't vote for Clinton or who didn't vote at all who consider Sanders, Stein and Trump all better options than Clinton then go ahead, make my day. It would make as much sense your earlier demand that I prove Clinton incorruptible.
So now let's move on to your new argument:
In other words, do you think it's impossible for someone to exist that:
By "someone" I'm going to assume you mean "someone who's a Democrat".
1) Is not immediately negatively affected by Trump's positions and actions
2) Is immediately negatively affected by Democratic positions and actions, but would very much like them to adjust their current way of doing things and get back to focusing on traditional Democratic positions and actions.
In general, I'm arguing that such a person can exist.
Well, we've seen that last sentence (or something close to it) before. And though I disagreed it wasn't because I didn't understand it. It was because it's the wrong argument. In a country this large any kind of voter could exist. The important factor, the one you're ignoring, is whether they exist in numbers large enough to be worth discussing.
Addressing the substance of your "another line altogether":
  1. Is not immediately negatively affected by Trump's positions and actions
    On Day 1 of his administration "Trump's positions and actions" immediately and negatively began affecting the entire nation, from his attacks on a free press to his incessant lying to his denigration of anyone or anything he doesn't like to his nuclear escalation to his praise of racists to his divisiveness to his treatment of Puerto Ricans as foreigners rather than as Americans and so forth and so on.
  2. Is immediately negatively affected by Democratic positions and actions, but would very much like them to adjust their current way of doing things and get back to focusing on traditional Democratic positions and actions.
    Once again you're criticizing the Democratic party while saying not one specific thing you're critical of. I'm critical of the Democrats, too, but at least I'm specific about it. Their alignment with issues that John Q. Public doesn't identify with, like global warming and LGBT issues and so forth, might have too high a profile compared to issues he does identify with, like higher wages and expanding the availability of healthcare, which seem very much like "traditional Democratic positions and actions."
    Anyway, if you're going to remain critical but non-specific, I can't address this point.
But point 1 all by itself makes it possible to answer your argument that such a person can exist: No he cannot exist, not in numbers worth talking about. Trump has been bad for almost every citizen of this country, whether they grasp that fact or not.
I understand you think such things outweigh any possible "immediately negative effects" possibly caused by the Democratic position.
Until you can spell out what these "immediately negative effects" are that are "caused by the Democratic position", I can't even understand what you're talking about, let alone consider whether "such things outweigh" anything else.
However, your opinion (and mine) that such things are weighed in the favour of voting for Clinton and not a 3rd party does not eliminate the possibility of someone weighing them another way.
You're repeating yourself from an earlier post, which I already answered. Anything is possible, any type of person is possible, but any Democrat who voted or didn't vote in a way that led to Trump's victory is extremely unlikely to have done so with that outcome in mind. And Democrats who thought a Trump victory a worthwhile price to pay for sending a message to the Democrats must exist in exceptionally tiny numbers. If you think these arguments untrue then you're going to have to explain why, not just repeat your original argument yet again.
Do you think it's impossible for current Democratic positions and actions to cause any few number of people (and possibly therefore their families) to lose their income?
What a worthless question! Few things are impossible. Do you know how to come to a point?
I am basically defending the position that such a person could exist based on the practicality and real-world workings of politics.
In a country of over 300 million people every type of person in every type of situation must exist. There are probably few policies of any political party in any country anywhere in the world that help everyone and hurt no one.
There are always victims to political decisions. I'm calling this "corruption"...
Mangling the English language again, I see.
...because many times it is and I thought such a term would draw your attention to this possibility. But perhaps another word would be better as it wouldn't point in so many other directions.
So there you go again accusing the Democrats of corruption, again with no specificity whatsoever. At least you had the sense this time to say "perhaps another word would be better," but you don't bother to suggest one.
People lose their jobs.
Throughout the history of this country under all political parties a week has never passed when people didn't lose their jobs. Do you have any arguments that make sense?
Some recover just fine.
Others are not as lucky (or 'prepared' perhaps)
You're offering this as a criticism of the Democrats? Are you wacko? It's the Republicans that want to take benefits away. Trump just did it again last week when he issued an executive order that will make health insurance less affordable for the poor.
You're making no sense. You're criticizing the Democrats over and over and over again, sometimes in generalities that are truisms of all political parties, and other times just in plain generalities that provide no clue about what you might be talking about, which is all you can do since you've already admitted you don't know much about the Democratic party and have nothing specific in mind but are just arguing the point because (sic) "no political party is free of corruption". And today we find out that by "corruption" you didn't really mean "corruption" but some other word that you haven't figured out what it is yet.
I know that if the Democrats made some decisions (corruption-based or otherwise) that caused me to lose my job, and lose my financial ability to provide for my family that depends on me, and that Clinton wasn't doing anything to change such a direction, or possibly even supporting it... my plan would be to vote 3rd party.
Because Trump will make things so much better for you than Clinton?
Because I couldn't vote for Trump (he's dumb).
The list of adjectives describing Trump would fill a page, but "dumb" isn't one of them. Perhaps you mean "ignorant" combined with "short attention span".
And I couldn't vote for Clinton (she's supporting destroying my ability to provide for my family).
You garbled a sentence again (I assume you mean Clinton is "destroying" your ability to provide for your family).
What is Clinton doing to destroy your ability to provide for your family?
I would consider a 3rd party vote in such a situation to be valid.
Even if the result is to risk Trump's election? The guy with all the empathy for people in hard luck situations? The guy working hard to increase taxes on the rich? The liar telling you how fabulous things are going to be?
I don't think many would fall into this category (as part of the US population on the whole).
Duh! That's what I've been saying all along. You're identifying a category of person that while not impossible must have very, very few members.
How many voted 3rd party?
Is Google not available in Canada? 3rd parties got roughly 4% of the popular vote and no electoral college votes. "Other" got another 1.7% of the popular vote and again no electoral college votes.
By the way, what you were talking about originally was Democrats who voted 3rd party (or who didn't vote) in order to teach the Democrats a lesson. That's a different group of people from those who are actually members of 3rd parties or are independents.
If so, I am fairly confident that a lot of those 3rd party voters did so for very good, very valid reasons. Likely something that would fall into the general description of possibility I've described above.
You mean your confidence in the "very valid reasons" that you keep repeating and that I keep rebutting?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Improve clarity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1364 by Stile, posted 10-17-2017 10:20 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1367 by Stile, posted 10-17-2017 3:29 PM Percy has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1367 of 4573 (822016)
10-17-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1366 by Percy
10-17-2017 2:24 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Percy writes:
If you want to argue that there's a sizable enough proportion to be worth talking about of those Democrats who didn't vote for Clinton or who didn't vote at all who consider Sanders, Stein and Trump all better options than Clinton then go ahead, make my day.
Again, this is (basically) the core of what I'm saying.
The only thing I'm saying.
Anything and everything else you think I'm saying that goes above or beyond this is just that... something going above or beyond the point I intended to speak about.
I pretty much agree with you about all the things you've brought up that is above or beyond this point.
However, as I've noted, they are all irrelevant to making this one, particular, specific point.
I'm just pointing out, in general, that there are perfectly valid and rational reasons for people to vote 3rd party.
I'm critical of the Democrats, too, but at least I'm specific about it.
I think you're trying to have some sort of political discussion with me that I'm simply not capable of.
The reason I'm not specific about issues within the US Democratic party is because I'm completely ignorant about them... mostly because I'm not a US citizen and I don't care (for my day-to-day life, anyway).
I'm also trying not to be specific about issues in the Democratic party because it's not required to make my point... the point that there are valid reasons to make 3rd party votes.
You mean your confidence in the "very valid reasons" that you keep repeating and that I keep rebutting?
You keep rebutting ideas along the lines of "the democratic party isn't very good."
But I'm not attempting to make that point.
I agree with you that "the democratic party isn't very good" is a bad point... the democratic party seems pretty decent to me, as you suggest with all your "rebuttals."
Why do you think the Democratic party being pretty good is a reason why someone can't vote 3rd party in order to try to make them better?
You accept the Democratic party isn't perfect?
You accept there is room for improvement?
I assume the answer is yes to both of those questions... or else you're simply lying to yourself.
Therefore, if someone had some massive pressure on them as well not to vote Democratic (say... current Democratic policies are destroying their ability to provide for their family).... why is that not a valid reason to vote 3rd party?
If you agree with this point (which you seem to in your above reply) then we are in total agreement.
We completely agree that there can be valid reasons to vote 3rd party.
We completely agree that, personally, we would both vote for Clinton.
We completely agree that, personally, we do not want others to vote 3rd party, but would rather that they voted for Clinton.
We completely agree that the Democratic party is massively better than the Republican party.
We completely agree that the Democratic party is pretty decent in it's own right.
We completely agree that the Democratic party could still be better.
We completely agree that the Democratic party supports some policies that destroys the ability for some people to provide for their family.
We completely agree that such people would have a perfectly valid reason to vote 3rd party.
We completely agree that the people who fall into this category are extremely small.
We completely agree that the number of people who voted 3rd party is extremely small.
We completely agree that some people voted 3rd party for silly, irrational reasons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1366 by Percy, posted 10-17-2017 2:24 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1370 by Percy, posted 10-17-2017 8:26 PM Stile has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1368 of 4573 (822018)
10-17-2017 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1362 by Percy
10-17-2017 8:46 AM


Re: the blame
. I wouldn't ask you to go off and read a research paper or a website or a thread at some other forum or another thread at this forum or even this entire thread, but it does seem reasonable to request that you read the messages I just finished posting to Stile in just the past week.
I read them. Maybe not all of them, there was a fair amount of bickering about things in a metadebate type fashion but I tried to follow the argument.
"Now I know that your response to Stile when he raised this very same objection was such and so...", and then continue on from there. But you seem to want me to repeat with you the very same discussion I just had with Stile.
I'd actually rather you didn't. But this is a political discussion, so there is going to be a fair amount of opinion expressed here - so I'm not going to not profer my opinion just because someone else has given similar opinions and you've disagreed with it.
The main gist of the counter argument to this I've seen from you is 'But Trump is awful' and 'the result is counter to short term interests' kind of thing - which is already built into my response.
You're as remarkably blas about Trump as Stile. The international community, including the UK, understands the disaster that is Trump.
I'm not blas. Trump is a disaster. I'm not sure why you'd think I'd think otherwise, but let me correct any misapprehension in this regard explicitly here.
It remains a mystery why you and Stile think think four years of Trump is a reasonable tradeoff to get the message to the Democrats that Clinton wasn't a good enough candidate. It's not true and not the right message.
Which is why I expanded on my views - to help clarify any points which were mysterious.
Well if you want to be that way about it then in that case nominations earn no votes.
Yes, that's what I am saying.
The reality is that both parties run multiple candidates through the primaries, but once one is nominated the parties get behind their respective candidates.
The Party can do what it likes - and this is certainly a pragmatic choice for the careers of those involved. But that lays no obligation on the voters who are not obliged to vote for a Democrat President just because the Democrats nominated a person.
There were at least 12 Republican candidates in the primaries. There is a far clearer message for supporters of the losing Republican candidates to send to the Republican party by withholding their vote for Trump, that they were not going to stand for loathsome,, misogynistic, lying, ignorant, megalomaniacal, egotistical, insulting, jingoistic, immature, vindictive, impulsive, thin-skinned, inconstant, bullying candidates. If a message needed to be sent it was to the Republicans, not the Democrats.
I don't see why it cannot be both.
Clinton was the best candidate the Democrats had, and what is this nonsense of finding a candidate who had a better chance of winning? I hope you don't mean Sanders or Stein or some mythical candidate to emerge from the woodwork, because that's absurd.
Well that's your opinion. For instance:
PolitiFact | Bernie Sanders says he polls better against Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton does
A number of polls suggested in a Trump vs election - Sanders was favoured by a larger margin than Clinton. The point where it becomes less clear is - what would have happened to Sanders {or some other candidate} post nomination.
I think those that think as you do would have still voted for him. He's a Democrat, so get behind him to get avoid Trump at the very least.
The question is about those that elected to not vote for Clinton who normally vote Democrat compared with those that would not vote for Sanders who would normally vote Democrat. A difficult task to untangle absolutely, but I think the Steiners would be more inclined to switch to Sanders as would some of those that chose to not bother voting at all. As for those that went and voted Trump, maybe some of those would have gone Sanders had he voted. If they were in the 'we need change not status quo' category rather than voting along political lines - and simply see the Democrats as normally the party to get this done.
Clinton was the best candidate the Democrats had
This is not something that can be certainly said. My entire thesis is that the system for picking a nominee doesn't necessarily lead to the best candidate where 'best candidate' is the one most likely to win the Presidential election. It only selects who is the preferred candidate for Primary voters.
Calling Clinton the "lesser evil" candidate is to completely mischaracterize the two candidates. Clinton may not have been the first choice of some Democrats, but she *is* a Democrat with a successful record in both elected and appointed office, not a "lesser evil" or even any kind of evil at all
Well that's your opinion, but your opinion is only one element at play. It's the opinion of the people as a whole that has more sway in this.
Ignoring the fact that a significant number of traditionally Democrat Party voters explicitly said they actively disliked Clinton, whether it was her vote on the Iraq war, her time as Secretary of State or whatever it was.
Personally, she is far too right wing for my tastes.
Sanders, in contrast did not vote for DOMA - has been very publicly pro-gay rights for decades and actively supported gay marriage for longer than Clinton who was publicly opposed to it until just a few years before the election (during Obama's tenure and push towards it). Sanders was more of a leader - ahead of the curve where Clinton was following political expediency. Things of this nature all go into the equation.
Plus Clinton won the popular vote and only lost because of the unpredictable way the votes cast sometimes map onto the electoral college. She had an excellent chance of winning the election.
She had a reasonable chance, let's say an excellent one. It doesn't matter. What matters is if someone had a better chance. If 100% of California had voted for her - it would have got her a long way to winning the popular vote but it would obviously not be sufficient to do what you need to to win the Presidency - win the States not merely the people.
To argue that the Democrats could have found a candidate who had an even more excellent chance is to engage in fantasy.
Very certain words, in an uncertain sphere. Let's see who the next candidate the Democrats pick is. I would expect that same person is around today, is politically active today - probably a Senator or Representative. They *could* have picked that person. If that person defeats Trump next time - can you say for certain they did not have a better chance of winning in 2016?
What's this rot that you and Stile are all about that the Democrats need to be taught a lesson? What exactly is it that they did wrong before the election that needs remediation?
I thought i was quite explicit. The less they need to learn is how to pick a candidate that excites people and/or that doesn't turn a significant number of people off. To listen to the swing voters. And so on.
Well, now let's not be silly. Are you seriously arguing that significant numbers of those Democrats who either didn't vote for Clinton or withheld their vote preferred that Trump be elected?
I'm saying they preferred not to give their vote to Clinton.
Those would be pretty unusual Democrats
There are clearly enough of the kind that would not cast a vote for Clinton be they independent but Democrat leaning or Democrat registered or whatever to have made a difference.
You're hypothetical scenario is that you're a Democrat who doesn't want Clinton to become President, even though the only alternative is Trump?
Democrat leaning. The Democrat party is too right wing for me to call myself one. And yes, I would not have wanted a Clinton Presidency.
So it's okay with you that Trump became President, because at least that awful Clinton didn't become President and now the Democratic party can learn from that?
No. It's not OK that Trump became President.
Nor is it OK that Clinton was the only viable alternative.
I would hope that in losing, or in only just winning, the Democrats might make changes so that they better represent my views next time. I don't intend to participate in shifting the Overton window, as it were, rightwards. Put forward a candidate I can vote *for* and I'll vote for them.
Can you or someone remind me what was so horrible about Clinton, the only candidate with both elected and appointed experience, and the only candidate who wasn't insane?
Well I gave some examples of this up there I suppose but I'm not interested particularly in a 'Why was Clinton problematic' debate. My vote isn't given to 'who is the candidate closes to my views who has a reasonable chance of winning the election' so comparing Clinton to Trump is not important to me. It's that difference of perspective you need to shift to to understand what my particular view - even if you disagree with it.
The electoral college system is the reality. Blame it if you like, but you may as well blame the air because it isn't going to change.
You are the one blaming it with your Clinton only lost because of the way the the electoral college maps to the people argument. By 'the system' I was talking about alternate ways of voting - either in the Primaries or the main election or both. Even the States can adopt different rules - proportional votes to the electoral college rather than winner takes all - for example; this would reduce the power of swing States.
By what crazy logic would electing Clinton have pushed us closer to becoming Trumpists, who, if I haven't said it already, isn't really a Republican.
She is more right wing/conservative than Obama - pushing us towards the right when in my view the centre of US politics is too far to the right already. Not sure how that is crazy logic.
Trump is not step 1 toward a greater America. We're going to have to find the will, the resolve and the resourcefulness to survive these four years of chaos and hope that there's enough left at the end to pick up the pieces and move forward.
I'd suggest voting for a Democratic legislature to counteract him.
This ignores the fact that the final tally of the votes in the electoral college is just the final step of a long process that began with people casting votes at polling stations.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out that nationwide numbers are not relevant. What matters is how the States decide to distribute their electoral votes.
It makes no sense to focus exclusively on the final electoral college tally and ignore the fact Clinton won the popular vote by the largest margin of a losing candidate in the country's history, or ignore the fact that the number of votes that carried Trump over the top in the electoral college was miniscule.
I'm neither focussed exclusively on one thing, nor ignoring the margins in the swing states.
It remains, however, that the people of the USA do not elect a President. The States do, consulting their population in isolation to the others. Again, if you regard this as problematic there are a number of solutions - but ridding 'winner takes all' from the States would certainly help. It still won't effect 2016, but it seems sensible to me. Still you aren't interested in such discussions so considering them a hard fact the very fact that Trump's margins were small in many swing States plays into my hands:
Had the Democrats not nominated a candidate who turned off the percentage she did, as small as that might well be - those margins would have evaporated.
Uh, yeah, that's what I just said.
That's good isn't it?
You must have been trying to say something else, because as written this looks just dead wrong. The way the vast majority of electors cast their votes is definitely based upon the way popular votes were cast.
Popular votes within their State. Not across the nation. If electors cast their votes based on the nationwide popular vote the result would have been different wouldn't it?
Yes, and very true, and pretty much what I've been telling you. Candidates for President campaign for popular votes, not electoral college votes, though the popular votes eventually map onto electoral college votes.
Well they do both - but there's a reason they focus on swing States. If they want to win anyway. And that's because they know the electoral college votes are what matters for victory.
Usually winning the popular vote coincides with winning the States, but it would be a mistake to go for the popular vote at the expense of winning the States.
You're just a faux-general planning his strategy based on the last war, always a mistake. Certainly the Democrats should try to win the next election by an even greater popular vote margin than in 2016, and certainly they should seek the strongest candidate, but making plans for 2020 based on how 2016 was lost would be a mistake
I'm not sure learning lessons from failure is best characterised as a mistake.
and they should also better allocate resources toward gaining popular votes where it will help the most with the electoral college
Exactly. And this includes selecting a candidate who won't cause people to vote third party or decline to vote.
Again, this was not the election to pick up your vote and go home. Too much was at stake, and there was never any doubt about this.
Again, I disagree.
Those Democrats who voted (or didn't vote) in a way that aided Trump's election obtained a result opposite to their intention
If their intention was to prevent Trump from winning, you are right. But my argument which you ignored here has been that this wasn't their intention.
How does one counter a snake oil salesman who's telling the crowd that his elixir will cure rheumatism and indigestion and the common cold?
I'd suggest 'Don't buy the snake oil - live with the common cold' is not the best counter strategy. I'd suggest 'here is something more effective than snake oil'.
That is, don't go status quo.
It's my funeral? Huh? Are you under some delusion that I'm a Democrat?
I was suggesting you are an American. If you don't want the lesson for the Democrats to learn to be to find a way to optimise candidate selection, you are the one that lives with the consequences when their best candidate loses to the worst candidate I've ever seen.
Ain't gonna happen. You're living in fantasy land.
You missed the point. I'm not suggesting you have to change the electoral college. My point was that the only solution to the problems you have put forward (that the popular candidate lost due to the electoral college) is unrealistic and that changing the Primary process is more realistic. So no, I'm not living in a fantasy land - solving the problem you keep raising may be a fantasy - solving the problem I am talking about is not.
Agreed, although I expressed it in different terms when I discussed this with Stile. I said first you select your nominee, then you strategize on how to win the popular vote in ways that wins the most electoral college votes.
Exactly. The latter is the same game every time - different players and different strategies but without the electoral reform of dramatically changing the college there's no imrovements that are possible to this part. I'm suggesting improvements to the selecting of the nominee to make the second part of the game easier.
It's the fault of the Democratic Party's voting system?
If it results in picking people that can't win the electoral college then it's certainly in consideration yes. I gave an alternative method which I think counters the problems encountered in this particular election where your preferred candidate lost due to people protest voting etc.
Says the person from the UK while being remarkably unspecific.
What has this got to do with it? You've referenced my posting time, my nationality and so on several times. Can we not deal with the discussion rather than the person here?
Do you have any good reason to suppose of all the people who could have run, Clinton is the one that would definitely have got the best result? I'm hoping that isn't just because she won the Primaries as that ignores the substance of my post about picking candidates who are more appealing to more people.
A non political argument.
Where shall we eat?
Dennys
Burger King
Crab Shack
Taco Bell
There are 10 of you. Standard vote - one person one vote, pick your preferred location:
Dennys 4
Burger King 3
Crab Shack 2
Taco Bell 1
Is Denny's the 'best' option?
Let's say instead you can vote for as many as you like. You pick whichever one you would be content with.
Dennys 4
Burger King 10
Crab shack 5
Taco Bell 2
Is Dennys still the best option? Seems to me that Burger King might be better even if it didn't win the '1st choice of the largest number of people' vote.
If you chose the former method and opt to go to Dennys, maybe 4 people decide to break off and go eat elsewhere. Is this really the optimal outcome?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1362 by Percy, posted 10-17-2017 8:46 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1378 by Percy, posted 10-18-2017 6:52 PM Modulous has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1369 of 4573 (822024)
10-17-2017 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1357 by Modulous
10-16-2017 5:17 PM


Re: Democrats need to stop blaming others for their loss.
Modulous writes:
So if he makes it 4 years and elects to run a second time, the Democrats had better field a candidate that appeals to more people than their last effort.
The irony is that the next Democratic candidate could get fewer votes than Hillary and still win handily. Trump got 3 million fewer votes than Hillary and still won.
Even knowing the present outcome, I likely would not have voted Clinton. I reserve my votes for candidates that I want to win, not the lesser of the two evils most likely to win.
I doubt that anyone voting for Stein or Johnson thought they would win. It's a bit like watching a 3 year old walk right by you and onto the highway where they are struck by a car. You can claim that it isn't your fault because you weren't driving the car, but is that really the truth?
If Trump getting 57% of the vote, while another candidate was preferred by more citizens - I can only suggest you kick up a fuss and hope to make Presidential electoral reform a key factor in the legislature elections.
The current electoral system favors the party in power, so it is a self reinforcing problem.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1357 by Modulous, posted 10-16-2017 5:17 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1374 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2017 12:22 PM Taq has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1370 of 4573 (822026)
10-17-2017 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1367 by Stile
10-17-2017 3:29 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Stile writes:
Percy writes:
If you want to argue that there's a sizable enough proportion to be worth talking about of those Democrats who didn't vote for Clinton or who didn't vote at all who consider Sanders, Stein and Trump all better options than Clinton then go ahead, make my day.
Again, this is (basically) the core of what I'm saying.
Then you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough. I didn't say "Sanders, Stein *or* Trump," I said "Sanders, Stein *and* Trump all." Just how many Democrats who didn't vote for Clinton include Trump in their list of candidates better than Clinton? That group of people might need a room bigger than a phone booth, but not by much. That definitely is not "a sizable enough proportion to be worth talking about."
I think you're trying to have some sort of political discussion with me that I'm simply not capable of.
Now you're dissembling. You accused the Democrats of corruption more than ten times and also of ruining families and causing people to lose their jobs. You tried to make yourself sound like someone who knew what he was talking about. All I did was ask about the specifics of these unsupported charges you were making, not have "some sort of political discussion with [you] that [you're] simply not capable of." If you don't want people trying to explore issues with you that you know nothing about, don't make it seem like you know something about them.
The reason I'm not specific about issues within the US Democratic party is because I'm completely ignorant about them... mostly because I'm not a US citizen and I don't care (for my day-to-day life, anyway).
I'm also trying not to be specific about issues in the Democratic party because it's not required to make my point... the point that there are valid reasons to make 3rd party votes.
I'm hopefully beating a dead horse here, but if you're "completely ignorant" about something, and if "it's not required to make [your] point," then could I suggest not saying anything about it?
I'm just pointing out, in general, that there are perfectly valid and rational reasons for people to vote 3rd party.
Sure there are, but not in the 2016 election where the choice was either Clinton or Trump. What "perfectly valid and rational reasons" do you think existed for a Democrat to vote 3rd party? You could even question the wisdom of 3rd party members not voting for Clinton, since obviously Stein (Green Party) supporters would be much happier with Clinton than Trump. After being led down the rabbit hole by you regarding Democratic corruption, pardon my skepticism that there are any specifics behind your general claims.
By the way, if it wasn't clear from what I said in my previous post, a Democrat voting 3rd party would not be voting for Sanders, who in 2016 was a Democrat who sought the Democratic nomination and was not 3rd party. From context (Democrats sending a message to the Democratic party) it's clear that you're most often actually talking about Democrats writing in Sanders or not voting at all, not about independents or 3rd party members voting for Stein or Johnson.
You keep rebutting ideas along the lines of "the democratic party isn't very good."
Let's be more precise by saying that I keep rebutting your bullshit about the Democratic party being corrupt. Now I'm rebutting your bullshit about me "rebutting ideas along the lines of 'the Democratic party isn't very good.'"
I agree with you that "the democratic party isn't very good" is a bad point... the democratic party seems pretty decent to me, as you suggest with all your "rebuttals."
I don't recall saying anything positive about the Democratic party, and I particularly don't recall ever saying it's "pretty decent." I do not now recall my exact words, but my thinking on this is that the Democratic party is not especially good or bad as political parties go.
Why do you think the Democratic party being pretty good is a reason why someone can't vote 3rd party in order to try to make them better?
But I don't think the Democratic party is "pretty good." As a political party they're okay, like the Republican party and the Green Party and the Libertarian party are okay. None of them appear to be especially good or bad.
And of course political parties receive feedback about how well they're appealing to voters through the votes they do or don't receive. But the 2016 election was the wrong election to be wasting your vote sending a message, because of the risk of Trump getting elected. Your counterargument was that sending that message was very important because of the corruption of the Democratic party, which in the end turned out to be bullshit.
You accept the Democratic party isn't perfect?
You accept there is room for improvement?
I assume the answer is yes to both of those questions... or else you're simply lying to yourself.
You really have to ask and answer stupid questions like this? I've never ever hinted that anything is perfect and can't be improved, and certainly not a political party. Is responding to what people actually say beyond your ability for some reason?
Therefore, if someone had some massive pressure on them as well not to vote Democratic (say... current Democratic policies are destroying their ability to provide for their family).... why is that not a valid reason to vote 3rd party?
Why is that not a valid reason to vote 3rd party? Because we've already established that your negative criticisms of the Democratic party are bullshit. You're postulating people who are Democrats despite that "current Democratic policies are destroying their ability to provide for their family," and you can't even provide an example of what one of these horrible policies might be.
If you agree with this point (which you seem to in your above reply) then we are in total agreement.
You are seriously bonkers if after all your misrepresentations, nonsense and errors you think I agree with you. Get something right first, because that's the only way we're ever going to find any common ground. I'm not likely to find much agreement with you otherwise.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarify a couple sentences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1367 by Stile, posted 10-17-2017 3:29 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1371 by Stile, posted 10-18-2017 9:41 AM Percy has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 1371 of 4573 (822057)
10-18-2017 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1370 by Percy
10-17-2017 8:26 PM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Percy writes:
Stile writes:
Therefore, if someone had some massive pressure on them as well not to vote Democratic (say... current Democratic policies are destroying their ability to provide for their family).... why is that not a valid reason to vote 3rd party?
Why is that not a valid reason to vote 3rd party? Because we've already established that your negative criticisms of the Democratic party are bullshit. You're postulating people who are Democrats despite that "current Democratic policies are destroying their ability to provide for their family," and you can't even provide an example of what one of these horrible policies might be.
It's bullshit that someone exists that the current policies/direction of the Democratic party caused the destruction of their ability to provide for their family?
I wondered if maybe you could be right.
So I took a few seconds to Google "democratic policies lost jobs"
The second link contains this quote:
quote:
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing (for) millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs (and) means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.
(words in brackets added by me to parse the phrase as I expect it was meant).
Do you think this claim is false?
I'm not saying that there's some huge group of people who lost jobs due to democratic policies/direction... we've already established that 3rd party votes were less than 5% of all votes.
I am, however, claiming that some small group exists (even less than "less than 5% of all votes") that easily could have had their ability to provide for their family destroyed by democratic policies/direction.
This quote and article seem to support my idea.
I don't see how any of these facts add up to "bullshit" just because you, personally, were not affected in such a way.
This isn't saying that Trump will make their lives better.
This is only saying that their lives were massively, immediately, negatively impacted by Democratic policies/direction.
From there, it's not hard to imagine that some of these people might regularly vote Democratic... because they don't like the Republicans and perhaps especially Trump.
It's not hard to understand that they also refuse to vote Democratic this past election because the policies/direction of the Democratic party is responsible for destroying their ability to provide for their family.
That's all that's required in order to have a normally-voting-Democrat person possess a valid reason to vote 3rd party in this past election.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1370 by Percy, posted 10-17-2017 8:26 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1372 by dronestar, posted 10-18-2017 11:13 AM Stile has replied
 Message 1379 by Percy, posted 10-18-2017 8:23 PM Stile has replied
 Message 1380 by nwr, posted 10-18-2017 11:02 PM Stile has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 1372 of 4573 (822059)
10-18-2017 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1371 by Stile
10-18-2017 9:41 AM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Stile writes:
It's not hard to understand that they also refuse to vote Democratic this past election because the policies/direction of the Democratic party is responsible for destroying their ability to provide for their family.
Allow me to slightly reword:
quote:
It's not hard to understand that they also refuse to vote Democratic this past election because the policies/direction of the Democratic party is responsible for destroying their family.
For example, a family of an American soldier who died in the illegal and immoral Iraqi invasion that Hillary fully authorized, cheerled, and repeatedly funded.
Yeah, SOME people might be upset about that.
Regarding the million innocent Iraqis who were murdered, well Amerikans don't consider that statistic because, afterall, they are dark-skinned, and the wrong religion. So obviously, that shouldn't effect anybody's voting preference.
Edited by dronestar, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1371 by Stile, posted 10-18-2017 9:41 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1373 by Stile, posted 10-18-2017 11:48 AM dronestar has not replied
 Message 1375 by Taq, posted 10-18-2017 5:41 PM dronestar has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1373 of 4573 (822061)
10-18-2017 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1372 by dronestar
10-18-2017 11:13 AM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
dronestar writes:
For example, a family of an American soldier who died in the illegal and immoral Iraqi invasion that Hillary fully authorized, cheerled, and repeatedly funded.
I can't comment on the specifics, just as I can't comment on other specifics... I'm ignorant on what actually happens with the US political parties, mostly because I don't care because I'm Canadian. But partly because (like most people) I'm focused on my own family, which doesn't allow time for my attention to be everywhere else I'd like it to.
However, I fully agree that "some political decisions regarding war" have definitely been made by the Democratic party that have resulted in the deaths of some families' members. (Regardless of them being made for the right or wrong reasons.)
And, yes, that as well would make for an extremely valid reason to vote 3rd party in this election.
I didn't intend to supply "the only reason" just "a reason."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1372 by dronestar, posted 10-18-2017 11:13 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1374 of 4573 (822063)
10-18-2017 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1369 by Taq
10-17-2017 6:50 PM


Re: Democrats need to stop blaming others for their loss.
The irony is that the next Democratic candidate could get fewer votes than Hillary and still win handily.
Or get more votes and still lose. But that's because nationwide popular votes are irrelevant to the election results. As I said earlier, it's possible to win {though not likely} with only 25% of the nationwide popular vote.
Trump got 3 million fewer votes than Hillary and still won.
Again, this is not important. It's exactly the way the system is supposed to operate - the popular vote does not select the President - though it often coincides with the selection. Of the votes that matter, Trump got 77 more than Hilary.
Reagan's landslide was 91% of the electoral college but only 51% of the popular vote - there was a significant spoiler in this election in the guise of John B. Anderson so the margin of the popular vote difference between the two candidates was quite large - nearly 10%. Kennedy 1960 got 50% of the popular and 55% of the electoral college with a margin of just 0.17% of the popular vote. Obama 2008 got 535 of the popular vote with a margin of 7% but 68% of the electoral college. Nixon in 68 got 43% of the popular vote and 56% of the electoral with a popular vote margin of 0.7% {There was another significant spoiler in this election} Buchanan got 45% of the popular vote, 59% of the electoral vote with a margin of 12% popular votes.
Trump got 46% of the popular vote, 57% of the electoral college and lost the popular by 2%. Rutherford Hayes and JQ Adams lost the popular vote by a larger margin.
People like to point out the 3 million votes as if that's important. It's the biggest number of votes someone has ever been in deficit in the popular vote and won - but it's really the percentages that matter. Donald Trump is still up there - only beaten by 19th Century Presidents which one could argue 'don't count' as they aren't comparable for a number of reasons (for instance JQ Adams only got 113,000 'popular' votes). Nevertheless if absolute numbers are of use - it should be pointed out that Donald Trump is the President who accrued the second most absolute votes in his favour of all time. Beaten only by Obama. The top 5 absolute votes cast for a President are
1 Obama
2 Trump
3 W Bush
4 Reagan
5 H W Bush
But then, these are all Presidents whose number is 5xth
If trends continue the next person to lose the popular but gain the electoral is likely to do so to a similar margin, quite conceivably by more.
After all - the next biggest absolute margin loss was Bush by 500,000 but 13 million less people voted for him. It'd have been aproaching 700,000 had the percentages stayed the same and he had those 13 million extra.
It's a bit like watching a 3 year old walk right by you and onto the highway where they are struck by a car.
Or perhaps it's like two people arguing over whether the 3 year old should get hit by a car or a truck while you are arguing, perhaps the 3 year old shouldn't be getting hit by any vehicle, or if it must, let it be a bicycle - even while knowing you will ultimately lose the argument but hoping that next time those a 3 year olds fate is in the balance - the people that argued for car and lost try to argue they should be hit by a motorbike next time or at least a slower moving car and hope to win that argument instead.
The current electoral system favors the party in power, so it is a self reinforcing problem.
Since 1960 it has gone
Dem
Dem
Rep
Rep
Dem
Rep
Rep
Rep
Dem
Dem
Rep
Rep
Dem
Dem
Rep
I don't see the electoral system favouring the party in power. I see the power of incumbency, but otherwise basically an alternating pattern. Indeed, over the last 100 years the breakdown is
Democrats: 52 yrs
Republicans: 48 yrs
In the legislature, in the last 100 years, control of both houses and presidency has gone:
Democrats: 35 yrs
Republicans: 16 yrs
Senate and House control at the same time:
Democrats: 57 yrs
Republicans: 27 yrs
Just the Representatives:
Democrats: 65 yrs
Republicans: 35 yrs
Just the Senate:
Democrats: 56 yrs
Republicans: 34
So there may be a tendency for retention of those in power in the legislature, with that bias favouring the Democrats over 100 years but the Republicans over the last 20 years. From 33 - 95 the Democrats pretty much owned the legislature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1369 by Taq, posted 10-17-2017 6:50 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1376 by Taq, posted 10-18-2017 5:49 PM Modulous has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(5)
Message 1375 of 4573 (822077)
10-18-2017 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1372 by dronestar
10-18-2017 11:13 AM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
dronestar writes:
For example, a family of an American soldier who died in the illegal and immoral Iraqi invasion that Hillary fully authorized, cheerled, and repeatedly funded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1372 by dronestar, posted 10-18-2017 11:13 AM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1387 by dronestar, posted 10-19-2017 2:38 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1376 of 4573 (822078)
10-18-2017 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1374 by Modulous
10-18-2017 12:22 PM


Re: Democrats need to stop blaming others for their loss.
Modulous writes:
Again, this is not important. It's exactly the way the system is supposed to operate - the popular vote does not select the President - though it often coincides with the selection. Of the votes that matter, Trump got 77 more than Hilary.
Then you should be saying that the next Democratic candidate needs to get the right votes, not more votes.
Or perhaps it's like two people arguing over whether the 3 year old should get hit by a car or a truck while you are arguing, perhaps the 3 year old shouldn't be getting hit by any vehicle, or if it must, let it be a bicycle - even while knowing you will ultimately lose the argument but hoping that next time those a 3 year olds fate is in the balance - the people that argued for car and lost try to argue they should be hit by a motorbike next time or at least a slower moving car and hope to win that argument instead.
Nope, that's not it.
Since 1960 it has gone
Since 2000 there have been two occasions where the winner of the presidential election did not win the popular vote, and both times it was a Republican. Republicans are currently in power, hence the self reinforcing problem. On top of that, state districts are heavily gerrymandered in favor of the Republicans since 2010, so that gives them overrepresentation in the House and Senate.
If it swings the other way, I am sure that Democrats will be just as unwilling to change the rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1374 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2017 12:22 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1377 by Modulous, posted 10-18-2017 6:02 PM Taq has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1377 of 4573 (822079)
10-18-2017 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1376 by Taq
10-18-2017 5:49 PM


Re: Democrats need to stop blaming others for their loss.
Then you should be saying that the next Democratic candidate needs to get the right votes, not more votes.
Given the nature of these things, they eventually add up to the same things. I have said this very thing explicitly in this thread. My point ultimately is that Clinton dropped too many votes and the fact is that many of those dropped votes happened in key states. Democrats then, needed to field a candidate that wouldn't do that.
Nope, that's not it.
And it's not yours either.
Since 2000 there have been two occasions where the winner of the presidential election did not win the popular vote, and both times it was a Republican.
Yes, but that is nothing to do with power staying with those that have it. In 2000 the Democrats were previously in power - and they didn't stay that way. In 2016 the Democrats were previously in power and they didn't stay that way. Thus
quote:
The current electoral system favors the party in power
Is not proven, even by looking at the very small sample you have picked.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1376 by Taq, posted 10-18-2017 5:49 PM Taq has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1378 of 4573 (822080)
10-18-2017 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1368 by Modulous
10-17-2017 3:58 PM


Re: the blame
Modulous writes:
. I wouldn't ask you to go off and read a research paper or a website or a thread at some other forum or another thread at this forum or even this entire thread, but it does seem reasonable to request that you read the messages I just finished posting to Stile in just the past week.
I read them. Maybe not all of them, there was a fair amount of bickering about things in a metadebate type fashion but I tried to follow the argument.
"Now I know that your response to Stile when he raised this very same objection was such and so...", and then continue on from there. But you seem to want me to repeat with you the very same discussion I just had with Stile.
I'd actually rather you didn't. But this is a political discussion, so there is going to be a fair amount of opinion expressed here - so I'm not going to not profer my opinion just because someone else has given similar opinions and you've disagreed with it.
No worries. Your previous message that began with the claim that 2016 was "the perfect time to lodge a protest vote" seemed a perfect echo of what Stile had just been saying, forcing me to repeat many of the same counterarguments I'd just made at length with Stile, but in this response you seem to have gone off in a different direction.
The main gist of the counter argument to this I've seen from you is 'But Trump is awful'...
I know you're trying to be brief in summarizing what I said, but "But Trump is awful" doesn't really capture the magnitude of the malevolence and peril.
...and 'the result is counter to short term interests' kind of thing - which is already built into my response.
"The result is counter to short term interests," or words to that effect, is something Stile said, not me. My response was to strongly question his assumption that the effects of a Trump presidency wouldn't be long-lasting and enduring, mentioning climate change, the environment and using the New Deal as an example of something that has had an enduring effect (see my Message 1321).
Anyway, what's important is to realize that what you called the "main gist" of my position is not actually the "main gist" of my position. What I was saying to Stile is that the 2016 election was the wrong one to be sending a message to the Democrats that you didn't like their candidate, because in sending the message you would be contributing to an outcome comparable to your worst nightmare.
I'm not blas. Trump is a disaster. I'm not sure why you'd think I'd think otherwise,...
Since you're not sure why I think you're rather blas about Trump, let me explain that it's because you agreed with Stile that 2016 was the right time to send a message to the Democrats even if it contributed to Trump's election. It seemed to reflect a minimizing of Trump's ill effects by judging that the sending of a message to the Democrats is worth the pain of a Trump presidency.
It remains a mystery why you and Stile think think four years of Trump is a reasonable tradeoff to get the message to the Democrats that Clinton wasn't a good enough candidate. It's not true and not the right message.
Which is why I expanded on my views - to help clarify any points which were mysterious.
Uh, okay, but somehow it just didn't come across as taking the Trump threat seriously.
Well if you want to be that way about it then in that case nominations earn no votes.
Yes, that's what I am saying.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. The sarcastic "Well if you want to be that way about it" part was saying that you were nitpicking about a side point that was just a lead in line to the rest of a longer paragraph that I thought was making an important point. See the 2nd paragraph of my Message 1359.
The reality is that both parties run multiple candidates through the primaries, but once one is nominated the parties get behind their respective candidates.
The Party can do what it likes - and this is certainly a pragmatic choice for the careers of those involved. But that lays no obligation on the voters who are not obliged to vote for a Democrat President just because the Democrats nominated a person.
You're stating the obvious. The equally obvious point is that once the parties have nominated their candidates, voting for anyone else can have unintended consequences. To the extent that sending messages to the Democrats by voting for other candidates contributed to Trump's election, those people got a result opposite to the one they intended, meaning that the candidate they thought a shoe-in lost, the candidate they thought most horrible won, and the significance of any message was completely lost in the resulting havoc.
There were at least 12 Republican candidates in the primaries. There is a far clearer message for supporters of the losing Republican candidates to send to the Republican party by withholding their vote for Trump, that they were not going to stand for loathsome,, misogynistic, lying, ignorant, megalomaniacal, egotistical, insulting, jingoistic, immature, vindictive, impulsive, thin-skinned, inconstant, bullying candidates. If a message needed to be sent it was to the Republicans, not the Democrats.
I don't see why it cannot be both.
But the message to the Republican party is far more dire and of far greater consequence, so why are we talking about sending a message to the Democrats? The Democrats ran a candidate who lost the electoral college by a few tens of thousands of votes that could easily have swung the other way. Big whoop. That's not much of a message.
By way of contrast, the Republicans have put a madman in charge of the country. Sending a message to the Republicans to not run Trump in 2020 seems a far, far, far more important message than sending ambiguous messages to the Democrats that Clinton lost and that means they should choose better nominees.
Clinton was the best candidate the Democrats had, and what is this nonsense of finding a candidate who had a better chance of winning? I hope you don't mean Sanders or Stein or some mythical candidate to emerge from the woodwork, because that's absurd.
Well that's your opinion. For instance:
PolitiFact | Bernie Sanders says he polls better against Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton does
I think you should read your own link. It makes clear that polls of that nature at that time (a year ago May in mid-primary season) are not worth much. Sanders is a democratic socialist. He would have gotten slaughtered by Trump. Many Democrats liked Sanders better than Clinton, but most realized he had no chance against Trump, or against almost any reasonable Republican candidate. That understanding probably contributed to Clinton earning the Democratic nomination.
The point where it becomes less clear is - what would have happened to Sanders {or some other candidate} post nomination.
He would have been annihilated.
I think those that think as you do would have still voted for him. He's a Democrat, so get behind him to get avoid Trump at the very least.
Well, I'm not a Democrat, so my thinking would have been slightly different, something like, "He's not an insane, malevolent force, so like him or not, vote for him." But as you point out later, there are many people out there who only lean Democratic or lean Republican, and there are also a fair number of true independents, so Sanders' democratic socialist background would have been a killer in the general election.
Clinton was the best candidate the Democrats had
This is not something that can be certainly said.
Then who? You can cross Sanders off your list for the obvious reason, so who else?
My entire thesis is that the system for picking a nominee doesn't necessarily lead to the best candidate where 'best candidate' is the one most likely to win the Presidential election. It only selects who is the preferred candidate for Primary voters.
No system is perfect for choosing a political party's nomineee, so maybe improvements could be made and maybe even a better system exists, but changes of the magnitude that you talk about later are simply not in the cards.
Calling Clinton the "lesser evil" candidate is to completely mischaracterize the two candidates. Clinton may not have been the first choice of some Democrats, but she *is* a Democrat with a successful record in both elected and appointed office, not a "lesser evil" or even any kind of evil at all
Well that's your opinion, but your opinion is only one element at play. It's the opinion of the people as a whole that has more sway in this.
Well, it's only an opinion about nomenclature, so I don't know that it matters how widely shared it is, but I look at it this way. Euphemistically characterizing a choice between two candidates you don't like as "choosing the lesser of two evils" is fine, because everyone understands what you mean and knows you don't mean the candidates are actually evil.
But you can't use that phrase when one of the candidates is Trump, because Trump is truly evil in the actual sense of the word. A choice between Clinton and Trump cannot be termed "choosing the lesser of two evils" because it is no longer euphemistic. The euphemistic quality is lost because Trump *is* actually evil and Clinton is not.
Sanders, in contrast did not vote for DOMA - has been very publicly pro-gay rights for decades and actively supported gay marriage for longer than Clinton who was publicly opposed to it until just a few years before the election (during Obama's tenure and push towards it). Sanders was more of a leader - ahead of the curve where Clinton was following political expediency. Things of this nature all go into the equation.
Sanders' history as a democratic socialist left him no chance in the general election.
Very certain words, in an uncertain sphere. Let's see who the next candidate the Democrats pick is. I would expect that same person is around today, is politically active today - probably a Senator or Representative. They *could* have picked that person. If that person defeats Trump next time - can you say for certain they did not have a better chance of winning in 2016?
Come up with some specific names and transform your hypothetical into something that can actually be discussed.
I thought i was quite explicit. The less they need to learn is how to pick a candidate that excites people and/or that doesn't turn a significant number of people off. To listen to the swing voters. And so on.
Then the lesson you're talking about has to be directed not at the Democratic party but at the people who vote in primaries.
Well, now let's not be silly. Are you seriously arguing that significant numbers of those Democrats who either didn't vote for Clinton or withheld their vote preferred that Trump be elected?
I'm saying they preferred not to give their vote to Clinton.
What you're actually saying is (sic), "I'm ignoring Trump and just considering Clinton as if she ran in a vacuum." Instead of phrasing what I said as a question let me just state it as rebuttal: The number of people who withheld their vote from Clinton while believing their action had true potential for resulting in a Trump election must be very small. The more substantive factor is that the polls showing Clinton with a substantial lead must have convinced many it was safe to vote that way.
Nor is it OK that Clinton was the only viable alternative.
Why not? In every Presidential election year each party runs a number of candidates through the primary system and arrives at a single candidate. Clinton won the Democratic nomination. To say that it is not okay that Clinton was the only viable alternative to Trump is to ignore reality. Nothing else could have happened. There are only two major parties in the United States, and in almost every election there have been only two viable alternatives, and obviously each party's nominee had substantial numbers of people who would have preferred a different nominee.
The only way for there to have been additional viable alternatives is with multiple parties, but that's not a realistic possibility in the United States. We don't have a parliamentary system of governing, which is more encouraging of multiple parties. Occasionally there have been viable third parties here in the US, but not often and not for long.
I would hope that in losing, or in only just winning, the Democrats might make changes so that they better represent my views next time. I don't intend to participate in shifting the Overton window, as it were, rightwards. Put forward a candidate I can vote *for* and I'll vote for them.
Well now you're sounding like one of those sour grapes voters who says, in effect, "My party didn't nominate a candidate I like, so I'll do something (or nothing) with my vote that and risk contributing to the election of a President who is unqualified in almost every imaginable way and who represents a danger to the country and the world and who wouldn't get my vote were you to hold hot coals to my feet."
...so comparing Clinton to Trump is not important to me.
Really? I don't understand you. You're sounding blas about Trump again, as if four years of Trump is no big deal.
Drawing precisely such comparisons between candidates so as to realize the ever-present dangers Trump represents is extremely important. It's critical to informed decision making.
It's that difference of perspective you need to shift to to understand what my particular view - even if you disagree with it.
A "difference of perspective" that ignores the relative merits of the two candidates is something I will never understand. It isn't a matter of disagreeing with you - you're not even making sense to me.
The electoral college system is the reality. Blame it if you like, but you may as well blame the air because it isn't going to change.
You are the one blaming it with your Clinton only lost because of the way the the electoral college maps to the people argument.
But that's not blaming the electoral college system, and that's definitely not what I'm doing. There *are* places to properly place blame. Part of it is the way popular votes mapped onto electoral college votes, which is just an explanation that how things break down at a detailed level in the electoral college is difficult to predict. Part of it is the polls that showed Clinton with a substantial lead. Part of it is the Comey reopening of the email server investigation just before the election.
I see the electoral college as a well known reality that we have to deal with, not an object of blame.
By 'the system' I was talking about alternate ways of voting - either in the Primaries or the main election or both. Even the States can adopt different rules - proportional votes to the electoral college rather than winner takes all - for example; this would reduce the power of swing States.
Yes, I understood that, but it's not going to happen. Changes *do* happen, but at a glacial pace. What could happen by 2020? Changes in a state or two in the way they allocate electoral college votes? That's possible. Changes in a state or two in the way states elect delegates for the convention? That's possible. Changes in the electoral college? No way.
But most likely, nothing will change.
She is more right wing/conservative than Obama - pushing us towards the right when in my view the centre of US politics is too far to the right already.
Well, I'm glad you're "not interested particularly in a 'Why was Clinton problematic' debate." And of course Trump is so much further to the right than any Democratic candidate, real or imagined, that this point is moot.
I'd suggest voting for a Democratic legislature to counteract him.
Democratic dreams of taking over the Senate in 2018 are just that - dreams. Far more Democrats than Republicans are up for reelection in the Senate in 2018.
Democrats taking over the House is a possibility, but only that, a possibility. Between Republican gerrymandering and voter discouragement tactics and control of most state houses, this doesn't seem too likely either. Naturally Trump's dismal performance in office is helping Democratic chances, but still, they have a big margin to overcome and the Republicans have thrown a lot of obstacles in their way.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out that nationwide numbers are not relevant. What matters is how the States decide to distribute their electoral votes.
That's like saying only the cake matters, not the ingredients and process that went into making it.
I'm neither focussed exclusively on one thing,...
Sure you are. You had just said, "Only former [the final electoral college tally] actually matters." That could be the dictionary example of the definition of "focussed exclusively on one thing."
...nor ignoring the margins in the swing states.
I think never mentioning it pretty much constitutes ignoring it.
You must have been trying to say something else, because as written this looks just dead wrong. The way the vast majority of electors cast their votes is definitely based upon the way popular votes were cast.
Popular votes within their State. Not across the nation. If electors cast their votes based on the nationwide popular vote the result would have been different wouldn't it?
Oh, okay, I see. When you said, "They are also not based on popular votes across the nation," you didn't mean "popular votes within each of the states of the nation," you meant "the nationwide popular vote".
Well they do both - but there's a reason they focus on swing States. If they want to win anyway. And that's because they know the electoral college votes are what matters for victory.
Well, yes, of course, something I've said many times, usually saying something along the lines of the way popular votes map onto the electoral college. The fact that I didn't happen to repeat it this time doesn't mean I've forgotten or abandoned the position.
You're just a faux-general planning his strategy based on the last war, always a mistake. Certainly the Democrats should try to win the next election by an even greater popular vote margin than in 2016, and certainly they should seek the strongest candidate, but making plans for 2020 based on how 2016 was lost would be a mistake
I'm not sure learning lessons from failure is best characterised as a mistake.
Not what I meant. The analogy was with things like the Maginot Line, very appropriately "characterized as a mistake," a strategy based on the assumption that future wars would be like WWI. In other words, the Democrats are not going to win 2020 by fighting 2016 all over again. For example, putting their effort into winning those key districts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania? Not necessarily a bad idea, but probably not how they're going to win 2020.
Those Democrats who voted (or didn't vote) in a way that aided Trump's election obtained a result opposite to their intention
If their intention was to prevent Trump from winning, you are right. But my argument which you ignored here has been that this wasn't their intention.
Your argument wasn't ignored. I didn't respond to it because it was a counter to an argument I never made. Their intention isn't relevant to my argument. When I say that they obtained a result opposite to their intention, I wasn't implying that their intention was to keep Trump out. I was responding to your argument that they wanted to send a message to the Democratic party. They probably thought they had the luxury to do that because they thought Clinton would be elected anyway. But they got the opposite result. The person they thought would be elected wasn't, the person they thought would lose the election didn't, and the message they supposedly sent to run better candidates than Clinton in order to pick up more votes was wrong because Clinton won far more than enough votes to win the election, more than any loser in US history, just not in the right places.
How does one counter a snake oil salesman who's telling the crowd that his elixir will cure rheumatism and indigestion and the common cold?
I'd suggest 'Don't buy the snake oil - live with the common cold' is not the best counter strategy. I'd suggest 'here is something more effective than snake oil'.
Huh? How does that make any sense? The whole idea of selling snake oil is to make very appealing but false claims. How could any honest person find something to suggest that is more effective than the claims made for snake oil?
It's a genuine conundrum that shouldn't have to be explained. People like to hear what the snake oil salesman tells them. It's very appealing. But the claims made for snake oil are false. How do you convince the crowd that they're false?
Let me use a different and more direct example. How would you convince the people of Trump's base that most of what he says is lies?
That is, don't go status quo.
Not getting this one.
I was suggesting you are an American. If you don't want the lesson for the Democrats to learn to be to find a way to optimise candidate selection,...
Isn't that more a lesson for the Republicans? The party that got themselves co-opted by "the worst candidate you've ever seen."
You missed the point. I'm not suggesting you have to change the electoral college. My point was that the only solution to the problems you have put forward (that the popular candidate lost due to the electoral college)...
That's not a problem I'm putting forward or trying to solve. That's just factual backdrop that the candidate who won the popular vote lost the electoral college. I'm still arguing the same point I made when I entered this discussion, that this was the wrong election to be using your vote to send a message to the Democrats that Clinton was an inadequate candidate (Stile's view) or the Democrat candidate selection processes need improvement (you).
... is unrealistic and that changing the Primary process is more realistic. So no, I'm not living in a fantasy land - solving the problem you keep raising may be a fantasy - solving the problem I am talking about is not.
So, you're not living in fantasy land, huh. In that case give me some real examples of how you'd change the primary process that would fix the problem of producing inadequate candidates *and* have a prayer of being adopted. Perhaps you want to change the caucuses to elections? Change the calendar? Eliminate superdelegates? Change the delegate structure? You can find the details of the process at United States presidential primary at Wikipedia. Happy hunting.
I'm suggesting improvements to the selecting of the nominee to make the second part of the game easier.
Well, more accurately, you're suggesting that improvements be made. You're not actually suggesting any improvements that have a chance of implementation.
It's the fault of the Democratic Party's voting system?
If it results in picking people that can't win the electoral college then it's certainly in consideration yes.
That's just absurd. In every Presidential election one of the parties loses. There was nothing special in this election or its candidates that screams out "fix the voting system."
I gave an alternative method which I think counters the problems encountered in this particular election...
I'm drawing a blank. Where did you give an "alternative method," one that has a prayer of being adopted?
...where your preferred candidate lost due to people protest voting etc.
We'll never know if Clinton lost for that reason. That kind of data doesn't exist. What we know is that many Democrats and people who leaned Democrat were unhappy with Clinton as a candidate. My point is that to the extent these people cast or withheld their vote in ways that contributed to Trump's election, they got a result far worse than they ever imagined.
Says the person from the UK while being remarkably unspecific.
What has this got to do with it? You've referenced my posting time, my nationality and so on several times.
And questioning what you were smoking. Don't forget that one. I think there were just the three, plus a number of comments along the lines of "you're not making any sense."
Can we not deal with the discussion rather than the person here?
I hope you're not taking those personally. I was trying to inject sarcasm as a way of emphasizing how far outside the realm of the rational a particular argument seemed to me. Keep in mind that you *are* the one making detailed comments about an election in a foreign country.
Do you have any good reason to suppose of all the people who could have run, Clinton is the one that would definitely have got the best result? I'm hoping that isn't just because she won the Primaries as that ignores the substance of my post about picking candidates who are more appealing to more people.
You're just repeating your argument about picking better candidates. I no more know the outcome of events in alternative universes than you do. If you think you know of candidates better than Clinton then name them and we can discuss them and their chances.
Where shall we eat?...etc...etc...etc...
This is just more nonsense. You already mentioned the possibility of alternative approaches to voting, I already said I was familiar with them, I don't understand why you're raising this issue again. This kind of selection of candidates is not going to happen here at any time in the reasonable future, and certainly not within the next couple of Presidential elections.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1368 by Modulous, posted 10-17-2017 3:58 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1391 by Modulous, posted 10-19-2017 5:46 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1379 of 4573 (822082)
10-18-2017 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1371 by Stile
10-18-2017 9:41 AM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Stile writes:
The second link contains this quote:
quote:
Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing (for) millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs (and) means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.
(words in brackets added by me to parse the phrase as I expect it was meant).
The article's by Robert Reich, a former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton. I don't know what specifically he's referring to in Obama's administration, but obviously in Bill Clinton's administration he's referring to NAFTA. About NAFTA Wikipedia says:
quote:
After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234—200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61—38.[15] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
Gee, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats, but ignoring that detail, passage was obviously bipartisan. So why is your hypothetical Democrat blaming NAFTA on the Democrats? And why is he voting 3rd party instead of for Trump, who during the election was openly hostile toward NAFTA? And why is Robert Reich arguing against it since he was Secretary of Labor when it was passed? Anyway, about NAFTA Wikipedia also says:
quote:
Most economic analyses indicate that NAFTA has been beneficial to the North American economies and the average citizen, but harmed a small minority of workers in industries exposed to trade competition.
No one thinks that policies implemented by any political party help everyone and hurt no one, and I've already said precisely that in earlier messages. These hypothetical scenarios you keep coming up with make no sense, your lists of things we agree on are things we obviously disagree on, and it is your nonsense that I argue against.
What you actually originally postulated were Democrats who were "massively, immediately, negatively impacted by Democratic policies/directions", so they voted 3rd party in order to send the Democrats a message. This is your scenario that I was actually arguing against in the portion you quoted (what you quoted is just the last part of a longer conversation), and I think it's ridiculous.
Where you started that I disagreed with was that people voted 3rd party in order to send the Democrats a message that Clinton was an inadequate candidate. My reply hasn't changed, that those using their vote in this way were not acting in their own best interests, since it risked the election of Trump. You're trying to prove this wrong by offering an unending parade of nonsensical hypothetical scenarios, intermixed with the occasional random, (sic) "See, we agree!". I'm not finding it persuasive.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1371 by Stile, posted 10-18-2017 9:41 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1382 by Stile, posted 10-19-2017 9:13 AM Percy has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 1380 of 4573 (822086)
10-18-2017 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1371 by Stile
10-18-2017 9:41 AM


Re: A valid reason to vote 3rd Party
Do you think this claim is false?
Yes, it's false.
Specifically, this part is false:
quote:
who thereby lost their jobs
And it's false because most of those workers would have lost their jobs anyway, due to changing technology.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1371 by Stile, posted 10-18-2017 9:41 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1381 by Pressie, posted 10-19-2017 7:54 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1383 by Stile, posted 10-19-2017 9:26 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024