U.S. Elections 2016 - Polls in mirror appear closer than they are

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, Patrek_Mallister said:

One thing I don't get, though, is it seems like this has been the case every presidential election for some time, and might be for several more election cycles. The Republicans are a kind of perpetual threat to certain civil rights. If your logic is sound, this would effectively mean that the need to stop the Republicans from controlling the White House is always so urgent that taking any course of action other than voting Democrat is something to be insulted for.

Pretty much.

As someone who remembers 2000, I can say that with a completely straight face, but it's truer now than it has ever been.

(I mean, if you happen to live in California, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, or Wyoming, go ahead and vote third party. Anyone voting third party in Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, or New Hampshire is endangering themselves and everyone else).

[all swedes are racist]

1 hour ago, Patrek_Mallister said:

Maybe you think the point is moot now so close to the wire. But isn't supporting a third party a prime way to work toward changing things? Is the problem just with people who defect late in the game despite having no long-term commitments?

One thing I don't get, though, is it seems like this has been the case every presidential election for some time, and might be for several more election cycles. The Republicans are a kind of perpetual threat to certain civil rights. If your logic is sound, this would effectively mean that the need to stop the Republicans from controlling the White House is always so urgent that taking any course of action other than voting Democrat is something to be insulted for. That is not a happy state of affairs, and the attitude that all a Democrat has to do is be something other than a Republican gives them the idea that they can get away with whatever they want. The kind of defense being laid out for the DNC in this very post – saying that doing anything other than taking it from the establishment is childish – solidifies that impression. In a way, they can get away with doing anything they want. 

It also seems to me like the warmongering is more or less bipartisan. I don't see the Democrats in any way as a party of peace compared to the Republicans. 

Jesus. Yes, to be absolutely clear: voting third party in this (or any similar) general election only serves to strengthen the votes of the party further away from your ideal position, and this will remain true until said third party has a non-zero (I'd even argue close to even) chance of actually winning. 

As we currently have an entrenched two-party system, your vote is essentially a binary choice on any number of pet issues; eg if you want to vote against the enforcement of a global gag rule on abortion/contraception, or you want to vote for the repeal of said gag rule- it's the same thing. 

There may be a lot of unappealing overlap between any two candidates or even the two parties; but any informed and conscientious voter should absolutely be mindful of the very real differences between them/ their platforms, and vote for that which best, however imperfectly, aligns with their own ideals if they actually care about these kinds of policy positions

[ThinkerX]

Polarization.

Without any acknowledgement that short of genocide or massive, deliberate disenfranchisement, the losing side will still be there.

An unending vicious cycle.

[James Arryn]

I think both positions are true; on the one hand voting 3rd party is counter-productive and probably uniquely dangerous this election. On the other hand that argument has and almost certainly will always be made/true. Nothing in the GOP makes me think their next candidate will be more of a compromise; look a how they reacted to an overt postmortem thus time around, and globally racism/nativism/bigotry are on the rise. More, in the same way that a black President galvanized some of the bigotry supporting R positions, I can't help but think a female President will do likewise if she wins.

So, when telling prospective 3rd party voters how stupid they are, realize that they have probably already accounted for your argument as a very fundamental given and therefore have the options of completely giving up on the idea of changing the status quo/binary system or taking w/e short term cost for the sake of a longer view. Assuming they don't get it...and I say this as someone who does think Trump presents such a danger that it qualifies as 'special'...is probably wrong and almost certainly insulting.

For me Trump's special risk is extreme enough to invert my usual priorities with regards to US politics. Normally I'm like 90% focused on foreign policy, and in that regard it could be argued that Clinton's essentially neo-con/interventionist record is as contrary to my views as Trump's incompetence and recklessness are likely to be...he might actually be less ideologically distant from my view than Clinton in this respect, though for very different reasons and all of it under the umbrella of 'who knows what the fuck he'll try and do', whereas Clinton is a more competent but understood negative for me.

But Trump's insane domestic stances are so extreme...and potentially bleed over into foreign anyways...that the usual %10 is enough to have me firmly hoping for a Clinton win. So obviously I see the dangers there. But it's probable that the major bulk of those dangers dressed differently will be there for the foreseeable future, unless Trump's run actually breaks the GOP. (Which possibility in another reason to support HRC, though ironically in support of the disenchantment with the binary options.) At some point the tautology will have to be recognized as cannabalistic logic. 

[Shryke]

4 hours ago, Patrek_Mallister said:

Isn't it more plausible that the Democratic party does not represent their ideals, than that they are tantrum throwing shitheads?

Unlikely considering neither 3rd party candidate will represent their ideals because neither can accomplish anything. Also both just have shitty positions and are shit candidates in various ways.

Stein is incompetent and has some awfully stupid positions.

Johnson is straight up running a scam, just like last election, and can't even be boethered to know the most basic of facts about recent events. And also has some truly heinous positions.

 

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Pretty much.

As someone who remembers 2000, I can say that with a completely straight face, but it's truer now than it has ever been.

(I mean, if you happen to live in California, New York, Vermont, Rhode Island, Alabama, Idaho, Oklahoma, or Wyoming, go ahead and vote third party. Anyone voting third party in Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, or New Hampshire is endangering themselves and everyone else).

It's especially true this election because the best thing for, frankly, everybody is if the American electorate soundly rejects Trump's terrifying authoritarian know-nothingness. Because if they don't we may well see this popping up again and again, and next time with more charismatic and less self-sabotagingly narcissistic faces on the movement.

[ThinkerX]

Clinton and Trump are both old white people.  The oldest presidential candidates we have had, except for maybe 2nd term Reagan. That right there says quite a bit.  I don't see either one as being up for a second term.

Trumps behavior is so outrageous that there is a fair shot of a bipartisan impeachment effort should he win.

Clinton is attempting to be 'all things to all people' and that will fail, and fail hard.   Plus, there is the issue of her health.

Plus, we are looking at a major shift in the makeup of both parties. 

The 'angry old white people' faction of the GOP is literally dying off in droves. Replacement birth rate for whites is half the amount required to keep the population stable, and most of the younger white people are taking a different political direction.  Combined, this spells the effective end or marginalization of the white conservative vote within four or five presidential election cycles. Demographic reality.

At the same time, the 'business wing' of the republican party will start going democrat, as they have far more in common with educated democrats than the theocrats and rural conservatives.  This will turn the whole democratic party more corporate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[all swedes are racist]

I hope I'm not coming across as defending or advocating for the two party system. My point is, if you want an viable -- and more importantly, effective -- third party, the presidency is probably not the place to start. Build a 'bench', get the party into local, state, and federal representatives and non-presidential executive positions, people who can keep stepping up onto broader stages, and officials & party apparati that can support them to actually effect change and not just be figureheads of protest or dissatisfaction. Get shit done. Get people energized, and turn out otherwise apathetic (non-)voters. Give otherwise partisan voters an option that  they can feel confident is not just a wasted (or worse) vote. Build a coalition. Show that there is real work going on, and not just dank memes that melt steel beams.

eta: long story short, the whole "things will never change if we keep voting the status quo" only works if you can get a shit ton of people ( many of whom may not feel as confident) to break the cycle. Unlikely to happen without (dun dun duuuun) establishing an alternative as an actual contender

[Shryke]

31 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I think both positions are true; on the one hand voting 3rd party is counter-productive and probably uniquely dangerous this election. On the other hand that argument has and almost certainly will always be made/true. Nothing in the GOP makes me think their next candidate will be more of a compromise; look a how they reacted to an overt postmortem thus time around, and globally racism/nativism/bigotry are on the rise. More, in the same way that a black President galvanized some of the bigotry supporting R positions, I can't help but think a female President will do likewise if she wins.

So, when telling prospective 3rd party voters how stupid they are, realize that they have probably already accounted for your argument as a very fundamental given and therefore have the options of completely giving up on the idea of changing the status quo/binary system or taking w/e short term cost for the sake of a longer view. Assuming they don't get it...and I say this as someone who does think Trump presents such a danger that it qualifies as 'special'...is probably wrong and almost certainly insulting.

For me Trump's special risk is extreme enough to invert my usual priorities with regards to US politics. Normally I'm like 90% focused on foreign policy, and in that regard it could be argued that Clinton's essentially neo-con/interventionist record is as contrary to my views as Trump's incompetence and recklessness are likely to be...he might actually be less ideologically distant from my view than Clinton in this respect, though for very different reasons and all of it under the umbrella of 'who knows what the fuck he'll try and do', whereas Clinton is a more competent but understood negative for me.

But Trump's insane domestic stances are so extreme...and potentially bleed over into foreign anyways...that the usual %10 is enough to have me firmly hoping for a Clinton win. So obviously I see the dangers there. But it's probable that the major bulk of those dangers dressed differently will be there for the foreseeable future, unless Trump's run actually breaks the GOP. (Which possibility in another reason to support HRC, though ironically in support of the disenchantment with the binary options.) At some point the tautology will have to be recognized as cannabalistic logic. 

I doubt they really have considered it. Because the whole accelerationism argument, as advanced by say Jill Stein, is an easily provable hot load of bullshit. For proof, see GWB and the aftermath of his presidency. Turns out when shit gets bad all that actually happens is that shit gets bad and a ton of people suffer and the who system does not fall apart.

No, it's safe to assume they really don't get it. Or their reasoning is just fucking awful. Or both.

 

Also, seriously, if you think Trump is less ideologically distant from your views, that's fucking terrifying. Trump's views on foreign policy are quite possibly the scariest thing about him. This is a man who understands only aggression and dominance. We don't know exactly what Trump will do only in that we don't know exactly how bad it would get. Clinton? Clinton is basically status quo.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Also, seriously, if you think Trump is less ideologically distant from your views, that's fucking terrifying. Trump's views on foreign policy are quite possibly the scariest thing about him. This is a man who understands only aggression and dominance. We don't know exactly what Trump will do only in that we don't know exactly how bad it would get. Clinton? Clinton is basically status quo.

Come back, Barry Goldwater! All is forgiven!

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

I doubt they really have considered it. Because the whole accelerationism argument, as advanced by say Jill Stein, is an easily provable hot load of bullshit. For proof, see GWB and the aftermath of his presidency. Turns out when shit gets bad all that actually happens is that shit gets bad and a ton of people suffer and the who system does not fall apart.

No, it's safe to assume they really don't get it. Or their reasoning is just fucking awful. Or both.

 

Also, seriously, if you think Trump is less ideologically distant from your views, that's fucking terrifying. Trump's views on foreign policy are quite possibly the scariest thing about him. This is a man who understands only aggression and dominance. We don't know exactly what Trump will do only in that we don't know exactly how bad it would get. Clinton? Clinton is basically status quo.

In terms of Trump, I generally mean effect...ie, his version of American exceptionalism might trend towards more isolationism, which would be more benign, though founded on insanity. I agree that his faith in brinkmanship is frightening, but it's not what I'd call idealogical. More behavioural if you get me, which is why I talked about the frightening prospect of his domestic positions....which are IMO more ideological...bleeding over into foreign if the situation presents itself. 

To try and clarify, I think I know how Clinton will approach a foreign policy issue; more hawkish than Obama, pretty standard neo-con with a greater stress on forming real coalitions than say W, but more reactive than Obama or her husband...say Bush Sr. as a kind of bar. That is a position I generally oppose along known paths...I don't think there's much she'd do that I'd find pleasing or surprising, I believe her version of exceptionalism is projective and ideologically exportative, and almost as bad, her version is one most Americans can/will get behind in the moment. So, it's a problem for me, supporting her, because I kinda know what to expect and it's what I oppose. 

Whereas with Trump, I don't think he gives a shit about exporting ideology except how it might reflect on his persona/brand. I don't think he has any pretence to global cop, either as a cosmetic on exploitative self-interest or even as sloganist. I think he thinks he's Machievelian, and as such is fine with naked self-interest, but while that's bad, and even less in line with my ideology, I also think it might make him less automatically responsive to situations. He might think he comes off wise and unpredictable by not intervening in a situation Clinton would be on autopilot. He has great potential to just generate situations, though, or overreact if he does react, but he's less woolly sweater running through a cactus field (as I think Clinton will be, ie it's virtually inevitable that there will be foreign interventions in her term) and more careless smoker in a munitions factory, ie greater potential for nothing, but offset by extreme potential for absolute midnight. 

I feel I have un-clarified enough for the moment.

[Inigima]

6 hours ago, Patrek_Mallister said:

Is it always wrong to vote for a third party rather than Democrat? Or is this election special in that regard?

I can't speak for everyone else, but as a would-be third-party voter, yeah. In this particular election the opposition candidate is too unhinged for me to allow the slightest chance that I might contribute to his victory.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

In terms of Trump, I generally mean effect...ie, his version of American exceptionalism might trend towards more isolationism, which would be more benign, though founded on insanity. I agree that his faith in brinkmanship is frightening, but it's not what I'd call idealogical. More behavioural if you get me, which is why I talked about the frightening prospect of his domestic positions....which are IMO more ideological...bleeding over into foreign if the situation presents itself. 

To try and clarify, I think I know how Clinton will approach a foreign policy issue; more hawkish than Obama, pretty standard neo-con with a greater stress on forming real coalitions than say W, but more reactive than Obama or her husband...say Bush Sr. as a kind of bar. That is a position I generally oppose along known paths...I don't think there's much she'd do that I'd find pleasing or surprising, I believe her version of exceptionalism is projective and ideologically exportative, and almost as bad, her version is one most Americans can/will get behind in the moment. So, it's a problem for me, supporting her, because I kinda know what to expect and it's what I oppose. 

Whereas with Trump, I don't think he gives a shit about exporting ideology except how it might reflect on his persona/brand. I don't think he has any pretence to global cop, either as a cosmetic on exploitative self-interest or even as sloganist. I think he thinks he's Machievelian, and as such is fine with naked self-interest, but while that's bad, and even less in line with my ideology, I also think it might make him less automatically responsive to situations. He might think he comes off wise and unpredictable by not intervening in a situation Clinton would be on autopilot. He has great potential to just generate situations, though, or overreact if he does react, but he's less woolly sweater running through a cactus field (as I think Clinton will be, ie it's virtually inevitable that there will be foreign interventions in her term) and more careless smoker in a munitions factory, ie greater potential for nothing, but offset by extreme potential for absolute midnight. 

I feel I have un-clarified enough for the moment.

Clinton will almost certainly want to intervene in places like the Middle East, and Trump won't.  But, Trump might just do something like declaring war on Poland if the Polish President annoys him.

[Impmk2]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Clinton will almost certainly want to intervene in places like the Middle East, and Trump won't.  But, Trump might just do something like declaring war on Poland if the Polish President annoys him.

Trump's anti-ISIS and anti-Muslim rhetoric makes me very unsure about this. I mean the guys taken every available position on the Middle East. No more troop deployments while taking the fight to ISIS and bulking up the military. What do you think he'd do if there was an attack on US soil which could be traced to Syria or Iraq? My money is on a fast and brutal response.

Not that I don't think Clinton wouldn't react either.

[TrackerNeil]

14 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

^^^^

To be fair, Trump has autodestructed at a level never before seen. It just doesn't budge his base. How it's not scaring the shit out of anyone considering voting 3rd party is beyond me though. 

And besides this unshakable core of supporters there are Republicans who may dislike Trump but have convinced themselves that he's still a better alternative to Hillary Clinton. That perspective requires a great deal of reality distortion, but then the Republican Party has long rewarded alienation from the actual world.

[The Marquis de Leech]

7 minutes ago, Impmk2 said:

What do you think he'd do if there was an attack on US soil which could be traced to Syria or Iraq? 

Conversation 1: "What do you mean you won't sign off on a nuclear attack? I'm DONALD TRUMP. And President of the United States!"

Conversation 2: "Hey, Vlad. It's me Donald. How's it hanging? Got a question for ya: my Secretary of Defence won't agree to a nuclear strike on Syria..."

Conversation 3: "My fellow Americans. In light of the grave crisis facing our nation, I have taken the extraordinary step of appointing Vladimir Putin as my new Secretary of Defence. We commence bombing in 15 minutes."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 hours ago, Harakiri said:

This election is special in that regard since there is a lot up in the air thanks to seats being open for supreme court justices and who the Presidential and VP nominees are. The GOP candidates are two known bigots (racists, misogynists, anti lgbtqia). Pence has said he will get abortion to be illegal and overturn gay marriage. These things have been fought for over the past few decades, hell even a century or more, we can not allow that to be destroyed. We also can not allow one of the most bigoted nominees to become president after out first black president.  Look what happened when we had people vote third party back in 2000 instead of going Gore, we got Bush and with having him as president we had 2 wars, a horrible economy and created more enemies and helped destabilize the middle east. 
 
Trump will be worse than Bush, civil rights will be trampled, they will be set back and people will suffer. That is just here in the US alone. Trump is a danger to the world,  not just the US. Making sure that doesn't happen is more important than sticking it to the DNC because of some of the shady shit they have done and just because Sanders didn't win. 
It's childish and extremely short sighted. It will also backfire on them and have many people that may feel the same way about the DNC turn on them and resent them for being apart of the fall out that would come with a Trump presidency.
 

 

People say that every 4 years whenever anyone else suggests voting third party.  The last time there was a viable successful third party effort at the local level it was the "Populist Party" at the end of the 19th century.  It was subborned by the two major parties and pushed the populists into their fold.  If there is ever to be a major shift to allow real mulitiparty democracy in the US it will need to start with a major push from the voters at all levels.  And it will need to happen quickly.

The "slow and steady" mantra we keep hearing from major party supporters (a hint there) simply allows the major parties time to change the rules to preserve their own power.

[The Marquis de Leech]

You're not going to have multiparty democracy until you reform the electoral system. Otherwise, all that will happen is that any successful new party will simply devour one of the old ones, and the two party system resumes.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

You're not going to have multiparty democracy until you reform the electoral system. Otherwise, all that will happen is that any successful new party will simply devour one of the old ones, and the two party system resumes.

I think you are correct.  Therefore I support third-parties on the basis that if elected they have an existing incentive, based upon their recent push to power and their recent minority outsider status, to work to change the electoral system.

There is absolutely no incentive for the existing duopoply to change things.  It preserves the power of the two major parties and allows their supporters to browbeat those who advocate changing the system with the "not now; too dangerous" argument in every major election national cycle every two years.

[The Marquis de Leech]

We had a duopoly too (albeit a duopoly that favoured one side more than the other). Didn't stop a change away from FPP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealand