U.S. Politics, 9 trillion

[Shryke]

Well, primaries could be considered the two major US political parties giving the impression to the public that they are the only options for election by having the selection of the candidates they plan to offer for the general election paid for by the US taxpayers.

I think it's more the other way around. BECAUSE the 2 parties are the only viable options, Americans get a say in who they nominate and how they function.

[Shryke]

Some news on the demographics front:

As Democrats struggle to fend of losses in next month's midterm elections, a new survey by the Pew Hispanic Center delivers a good-news, bad-news message from a key voting bloc. Latinos continue to overwhelmingly support Democrats, but they appear less motivated than the overall electorate to actually turn out and vote.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130348464&ft=1&f=1001

Another story on this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/10/05/130349108/latino-political-sentiment-scary-news-for-gop?ft=1&f=1001

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Yes, exactly. But the key point is where this happens. And where it happens is, almost exclusively, in the Primaries. That's when you can push for a more leftist candidate or what have you. It's viable for a candidate to adopt policies of his primary opponents as he moves on to the general election, but it just doesn't happen very much after the nominee is chosen. It fucks up your messaging too much.

The primaries are run by the 2 parties. How the hell are you supposed to choose a 3rd party in the primaries? This makes no sense.

[Alcibiades]

Whoever makes the next thread should give it the same number as the national debt, hehe.

[Shryke]

The primaries are run by the 2 parties. How the hell are you supposed to choose a 3rd party in the primaries? This makes no sense.

In the primaries you can choose a candidate/push an agenda that more accurately reflects your views. Thereby attempting to make the party more like what you want it to be.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

So I can vote for libertarian leaning Democrats and Republicans? What if none are offered?

[alguien]

Shryke,

So I can vote for libertarian leaning Democrats and Republicans? What if none are offered?

Scot, if you want us to support your run for office, there's no need to be so coy. ;)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

In the primaries you can choose a candidate/push an agenda that more accurately reflects your views. Thereby attempting to make the party more like what you want it to be.

My point exactly. We need to take power from the parties, not increase it. Why are you so dead-set on the status quo?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Alguien,

So, I can run for more than one office at a time when there aren't libertarian leanin candidates offered? Because it's more than one office up for election.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Shryke,

So I can vote for libertarian leaning Democrats and Republicans? What if none are offered?

Then you vote for the one who is closest to you. Or are you really implying that if someone doesn´t agree with you on everything they can´t be closer to your position than someone who disagrees with you on everything?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Czar,

I don't care to empower major party candidates unless they are pretty close to my views.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Czar,

I don't care to empower major party candidates unless they are pretty close to my views.

Then you´ve already lost the general no matter what happens. Having someone who agrees with you on 1 area is always better than having someone you disagree entirely.

Look at it this way: Voting for someone in the primary isn´t about empowering him, rather it´s about disempowering the potential candidates who are even worse.

[alguien]

Alguien,

So, I can run for more than one office at a time when there aren't libertarian leanin candidates offered? Because it's more than one office up for election.

Scot, joking aside, I'm not sure. While I'm comfortably Democrat, I get the sense that there are conservatives (such as yourself) who feel that there isn't any credible candidate right now who represents their view.

I've said many times that I wish there was a COHESIVE socially-liberal fiscally-conservative option, as opposed to the opposite, (socially conservative and fiscally insane) which tends to grab the headlines.

My only other suggestion, and this is what my joke sort of implied, is to, as Ghandi says, "be the change you wish to see." That is, either run, help organize, donate, and do something to create a viable third party. However, for people who don't have the time or inclination for this, than yes, vote for which ever candidate is the lesser of two evils who represents you more. Or don't vote, but acknowledge that abstaining can actually do steps to make things worse.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Czar,

"You tried your best and failed miserably what did you learn? Never try". - Homer Simpson.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Czar,

"You tried your best and failed miserably what did you learn? Never try". - Homer Simpson.

Sorry Scot, I have no clue what the hell you´re trying to say here.

[Shryke]

My point exactly. We need to take power from the parties, not increase it. Why are you so dead-set on the status quo?

I'm not dead set on the status quo. I'm pointing out how you change the status quo.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I'm not dead set on the status quo. I'm pointing out how you change the status quo.

By voting for the people who maintain the status quo?

[Shryke]

By voting for the people who maintain the status quo?

By voting for people to influence the positions of the parties away from the status quo.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

By voting for people to influence the positions of the parties away from the status quo.

Your way of changing the status quo makes no sense whatsoever.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Czar,

Sorry Scot, I have no clue what the hell you´re trying to say here.

I'm saying that by going for the major party candidate who's "closest to my position" I'm ceding the field to the two major parties particularly when they aren't offering anyone who's close to my position. Democrats want to use government in areas I don't want government used. Likewise Republicans want to use government in different areas I don't want it used. Therefore supporting either party candidate seems like giving up because you can't win otherwise. Hence the Simpsons quote.