US Election 2016, part II

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Our voting system is going to tend to a two party monopoly. Flooding the ballot with various other parties isn't going to change that and voting doesn't do **** anyways.

well, better to do something than just moan about it on internetz right?

Like sign a petition on the internetz? Or complaining about others complaining?

[Hurlshort]

You don't need to flood the ballot with parties, you need one strong candidate to disrupt the cycle.  You saw it with Perot, Wallace, Thurmond, Teddy Roosevelt...

 

Honestly it is also a small sample size.  This is only the 58th election.  The idea that we are permanently locked into red and blue states is short sighted.  Also voting most definitely matters.  This isn't Russia.

[Malcador]

I will tell you all one thing. The fastest way to move Donald Trump to 1600 Pensylvania Ave. is to do BS like this: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/violence-breaks-trump-rally-san-jose-protesters-hurl/story?id=39576437

 

Burning the US flag, waving Mexican flags, assaulting people, trashing cars. If you want to put people backs up and geting them voting from Trump this is the way to do it.

Seems like a bit of turnabout. But yeah, acting ragey like that is counterproductive. Not sure of a reason an undecided would vote for Trump because some group of dickheads hate him. Well, unless your idea of your vote is to troll.

[Meshugger]

It's like people fail to understand how Nixon got elected.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You don't need to flood the ballot with parties, you need one strong candidate to disrupt the cycle.  You saw it with Perot, Wallace, Thurmond, Teddy Roosevelt...

Only for the cycle to return the next election. At this point a strong(over 10% of the national vote) showing for a candidate would just lead to blaming said candidate for spoiling it for whichever Big 2 candidate lost. Johnson will be no different, Republicans will blame him for Trump losing and next election the Libertarian candidate won't break single digits in the hypothetical situation where he grabs more than %10 of the vote.

 

Honestly it is also a small sample size.  This is only the 58th election.  The idea that we are permanently locked into red and blue states is short sighted.  Also voting most definitely matters.  This isn't Russia.

It's enough show a pattern. We've had the Big2 parties dominate presidential and congressional politics for over a century. It's not going anywhere and the choice between one Goldman Sachs employee and another isn't much of a choice.

[BruceVC]

It's like people fail to understand how Nixon got elected.

I am not familiar with the history of how most of the US presidents got elected before 1990 or so.....how did Nixon get elected?

[Guard Dog]

 

It's like people fail to understand how Nixon got elected.

I am not familiar with the history of how most of the US presidents got elected before 1990 or so.....how did Nixon get elected?

 

He got 301 electoral votes.

 

[Guard Dog]

In all seriousness he appealed to what he called "The Great Silent Majority" of everyday folks who were put off by all the ant-war (and anti-American) protests of the left. But at the same time they were put off by the seemingly pointless Vietnam conflict and the way Johnson was mishandleing it as well and Nixon comes to them and promises to end the war "with honor" , restore American prestige, and basicly not be Hubert Humphrey who was the darling of the socialist left in those days.

 

There are definite parallels. Only the protesters today are protesting Trump himself rather than a war no one liked anyway.

[Hurlshort]

 

You don't need to flood the ballot with parties, you need one strong candidate to disrupt the cycle.  You saw it with Perot, Wallace, Thurmond, Teddy Roosevelt...

Only for the cycle to return the next election. At this point a strong(over 10% of the national vote) showing for a candidate would just lead to blaming said candidate for spoiling it for whichever Big 2 candidate lost. Johnson will be no different, Republicans will blame him for Trump losing and next election the Libertarian candidate won't break single digits in the hypothetical situation where he grabs more than %10 of the vote.

 

Honestly it is also a small sample size.  This is only the 58th election.  The idea that we are permanently locked into red and blue states is short sighted.  Also voting most definitely matters.  This isn't Russia.

It's enough show a pattern. We've had the Big2 parties dominate presidential and congressional politics for over a century. It's not going anywhere and the choice between one Goldman Sachs employee and another isn't much of a choice.

 

 

This seems like such a pessimistic view of the future.  We live in a different time.  Most of these 3rd party candidates that challenged in the past didn't have the tools available to candidates today.  Social media and the constant news cycle have changed a heck of a lot of things in the last decade, why can't they change the two party system?  Just upping the voter turnout could cause a major shift in the political climate.  

 

Both Bernie and Trump are examples of this.  They've defied polls and done unprecedented things all campaign long.  Why can't something as surprising happen in the general election?

[BruceVC]

 

 

You don't need to flood the ballot with parties, you need one strong candidate to disrupt the cycle.  You saw it with Perot, Wallace, Thurmond, Teddy Roosevelt...

Only for the cycle to return the next election. At this point a strong(over 10% of the national vote) showing for a candidate would just lead to blaming said candidate for spoiling it for whichever Big 2 candidate lost. Johnson will be no different, Republicans will blame him for Trump losing and next election the Libertarian candidate won't break single digits in the hypothetical situation where he grabs more than %10 of the vote.

 

Honestly it is also a small sample size.  This is only the 58th election.  The idea that we are permanently locked into red and blue states is short sighted.  Also voting most definitely matters.  This isn't Russia.

It's enough show a pattern. We've had the Big2 parties dominate presidential and congressional politics for over a century. It's not going anywhere and the choice between one Goldman Sachs employee and another isn't much of a choice.

 

 

This seems like such a pessimistic view of the future.  We live in a different time.  Most of these 3rd party candidates that challenged in the past didn't have the tools available to candidates today.  Social media and the constant news cycle have changed a heck of a lot of things in the last decade, why can't they change the two party system?  Just upping the voter turnout could cause a major shift in the political climate.  

 

Both Bernie and Trump are examples of this.  They've defied polls and done unprecedented things all campaign long.  Why can't something as surprising happen in the general election?

 

I am generally surprised about the degree of pessimism that I sometimes see from people on forums like this and who generally live in first world countries. 

 

Its good to question things in life but surly populism isn't a reason to follow someone in politics?

 

If you could change any 3 things in the USA, this could be legal laws or some political development  what would they be? In other words what will make more Americans happier?

[Guard Dog]

I genuinely dislike the Republican party and most of it's members. But I just f-----g HATE the Democrats. Here is another reason why: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-vote-to-regulate-political-jokes/article/2592922

 

Huckabee makes a political joke and they want a criminal investigation. I guess he ahould be taken to the Ministry of Love for re-education. That is what worries me about Hillary. Obama has come perilously close to making thought and speech a crime. Hillary seems inclined to continue that. People like Ann Ravel who also wanted to shut down web sites like Drudge Report are enabling that agenda.

[BruceVC]

I genuinely dislike the Republican party and most of it's members. But I just f-----g HATE the Democrats. Here is another reason why: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-vote-to-regulate-political-jokes/article/2592922

 

Huckabee makes a political joke and they want a criminal investigation. I guess he ahould be taken to the Ministry of Love for re-education. That is what worries me about Hillary. Obama has come perilously close to making thought and speech a crime. Hillary seems inclined to continue that. People like Ann Ravel who also wanted to shut down web sites like Drudge Report are enabling that agenda.

Isn't this an infringement of the US free speech?

[Guard Dog]

 

I genuinely dislike the Republican party and most of it's members. But I just f-----g HATE the Democrats. Here is another reason why: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-vote-to-regulate-political-jokes/article/2592922

 

Huckabee makes a political joke and they want a criminal investigation. I guess he ahould be taken to the Ministry of Love for re-education. That is what worries me about Hillary. Obama has come perilously close to making thought and speech a crime. Hillary seems inclined to continue that. People like Ann Ravel who also wanted to shut down web sites like Drudge Report are enabling that agenda.

Isn't this an infringement of the US free speech?

 

Freedom of Speech, or of anything else for that matter is not something this current President (or the one before, or the one before him. or the next one probably) troubles themselves over Bruce. Do you think it's right for the IRS to be used to punish political activites the current administration disapproves of? Do you think it's right for the adinistration to set up a website for citizens to report groups or persons who were speaking ill of the ACA? Do you think it's right for the administration to instruct law enforcement to pay special scrutiny to returning veterans as they might be likely terrorists all while denying them benefits and at the same time allowing millions of illegal immigants to cross the border with no policing?

 

While you are thinking those over chew on this: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-shift-from-regulating-drudge-to-conservative-cellphone-texts/article/2591255

 

Nothing like going to prison for sending an anti-obama text message to make you love the "free" country you find yourself in

Edited June 3, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Meshugger]

 

 

I genuinely dislike the Republican party and most of it's members. But I just f-----g HATE the Democrats. Here is another reason why: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-vote-to-regulate-political-jokes/article/2592922

 

Huckabee makes a political joke and they want a criminal investigation. I guess he ahould be taken to the Ministry of Love for re-education. That is what worries me about Hillary. Obama has come perilously close to making thought and speech a crime. Hillary seems inclined to continue that. People like Ann Ravel who also wanted to shut down web sites like Drudge Report are enabling that agenda.

Isn't this an infringement of the US free speech?

 

Freedom of Speech, or of anything else for that matter is not something this current President (or the one before, or the one before him. or the next one probably) troubles themselves over Bruce. Do you think it's right for the IRS to be used to punish political activites the current administration disapproves of? Do you think it's right for the adinistration to set up a website for citizens to report groups or persons who were speaking ill of the ACA? Do you think it's right for the administration to instruct law enforcement to pay special scrutiny to returning veterans as they might be likely terrorists all while denying them benefits and at the same time allowing millions of illegal immigants to cross the border with no policing?

 

While you are thinking those over chew on this: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dems-on-fec-shift-from-regulating-drudge-to-conservative-cellphone-texts/article/2591255

 

Nothing like going to prison for sending an anti-obama text message to make you love the "free" country you find yourself in

 

 

The ultimate irony is the people who condemn the government on this: 

 

 

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

 

...are ok with hunting down people who say other words, those "hateful" ones.

[ShadySands]

I agree with KP on this.

 

The die hard party types only view it in black and white and voting third party is worse than not voting. The system is fine and people like us are the problem

[BruceVC]

I agree with KP on this.

 

The die hard party types only view it in black and white and voting third party is worse than not voting. The system is fine and people like us are the problem

Shady what would you like to  change in the US if you could wave a wand and it would happen....but you cant be unreasonable like saying " everyone becomes a millionaire "

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

This seems like such a pessimistic view of the future.  We live in a different time.  Most of these 3rd party candidates that challenged in the past didn't have the tools available to candidates today.  Social media and the constant news cycle have changed a heck of a lot of things in the last decade, why can't they change the two party system?  Just upping the voter turnout could cause a major shift in the political climate.

 

 

Because the two party system is a consequence of our election system. And the two parties are owned by corporate interests looking to further their interests. Social media and meme magic can't match the power and resources that comes with the two party monopoly, at best they can work within it to shift the overton window.

 

Both Bernie and Trump are examples of this.  They've defied polls and done unprecedented things all campaign long.  Why can't something as surprising happen in the general election?

Trump and Bernie didn't go independent or some non-Big2 party, they had to go through the Big2 parties to get anywhere. Their relative success reinforces the two party system, not undermines it. And then we get to the fact that as private entities, the Big2 are more than able to change rules to ensue who they prefer wins the primary. Expect superdelegates or minimum year party membership or something else to come about to stop another Sanders or Trump by the next presidential election.

 

The biggest surprise for the general would be record non-participation. There's no white knight riding in to save the election.

[Guard Dog]

KP is right. No matter how many more votes the LP candidate might be able to attract the next POTUS will be either Trump or Clinton. The best outcome I could hope for is to at least get our candidate on the debate stage and in the conversation. To at least get a 3rd viewpoint in the discussion. It may pay dividends in later years or it may not but at least it will give a third party a fighting chance at future viability.. But I firmly believe the LP message is a rational on that will resonate with a lot of people.

 

A third party vote might not get a third party candidate elected but it is never a wasted vote. Especially in this case when the other alternatives are mutually objectionable.

[BruceVC]

KP is right. No matter how many more votes the LP candidate might be able to attract the next POTUS will be either Trump or Clinton. The best outcome I could hope for is to at least get our candidate on the debate stage and in the conversation. To at least get a 3rd viewpoint in the discussion. It may pay dividends in later years or it may not but at least it will give a third party a fighting chance at future viability.. But I firmly believe the LP message is a rational on that will resonate with a lot of people.

 

A third party vote might not get a third party candidate elected but it is never a wasted vote. Especially in this case when the other alternatives are mutually objectionable.

I'm confused by this criticism?

 

Dont both Trump and Clinton deserve to be respective nominees because they had the most delegates?

 

Now lets say somehow Trump wins, at the end of  his 4 years when it becomes apparent he wasn't able to deliver most of what he claimed he would do the Republican political machinery should go back to the old structures ....in other words looking at the establishment for guidance. I have always felt this would be a better way to manage the Republican party?

[Guard Dog]

 

KP is right. No matter how many more votes the LP candidate might be able to attract the next POTUS will be either Trump or Clinton. The best outcome I could hope for is to at least get our candidate on the debate stage and in the conversation. To at least get a 3rd viewpoint in the discussion. It may pay dividends in later years or it may not but at least it will give a third party a fighting chance at future viability.. But I firmly believe the LP message is a rational on that will resonate with a lot of people.

 

A third party vote might not get a third party candidate elected but it is never a wasted vote. Especially in this case when the other alternatives are mutually objectionable.

I'm confused by this criticism?

 

Dont both Trump and Clinton deserve to be respective nominees because they had the most delegates?

 

Now lets say somehow Trump wins, at the end of  his 4 years when it becomes apparent he wasn't able to deliver most of what he claimed he would do the Republican political machinery should go back to the old structures ....in other words looking at the establishment for guidance. I have always felt this would be a better way to manage the Republican party?

 

Trump & Clinton are going to be the nominees. We were discussing if a vote for a third party candidate in the general election is futile or not. My answer to that depends on what your definiton for success would be. If success is actually getting that 3rd party candidate elected then it is a waste and you are tilting at windmills.  If success is hoping the 3rd party performs better than in previous cycles and enables them to do better in future cycles then it is not a waste at all.

 

Primary challenges to sitting Presidents in not uncommon. Especially if they are unpopular. Either Clinton or Trump could easily find themselves facing an in party challenger in 2020 if they even want to run again.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

KP is right.

Always.

 

But I firmly believe the LP message is a rational on that will resonate with a lot of people.

[Guard Dog]

I figured you'd pick the guy dressed as Gandalf when you wanted to impugn the whole by pointing out one of the few nutjobs. He was funnier. Well, one thing to remember is that freedom also means being free to act like a jackass. You have to take the bad with the good.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Leferd]

I agree with KP on this.

 

The die hard party types only view it in black and white and voting third party is worse than not voting. The system is fine and people like us are the problem

I identify as a Democrat. However, that doesn't preclude me from voting for an independent/third party candidate or break from the party line on individual issues.

 

That being said, It's expedient for me to align with the Democratic Party because I believe in the over-arching platform of the party and it's organizational ability to coalesce in a united front --a government that is generally consistent with my social, civil, and political world view and values.

[Oerwinde]

 

I will tell you all one thing. The fastest way to move Donald Trump to 1600 Pensylvania Ave. is to do BS like this: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/violence-breaks-trump-rally-san-jose-protesters-hurl/story?id=39576437

 

Burning the US flag, waving Mexican flags, assaulting people, trashing cars. If you want to put people backs up and geting them voting from Trump this is the way to do it.

Surly this highly irresponsible behavior wouldnt be a reason for people to suddenly vote Trump?

 

I would imagine people who burn the US flag would be in the minority?

 

 

It doesn't matter Bruce. People largely don't put a lot of effort into researching who to vote for. They just watch the news and see the people opposed to Trump burning American flags, waving Mexican ones, beating up Trump supporters, and hearing "Make America Great Again" "Deport illegals stealing jobs from Americans" "Make the people who benefit from our military either meet their obligations or pay for our protection" and think Trump is the sane one.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I figured you'd pick the guy dressed as Gandalf when you wanted to impugn the whole by pointing out one of the few nutjobs. He was funnier. Well, one thing to remember is that freedom also means being free to act like a jackass. You have to take the bad with the good.

Mate if I wanted to impugn propertarians all I would have to do is link to a /pol/ thread or bring up the "Holohoax" issue of Reason. I posted Gandalf gone wild because that's the foot the Libertarian party put forward in an election where Republicans have their most disliked candidate in quite a long while and would have likely jumped on the LP train. And because it's hilarious.

 

But if you would rather talk about widespread appeal of libertarianism(the US hypercapitalist version at least, not the original anarchists) OK. It ain't gonna happen. You've had Ron Paul run in two presidential races espousing libertarian values on a huge stage and that has come to nothing. You've had the same thing with Rand, and will likely will in 2020 to little success. All Gary Johnson would bring to a debate is "drugs and gay's are cool, **** taxes and rules(except certain ones we like)". In a climate where workers are increasingly opposed to free trade(which last I checked libertarians liked), where an increased wage is being popularized and a certain segment of burgerland is viewed as paying too little taxes by the masses, where mass immigration isn't viewed favorably, and when the guy who would normally be screeching about gays has said he's fine with transbathrooms Gary Johnson ain't gonna bring anything that's going to interest voters.