Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #801  
Old 04-24-2016, 11:49 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXCI
Images: 11
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
Yeah, I'm kinda waiting for both sides to admit all of this 'voting' stuff is just a shame and select non-popular-vote winning candidates who tow the party line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
Well youll notice I never decried she has (even pointing out shes in the lead with normal delegates) just that its looking more and more like a possibility especially with so many delegates left to go.
Well, she is a popular-vote-winning candidate. And a pledged delegate winning candidate.

In fact, her % lead with pledged delegates is smaller than you would expect based on the statewide votes.

Bernie Sanders has actually gained a small amount of delegates (about +10) through various quirks of the rules. One is later stages of caucuses, which are not required to conform to the results of the precinct-level caucuses (which is the closest to the "popular vote"), where he has picked up a few extra delegates. Another is the 15% threshold for winning delegates in a particular set. This evens out, as Bernie didn't meet it in two Mississippi districts, and Hillary didn't meet it in Vermont (each losing 2 delegates this way).

More important is the influence of rounding. Delegates for each state are divided among congressional districts and two types of statewide delegates. The results for each set affect allocation, and therefore in a state like NY, there are dozens of instances of rounding. In some states this has benefited Hillary, like Iowa and Wyoming, where she got more delegates than you'd expect based on the overall vote, but in more states this has benefited Bernie (for example, he got four more than strictly proportional in NY).

In fact, if you account for the advantage Bernie gains out of caucuses, the pledged delegates pretty accurately reflect what would be the popular vote margin if all states had open primaries. His huge margins in those caucus states weren't solely because everyone in those states prefers him, it's because caucuses advantage the candidate with more supporters who are willing and able to stand around for hours and debate with other people, and that candidate has been Bernie this year, for various reasons.

But as I'll discuss in my next post, it's not "looking more and more like a possibility" that Bernie will win the popular vote or the majority of pledged delegates. It's actually looking more and more certain that he won't lead in pledged delegates.

It is true, however, that it is almost certain that Hillary won't win enough pledged delegates to win without any superdelegates unless Bernie drops out in the next week. That hardly makes it an illegitimate win though.
Quote:
The point is the desparity between people voted delegates and none people voted delegates.
This is definitely true. The superdelegate distribution does not match the pledged delegate distribution or popular vote at all.

But this is neither here nor there if the popular vote winner is also the overall winner. I certainly agree that they ought to change the superdelegate system though, and make it more clearly a group only designed to deal with disaster/emergency situations (like the death of the presumptive nominee or disqualification due to serious scandal*).

I don't view them as cynically as you do (given that they've never overruled the pledged delegates), but they certainly give the appearance of a "rigged" nomination process.

*Hillary's emails don't really qualify. But if they were to turn into something truly serious (however implausible that is) then certainly it would be something that could cause superdelegates to flip to Bernie.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (04-25-2016)
  #802  
Old 04-25-2016, 01:10 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXCI
Images: 11
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

This is probably the last time it'll be worth it to do a little polling update on the Democratic race...

First of all, I'm going to be using 538's polls-only predictions where available. A nice summation of their accuracy can be read here: How accurate are those 538 primary forecasts anyway?



StateDateDelegates538/Poll Margin538 Chance of Sanders win
PennsylvaniaApr 26189Clinton +152%
MarylandApr 2695Clinton +251%
ConnecticutApr 2655Clinton +1213%
Rhode IslandApr 2624Clinton +9*
DelawareApr 2621Clinton +7*
IndianaMay 383Clinton +618%
CaliforniaJune 7475Clinton +922%
New JerseyJune 7126Clinton +10*
*Only one pollster available for RI,DE. Only one recently for NJ. Therefore there is no prediction. The margin from the single recent poll is used instead.

As you can see... despite Bernie's recent gains in the national polls (no, he has not brought it to a tie, she is still leading) the state-level polls do not seem to agree. In fact, according to 538's demographic-based targets, Bernie ought to be winning all of those states except MD, DE and NJ if the national race were tied.

The state-level polls are more useful than national polls for various reasons, and they were also more accurate in predicting the 2008 and 2012 general election result than the national polls were.

Given the evidence we see here... the average result on Tuesday is that Hillary will gain a further 224 delegates to Bernie's 160, expanding her lead by an additional 64 delegates, bringing her lead back up to around 300 delegates (about what it was after March 15). Bernie can't afford to lose by these margins, much less lose all five states.

It's extremely difficult to see how Bernie has any chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates, given that level of deficit and the fact that he's not even leading the polls in California. Even if you assume that the Fox poll showing him only behind by 2% in California is the correct one (other polls are less favorable for Bernie), in order to have any hope of winning, he needs to win California by 20 pts or more even if he manages to get a tie on Tuesday. He'll need an even bigger win if he loses by any significant margin.

Meanwhile, if those polls in IN/CA/NJ hold up, Hillary wins with wiggle room, even if she gets 0 votes in any of the other contests after Tuesday.

So... the dream is over for Bernie. Question is what to do now. I'm sure you know my position: it helps nobody to refuse to vote for Hillary in November. But your time and money are probably better spent on helping progressives get elected to Congress and state and local offices. (Activism like Fight For 15 and Black Lives Matter is even better.)
_____________________

As for the GOP/Trump... The basic gist of it is that Trump is going to win big on Tuesday. Basic details about the five GOP primaries:

PA: Trump's ahead (+20), but while there are 17 pledged winner-take-all statewide delegates, the remaining delegates are unbound and directly elected without their preferred candidate listed on the ballot. Trump will need organization to ensure that his voters know who his delegates are.
MD: Trump's ahead big time, again (+15)! WTA statewide and by CD, means Trump's large lead will likely mean he wins all or almost all the delegates.
CT: Trump's ahead big time (+18). The question here is whether he gets >50%, in which case he will probably win all the delegates. Otherwise, he'll just win almost all of them.
DE: Winner-take-all, and Trump's ahead by a lot. Trump's basically guaranteed these.
RI: Fairly proportional, with some helpful rules for trailing candidates (breaking the usual pattern in the GOP primaries). Trump will probably win, but he won't get a big haul here.

Given that Trump has a good chance of winning Indiana and getting another big winner-take-all prize and is leading significantly in California and NJ, #NeverTrump is running into some trouble. It seems that Cruz's plan to make exploit delegate selection and win on the second ballot, and deny victory to the popular vote winner looks kinda crooked and "rigged", and that is probably gaining Trump some support from those who prefer to respect the will of the voters. Cruz's plan would've worked if it had only occurred behind the scenes... but it turns out, unfortunately for him, that Trump can react to his machinations.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2016), ShottleBop (04-25-2016), slimshady2357 (04-25-2016), The Man (04-25-2016)
  #803  
Old 04-25-2016, 07:12 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
It helps nobody to refuse to vote for Hillary in November.
Why?
Reply With Quote
  #804  
Old 04-25-2016, 08:23 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXCI
Images: 11
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

:rolleyes:

We've talked about this.

But if you want to explain how increasing the chance of president Cruz or Trump is helpful, and/or how voting for Nader was helpful to anyone, go ahead.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Kael (04-25-2016), livius drusus (04-26-2016), mickthinks (04-25-2016)
  #805  
Old 04-25-2016, 04:54 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXCI
Images: 11
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

A more interesting development in the GOP race is that Cruz and Kasich have announced that they have agreed to coordinate, and Cruz will not campaign in Oregon or New Mexico while Kasich will not campaign in Indiana.

I have to say, given that Indiana has winner-take-all delegates and OR/NM have proportional delegates, Cruz is getting the better deal by far. And not only that, if their goal is to stop Trump, it doesn't make sense for one of them to withdraw from OR/NM, since maximizing the Cruz/Kasich vote in a proportional state also minimizes the number of delegates Trump gets. He gets a benefit from a split vote in a state like Indiana.

Really, this deal should've been made a few weeks ago, and it should've involved trading NY/MD/DE for IN, and possibly PA. But apparently Cruz didn't want to give up the media spotlight in the Northeast, despite the fact that he was clearly going to get crushed in NY and will get crushed in the other states too. It would've cost him none of his zero NY delegates to withdraw from NY, but might've helped Kasich deny Trump a few more.

I guess we'll see what the effect of this deal is and whether it holds up. Oregon and New Mexico are a few weeks off, and that gives Cruz a lot of time to go back on his word (or hope that Kasich drops out). Cruz wasn't far behind in Indiana, and gaining a significant portion of Kasich voters could put him ahead, or at least help enough to win a few congressional districts.

Meanwhile, Trump has already blasted it as a desperate team up of losers.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2016), Crumb (04-25-2016), SR71 (04-25-2016), The Man (04-25-2016)
  #806  
Old 04-25-2016, 05:08 PM
Watser?'s Avatar
Watser? Watser? is offline
Fishy mokey
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Furrin parts
Posts: LMMMDLXXXIX
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Koch Brothers Consider Purchasing First Democrat - The New Yorker
__________________
:typingmonkey:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Janet (04-26-2016), Kamilah Hauptmann (04-26-2016), livius drusus (04-26-2016), SR71 (04-25-2016), The Man (04-25-2016)
  #807  
Old 04-25-2016, 05:21 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXCI
Images: 11
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

They loved Obama so much that they spent $60 million to try to stop his reelection.

Surely when they say that Hillary, who is campaigning on being a third Obama term, may be better than Trump, it must be that they love Hillary!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
livius drusus (04-26-2016), SR71 (04-25-2016)
  #808  
Old 04-25-2016, 05:27 PM
Watser?'s Avatar
Watser? Watser? is offline
Fishy mokey
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Furrin parts
Posts: LMMMDLXXXIX
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

She is definitely not campaigning on 'being a third Obama term', she is campaigning as the most hawkish of all candidates.
__________________
:typingmonkey:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
livius drusus (04-26-2016), slimshady2357 (04-25-2016), SR71 (04-25-2016), The Man (04-25-2016), Zehava (04-25-2016)
  #809  
Old 04-25-2016, 06:13 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
:rolleyes:

We've talked about this.

But if you want to explain how increasing the chance of president Cruz or Trump is helpful, and/or how voting for Nader was helpful to anyone, go ahead.
Well, this is just the hoary old “vote for the lesser of two evils” argument. I don’t find it compelling in the least. I think a vote for Nader in 2000 was quite justified. If Al Gore had been more of a progressive, then Nader voters would have voted for him instead of Nader and perhaps he would have won the White House. Sorry, Al, but Nader voters didn’t blow it for you — you blew it for you. I’m not even sympathetic to the idea that the Supreme Court stole the election for Bush. If Gore had carried his home state, he would have been president, and the Florida results would have been irrelevant. Honestly, if you can’t even carry your home state, you probably don’t deserve to be president. :shrug:

The bottom line is that progressives do not owe center-right Democrats their vote, even if those Democrats are the lesser of two evils. Moreover, with respect to Clinton and Trump, it’s not even clear, in certain key respects, that Clinton is the lesser of two evils,

Trump says he will be “neutral” in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Hillary is an unabashed fan of the vile Bibi Netanyahu and best buds with the odious Henry Kissinger. Lesser of two evils: Trump.

Hill and Bill have supported and pushed through the trade deals that have enriched the rich, hollowed out the American industrial base and created overseas sweat shops. Trump (and Bernie Sanders) oppose these deals. Lesser of two evils: Trump.

Trump (rather courageously) went down south and told the Republican base that the Iraq War was a bad deal and that, essentially, George W. Bush was a gibbering idiot. Hillary famously voted for that war, which has had disastrous consequences reverberating to this very day, and so far as I know she has never recanted this support. Moreover she remains Hillary the hard-headed hawk. Trump, by contrast, has indicated that he’s not so interested in gallivanting abroad to find dragons to slay. Let’s not forget, also, that the Bush and Clinton clans are all buddy-buddy now. I wonder why? (Not really: I know why. Both clans are, preeminently, representatives and exemplars of the Ruling Class; technocrats and triangulators who may push a little to the right here or a little to the left there, but primarily are interested in kowtowing to Wall Street and maintaining the status quo.) Lesser of two evils: Trump.

Trump has indicated, defying Republican dogma (as he has defied it on the Iraq war and free trade orthodoxy) that he has no interest in cutting entitlements. Hillary will try to cut them in her typical Clinton-style triangulating with Republicans, striking some kind of nonsense budget deal. This is because Hillary is not a New Deal Democrat, but rather a New Democrat (read: Republican lite). The first of the New Democrats (as opposed to the New Deal Democrats) was Bill Clinton, and the second was Barack Obama. Hillary aspires to be the third. The New Democrats have sold out the legacy of the four New Deal Democratic presidents (F.D.R., Truman, JFK and LBJ) and will continue to conspire with Republicans to betray and dismantle their legacy. Trump, I’m betting, won’t do that. Lesser of two evils: Trump.

The reason that Trump horrifies the G.O.P. elites so much is that they know he is not really a Republican. This conjures the terrifying prospect of Trump hijacking their precious party and transforming it into something utterly unrecognizable to them, as Teddy Roosevelt did more than a century ago. Hillary isn’t going to change anything: it will be business as usual in the Oligarchy run by the Republocratic Party, or, if you like, the Demopublican Party. Everyone understands this. Lesser of two evils: Trump.

Trump’s supporters have been much maligned as racist redneck mouth breathers — I know, I’ve done it myself, though typically in satires, where wild exaggeration is the norm. In fact, though, despite their unfortunate misapprehensions about race, gender, sexuality and class, most of these people are victims and have legitimate beefs. Their jobs have been shipped overseas, their wages have stagnated, their kids can only afford college if they take on staggering debt that haunt them for a lifetime. Hillary won’t do anything about this. Will Trump? I don’t know. Maybe. Lesser of two evils on this one (provisionally): Trump.

I predict that in November, many Sanders voters will defect to Trump and he will make big inroads in the Rust Belt states of the Midwest that are usually Blue States. If he does that while holding the traditional Red States, he will be elected president.

In polling, Trump trails by lopsided margins among blacks, Hispanics, women, independents and Millennials. I think that on Election Day, those deficits will be less lopsided, and in particular Trump may prove to have appeal to young people (and Sanders backers, as indicated above) who seem (understandably) to have no use for Clintons. The Clintons, like the Bushes, are relics of the past. As I’ve said before: Trump, if elected, could be a realigning president (for better or worse) in the mold of Lincoln, F.D.R., Nixon and Reagan, just as Bernie could be if he could get the nomination. And if Bernie did get the nomination, I believe he would beat Trump like a gong. Not so for Hillary.

If Hillary is elected, I suspect she will be a one-term president and something entirely new will arise in 2020, based on a merging of the populist right and the populist left, where their interests intersect — and their interests do intersect in a number of key respects. To name some: Both groups are fed up with our overseas misadventures and endless war, war, war; both groups are fed up with “too big to fail” banks and corporate welfare in general; both groups are fed up with “free trade” that has stolen their jobs and saddled their kids with unsustainable debt; and both groups recognize that we need systemic change. As time goes on and the demographic of racist, sexist and homophobic whites continues to dwindle and recede into the mists of history, there will emerge the promise of populist right and populist left joining up to forge a new majority that will alter the face of politics. Time for a new party: The People’s Party.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2016), But (04-25-2016), ceptimus (04-26-2016), livius drusus (04-26-2016), Watser? (04-25-2016)
  #810  
Old 04-25-2016, 06:58 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXCI
Images: 11
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
:rolleyes:

We've talked about this.

But if you want to explain how increasing the chance of president Cruz or Trump is helpful, and/or how voting for Nader was helpful to anyone, go ahead.
Well, this is just the hoary old “vote for the lesser of two evils” argument. I don’t find it compelling in the least.
That's nice, but it is not actually an argument against it, nor is it an argument that there was anything helpful about voting for Nader.
Quote:
I think a vote for Nader in 2000 was quite justified. [...] Honestly, if you can’t even carry your home state, you probably don’t deserve to be president. :shrug:
Aside from the fact that the "home state" canard is idiotic, given the nationalization of our politics (someone you're ok with being governor is not necessarily someone you're ok with being president, given that the legislature they'll work with will be very different). But aside from that...

Who gives a shit whether Gore "deserves" to be president? I'm not voting to reward people who have worked extra hard and earned a gold star. I'm voting in order to influence the direction of government.

And sorry, but if you look at the result of Bush's presidency and :shrug: then you clearly care more about purity than results.

I'm sure the people of Iraq would be comforted knowing that Bush won because Al Gore didn't "deserve" the presidency.
Quote:
The bottom line is that progressives do not owe center-right Democrats their vote
Again, who gives a shit about who "owes" anyone anything? I don't owe them my vote, I'm using my vote for my own purposes. And my argument isn't that you owe them anything, but that your claimed purposes would be better served by voting for them.

But as I've said before, it seems you're more interested in your personal purity, and sure, for that purpose, not voting for Hillary is effective. Politics involves coalitions and compromise. Things you apparently have no interest in (and things you seem to have erased from the history of your New Deal heroes).
Quote:
Moreover, with respect to Clinton and Trump, it’s not even clear, in certain key respects, that Clinton is the lesser of two evils
:rolleyes:
Quote:
Hillary famously voted for that war, which has had disastrous consequences reverberating to this very day, and so far as I know she has never recanted this support.
So, in other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

She called her Iraq War vote a mistake years ago.
Quote:
Trump has indicated, defying Republican dogma (as he has defied it on the Iraq war and free trade orthodoxy) that he has no interest in cutting entitlements. Hillary will try to cut them in her typical Clinton-style triangulating with Republicans, striking some kind of nonsense budget deal.
This is idiotic.

Compulsive liar Trump can be trusted to keep this promise, despite putting out plans with massive tax cuts for the wealthy, but Hillary, who is campaigning explicitly against cutting health care and Social Security and tax cuts for the rich, can be assumed to do the exact opposite.

Much of your position seems based on irrational Hillary hate that assumes that everything good she says is a lie, anything she says that you don't like is what's in her heart, while Trump is trustworthy on those things you like and untrustworthy on all of the awful things he's said.
Quote:
I predict that in November, many Sanders voters will defect to Trump and he will make big inroads in the Rust Belt states of the Midwest that are usually Blue States. If he does that while holding the traditional Red States, he will be elected president.
Yeah, given how accurate your predictions were about 2012, I'm guessing you'll be just as wrong this time because you clearly haven't incorporated anything learned from those results.

And of course, none of this explains how voting for Nader was helpful to anyone.

You could argue it was minimally harmful, as an individual vote is just one of millions. But that it was helpful to anyone? Good luck.

And I see you Watser. Yes, we know you prioritize Palestine first. But in the Netherlands, you benefit from universal healthcare and a generous social safety net. If you lived in the US, you'd probably have a different perspective on the relative merits of the GOP and the Democrats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser? View Post
She is definitely not campaigning on 'being a third Obama term'
"Definitely not"? Just tells me that you aren't paying attention.

Last edited by erimir; 04-25-2016 at 07:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
livius drusus (04-26-2016)
  #811  
Old 04-25-2016, 07:39 PM
slimshady2357's Avatar
slimshady2357 slimshady2357 is offline
forever in search of dill pickle doritos
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VXI
Blog Entries: 6
Images: 52
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
The bottom line is that progressives do not owe center-right Democrats their vote, even if those Democrats are the lesser of two evils. Moreover, with respect to Clinton and Trump, it’s not even clear, in certain key respects, that Clinton is the lesser of two evils,
The problem with all your Trump wins that follow this is that he will say absolutely anything if he thinks his current audience wants to hear it. Even things that directly contradict things he has said in the past. He is a known liar, like a big fat pants on fire liar. At heart Trump cares about Trump. We really don't have a great idea what the hell he'll do if elected President because he says all kinds of shit and you can't trust any of it anyway. But he's a rich business man and he will serve his own interests, that much I feel confident about.

I hate that Hillary serves the banks. I hate that she is ridiculously hawkish. I hate that she is 100% behind whatever Israel does. But I would take 4 more years of the same ol' same ol' over Trump anyway because he is more likely to be much worse than any better, imo.

I really wish Bernie would win :sigh: but it doesn't seem possible now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2016), Crumb (04-25-2016), livius drusus (04-26-2016), SharonDee (05-04-2016), Sock Puppet (04-25-2016), SR71 (04-25-2016), The Man (04-25-2016)
  #812  
Old 04-25-2016, 07:56 PM
Watser?'s Avatar
Watser? Watser? is offline
Fishy mokey
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Furrin parts
Posts: LMMMDLXXXIX
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Yeah, that would not be enough of a 'lesser evil' for me. Way too much evil left.
__________________
:typingmonkey:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (04-25-2016)
  #813  
Old 04-25-2016, 08:02 PM
slimshady2357's Avatar
slimshady2357 slimshady2357 is offline
forever in search of dill pickle doritos
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VXI
Blog Entries: 6
Images: 52
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser? View Post
Yeah, that would not be enough of a 'lesser evil' for me. Way too much evil left.
So in a Hillary/Trump race what would you do? Vote Trump? Abstain?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #814  
Old 04-25-2016, 08:11 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

If Hillary called her vote for the Iraq war a mistake years ago, then fine, I stand corrected. The point, though, is that I don’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth. Everything that she does is naked political calculation. Remember how years ago she was against gay marriage, and now she’s for it? So, what — she regrets her Iraq war vote now because she really regrets it, or does she “regret” it because it’s the right thing to say to win more votes in the current climate? Does anyone really doubt the answer to this question?

It is true that most politicians blow with the wind, and run out in front of a parade to claim they lead it. But not all. Lincoln, for instance, held a consistent set of political principles throughout his life, regardless of whether they were popular or not. His whole life he opposed the extension of slavery into the territories and opposed slavery itself, while not being an abolitionist because he (correctly) noted that abolition was unconstitutional absent a constitutional amendment. Lincoln, like Reagan (much as I detest him) was in politics not to be something (i.e., president) but to do something.

Dismissing my list of all the ways that Trump may in fact be the lesser of two evils with respect to Clinton with :rolleyes: is pretty unpersuasive. In fact, I shall take that as your concession that you have no answer to these points,.

But please don’t get the wrong idea here. I will never vote for Trump, nor do I deem him “trustworthy” on anything. I am simply pointing out that given what he has said on certain key issues, vs. what Clinton has said (which is often different from what she has said in the past), there is no reason to think that Clinton is necessarily the lesser of two evils on those particular issues. But since I don’t subscribe to the “lesser of two evils” voting paradigm, I will happily vote for the Green Party candidate in November, or write in myself, or just stay home and get drunk.

I have no idea what you mean by my “predictions” in 2012. I am quite confident that I never predicted that Mitt Romney would beat Obama. Perhaps you are again referring to my statement that Obama did not deserve to be re-elected; but as I (and others) have pointed out to you, this does not mean that I thought Romneybot did deserve to be elected. In any case, this has nothing to do with prediction.

Voting for Nader was helpful in establishing that there remains a committed progressive segment of America that does not buy into the phony bullshit of the two establishment parties. Full stop. That’s necessary and sufficient justification for voting for Nader and for a third party this year.

My claimed purposes would be better served by voting for them (center-right Democrats, and by extension Hillary)? Really? So what do you think my “claimed purposes” are here? Supporting Wall Street? Supporting Bibi Netanyahu and continuing to facilitate the repression of the Palestinians? Supporting “free trade” that has shipped U.S. jobs overseas to sweatshops while gutting the middle class and suppressing wages? I notice, btw, that Hillary Clinton recently came out against the new trans-Pacific trade deal that four years ago she vigorously supported. And so, no, my claimed purposes do NOT include supporting a candidate who can’t hold a consistent principled position for longer than it takes her heart to beat. And my claimed purposes sure don’t include voting for a candidate who opposes things I support and supports things I oppose. Go figure!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2016)
  #815  
Old 04-25-2016, 08:14 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXCI
Images: 11
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

He doesn't have to contemplate actually living under the GOP that has regained control of the presidency, judiciary and both houses of Congress, so he's going to say he'd vote third-party.

Which is fine in the Netherlands, because they have proportional representation. His social welfare benefits aren't on the line when he votes for the leftiest there.
Reply With Quote
  #816  
Old 04-25-2016, 08:55 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Just for a moment to revisit this Nader thing. Erimir (and many others) seem to think that Nader cost Gore the election because, if Nader had not run, then some (most? all?) Nader voters would have voted for Gore.

Is there any evidence to support this claim?

My impression is different. It is that people voted for Nader because they did not want to vote for Gore or Bush. So if Nader had not run, these people would have stayed home or voted for some other third-party candidate.

If Gore had wanted to win the votes of Nader supporters, he should have taken positions that Nader voters supported! And if Hillary wants my vote and the vote of people like me, then she should take positions that I support. She won’t, so I won’t vote for her.

It’s pretty goddamned simple, really. :shrug:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2016)
  #817  
Old 04-25-2016, 08:59 PM
Watser?'s Avatar
Watser? Watser? is offline
Fishy mokey
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Furrin parts
Posts: LMMMDLXXXIX
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by slimshady2357 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser? View Post
Yeah, that would not be enough of a 'lesser evil' for me. Way too much evil left.
So in a Hillary/Trump race what would you do? Vote Trump? Abstain?
Abstain probably. Or vote Green or something.

I have the same problem here, there isn't really anybody you can vote for, a dozen parties and somehow they all manage to be mainstream :blank:
__________________
:typingmonkey:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2016)
  #818  
Old 04-25-2016, 09:04 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXCI
Images: 11
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
The point, though, is that I don’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth.
That's abundantly clear, and pretty much shows how you're pretty much motivated by irrational Hillary hate rather than a realistic evaluation of her vs. Trump.
Quote:
Everything that she does is naked political calculation.
Totally not just seething hatred.

According to you, Hillary isn't even a person.

And I'm sure you think she collected hot sauces as First Lady in the 90s, so that she could use her love of hot sauce to pander to black people in 2016.
Quote:
So, what — she regrets her Iraq war vote now because she really regrets it, or does she “regret” it because it’s the right thing to say to win more votes in the current climate? Does anyone really doubt the answer to this question?
It's so obvious to everyone that the Iraq War was a mistake, but not to Hillary! There's no chance she could sincerely view giving Bush authorization as a mistake! None!
Quote:
Dismissing my list of all the ways that Trump may in fact be the lesser of two evils with respect to Clinton with :rolleyes: is pretty unpersuasive. In fact, I shall take that as your concession that you have no answer to these points.
I don't have time to go through all of them, not all of them are worth addressing, and most of them fall under the same "assume Hillary's positive statements are lies, negative statements are truth, and vice versa for Trump" view.

And I'll take the fact that you didn't actually argue for voting for Nader to be helpful as conceding my argument entirely! :rolleyes:
Quote:
I have no idea what you mean by my “predictions” in 2012. I am quite confident that I never predicted that Mitt Romney would beat Obama. Perhaps you are again referring to my statement that Obama did not deserve to be re-elected
No, I'm referring to statements that implied you thought he had a good chance of losing and that you were totally fine with that (even though it obviously would mean Romney would be president).
Quote:
Voting for Nader was helpful in establishing that there remains a committed progressive segment of America that does not buy into the phony bullshit of the two establishment parties. Full stop. That’s necessary and sufficient justification for voting for Nader and for a third party this year.
So basically, maintaining your personal purity. Got it.

I'm guessing you see no need to point to any actual improvements in policy because you know you can't. Knowing there was a committed progressive segment in America sure helped stop Bush from doing all the horrible things he did! And it was obviously something that could only be demonstrated through voting for Ralph Nader, a man who praised Rand fucking Paul for 2016, so you know he's a true leftist. You know, the Rand Paul who wants to cut all that entitlement spending you value so much.

I guess your purposes don't include maintaining health insurance for the 20 million who have gained it through Obamacare, preventing more massive tax cuts for the rich, ensuring that conservatives don't regain control of the Supreme Court (which affects most of these issues and more, and especially voting rights and abortion rights), raising the minimum wage, pushing for mandated family and medical leave, helping defeat anti-immigrant, racist bigotry, trying to counter police brutality, enact gun control, etc. etc. If those aren't enough to affect your vote, and whether or not Bibi feels respected by the president is your #1 issue, that's your prerogative.

And you're going to tell me you care about my right to get married, and tell me my interests on this issue, and presumably you support my sister's right to change her gender on legal documents and use the bathroom in peace, but you don't give a shit whether Ted Cruz passes laws and appoints the Supreme Court justices necessary to undo the gains on gay and trans rights? Yeah, what the fuck ever. When Hillary says she supports LGBT rights, maybe she's not 100% on board with all of LGBT acceptance personally (but the evidence is that she's not far), but she's still going to work for them and certainly not try to reverse them, meanwhile, you say you support us, but you don't give a shit whether the GOP gains the control necessary to undo our progress. So helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Just for a moment to revisit this Nader thing. Erimir (and many others) seem to think that Nader cost Gore the election because, if Nader had not run, then some (most? all?) Nader voters would have voted for Gore.
I'm not talking about just what Nader did, but also what Nader voters did.

And simply put, they fucked up.

Quote:
My impression is different. It is that people voted for Nader because they did not want to vote for Gore or Bush.
Really? Such a deep insight! They voted for him because they wanted to vote for him! Such deep analysis!
Quote:
If Gore had wanted to win the votes of Nader supporters, he should have taken positions that Nader voters supported! And if Hillary wants my vote and the vote of people like me, then she should take positions that I support. She won’t, so I won’t vote for her.

It’s pretty goddamned simple, really. :shrug:
Like I said, no interest in coalitions or compromise or whether they're necessary.

You'd rather be pure and lose, than compromise and win. If the left just loses hard enough and long enough, those contradictions will be heightened enough eventually!

After all, look at Kansas and how well that worked out with Gov. Brownback!

(And of course... you say you want Hillary to take positions you support, but of course you call every single one of her positions that you support a lie and a false promise.)

Last edited by erimir; 04-25-2016 at 09:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old 04-25-2016, 09:31 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
The point, though, is that I don’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth.
That's abundantly clear, and pretty much shows how you're pretty much motivated by irrational Hillary hate rather than a realistic evaluation of her vs. Trump.
Not believing what she says amounts to irrational Hillary hatred? Uh, no. In fact, I don't "hate" Hillary at all.


Quote:
Quote:
Everything that she does is naked political calculation.
Totally not just seething hatred.

According to you, Hillary isn't even a person
Talk about irrational!

Hillary isn't even a person? Where did I say, or even remotely imply, such a ludicrous thing?

If you had read my post charitably, its context would have been clear. When I say that everything she does is naked political calculation, I mean that -- obviously! -- in a political context. No one charitably reading my post could conclude, for example, that I think she treats her grandchild with naked political calculation. In fact, I've observed Hillary for a long time, and I think she's a pretty good person. I'd be happy to be friends with her.

It's politics where she and I disagree, and it's her constant shifting of her positions to garner some real or imagined political edge to which I object.

More later on your other points.
Reply With Quote
  #820  
Old 04-25-2016, 09:40 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXCI
Images: 11
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
The point, though, is that I don’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth.
That's abundantly clear, and pretty much shows how you're pretty much motivated by irrational Hillary hate rather than a realistic evaluation of her vs. Trump.
Not believing what she says amounts to irrational Hillary hatred? Uh, no. In fact, I don't "hate" Hillary at all.
Ummm... you said you don't "believe a word" she says.

That goes a bit beyond healthy skepticism, I think.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Everything that she does is naked political calculation.
Totally not just seething hatred.

According to you, Hillary isn't even a person
Talk about irrational!

Hillary isn't even a person? Where did I say, or even remotely imply, such a ludicrous thing?

If you had read my post charitably, its context would have been clear. When I say that everything she does is naked political calculation, I mean that -- obviously! -- in a political context. No one charitably reading my post could conclude, for example, that I think she treats her grandchild with naked political calculation.
No shit, really? You think she cares about her grandchild? I am shocked!

You're going to say that she has no principles whatsoever when it comes to politics, but you're going to take issue with me using a bit of hyperbole in response?

"If you had read my post charitably," you wouldn't assume I was talking about her relationship with her grandchild either. Stuff your feigned outrage that I am misrepresenting you.

At any rate, your claim that everything she does in politics is naked political calculation is only marginally less ridiculous.
Quote:
In fact, I've observed Hillary for a long time, and I think she's a pretty good person. I'd be happy to be friends with her.
:lol:

Not a single thing you've said up until this point in this thread is consistent with this, unless I missed it.
Reply With Quote
  #821  
Old 04-25-2016, 09:46 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Quote:
My impression is different. It is that people voted for Nader because they did not want to vote for Gore or Bush.
Really? Such a deep insight! They voted for him because they wanted to vote for him! Such deep analysis!
I had thought I posted a response to this, but somehow it didn't go through.

So let me do it again.

I think you're missing the point. There has been for years a belief (do you share it?) that if Nader had not run, then Gore would have been elected, because the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, if Nader had not been in the race.

I'm simply saying that there is no evidence (that I know of) to support this claim. Rather, if Nader had not run, then the people who voted for him would probably mostly have stayed home, or voted for some other third-party candidate.

You real complaint here, of course, is that you think Nader supporters should have voted for Gore, rather than Nader. Well, fine. I think everybody should vote for Bernie Sanders, but I accept that they won't and don't get all bent out of shape over it.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2016), But (09-04-2018)
  #822  
Old 04-25-2016, 10:04 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Quote:
In fact, I've observed Hillary for a long time, and I think she's a pretty good person. I'd be happy to be friends with her.
:lol:

Not a single thing you've said up until this point in this thread is consistent with this, unless I missed it.
This is because you can't separate politics from the personal, I guess. :shrug: JFK and Barry Goldwater were famous friends, yet diametrically opposed politically.

I don't hate Hillary Clinton personally, unlike Rethuglican tards. She seems, personally, to be a decent person. It was YOU who said that I didn't even think she was a person, so I felt the need to correct you with the grandchild reference, etc. Hopefully you will take this constructive criticism in the spirit intended.

As far as politics is concerned, no, I really don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth. This is not to say I think she is lying every time she opens her mouth (although, as Bobby Kennedy said of LBJ: "You can tell he's lying because his lips are moving" may well apply to her too, politically speaking). The problem is I don't know when she is lying or when she is being truthful, and this is because of her own record. First she's against gay marriage, now she's for it. First she's for the Iraq War, now she says it's a mistake. First she is for the trans-pacific trade deal, now she is against it. The list goes on. WTF?? You seriously think this isn't a problem?

Beyond that, I'll say again: she stands for stuff I oppose, and opposes stuff I support. So why should I vote for her?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2016), But (09-04-2018)
  #823  
Old 04-25-2016, 10:07 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXCI
Images: 11
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I think you're missing the point. There has been for years a belief (do you share it?) that if Nader had not run, then Gore would have been elected, because the people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, if Nader had not been in the race.
Yes, and it's not even really that hard to see why.

Sure, some of his voters would've stayed home instead. But Al Gore already won the popular vote. He only needed to get a handful of votes in Florida to win, and Nader dropping out would've delivered it. Al Gore lost by less than 1000 votes in Florida, and Nader received >97,000 there. He doesn't need to get an astounding number of those votes for it to change the outcome. To think otherwise, you'd have to assume one of two things:

A. Nader voters either preferred George Bush to Al Gore, or were extremely evenly split between them
OR
B. >90% of Nader voters would've simply not voted.

I find both of those propositions highly dubious, and as such, it is highly likely that Al Gore would've picked up the few hundred net votes necessary to win Florida.

Was it predictable before the fact that it would come down to such a small margin in a single state? No. Doesn't change that if you want to make that particular hypothetical, it's hard to argue that Nader voters would've behaved the way you need them to, given the way that voters typically behave.
Quote:
I'm simply saying that there is no evidence (that I know of) to support this claim. Rather, if Nader had not run, then the people who voted for him would probably mostly have stayed home, or voted for some other third-party candidate.
This claim is not in direct contradiction with the proposition that Al Gore would've likely won had Nader dropped out, as I pointed out above. You need for it to be almost all of the Nader voters, and that is obviously far less likely than >10%, >20% of them voting for one of the two main parties instead, which is all that is necessary for the claim to be true.
Quote:
You real complaint here, of course, is that you think Nader supporters should have voted for Gore, rather than Nader. Well, fine. I think everybody should vote for Bernie Sanders, but I accept that they won't and don't get all bent out of shape over it.
Except that you're conflating voting strategy with ideological preferences. And you do it over and over.

I would prefer everyone vote for a more left-wing candidate (although, honestly, given what I've seen of him, I don't think I would want Nader to be president). In terms of ideology, I would prefer everyone voted for Bernie Sanders too (he has some personal qualities I dislike, and I disagree on a few issues, but overall he's the closest to me ideologically).

The problem is that not everyone wants a more left-wing candidate, which means there's no chance of everyone voting for him, and so those of us who are to the left of the median voter must strategize based on that fact.

Saying "everyone should agree with me" is not a strategy, which should be pretty fucking obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
First she's against gay marriage, now she's for it. First she's for the Iraq War, now she says it's a mistake. First she's for the Iraq War, now she says it's a mistake. First she is for the trans-pacific trade deal, now she is against it. The list goes on. WTF?? You seriously think this isn't a problem?
Where have you seen me say that none of these things are problems, rather than that the strategically correct choice is to vote for her?

Like I said, you're conflating strategy with ideological preferences, and that you're even asking me this question is the clearest evidence of it.

Last edited by erimir; 04-25-2016 at 10:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2016)
  #824  
Old 04-26-2016, 12:20 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMCMII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

OK, let’s unpack this a little.

Nader received >97,000 votes in Florida, and Gore lost the state by about 1,000 votes (assuming he lost it all — the recount was aborted).

Now I think it’s plausible, as you say, that if Nader had not run, then Gore would have picked up some Nader voters who would have given him a Florida win without the necessity of a recount.While I think that most Nader voters would have stayed home or voted for some other third-party candidate had Nader not run, I suppose it’s plausible that some of them would have voted for Gore, while only a tiny minority would have opted for Bush. So it’s possible, on this reasonable hypothesis, that Nader cost Gore Florida, and with it, cost him the election.

The problem, though — as you note — is that no one could know, in advance, how close the election would be, and how key a role Florida would play. One could imagine someone traveling back in time from today and telling those 97,000 Nader voters what the future held unless they voted for Gore, and those voters, horrified, agreeing to vote for Gore. But one could just as easily imagine the time traveler telling Bush voters what the future held if they voted for Bush, and those voters responding in terror and voting for Gore instead. It remains the case that your real complaint is simply that not enough people voted for Gore to put him in office. Sure, he won more popular votes than Bush, but under our system the Electoral College rules.

What it gets down to is, you seem to be straightforwardly advocating always voting for the lesser of two evils — though you call this “strategizing.” The idea seems to be that if someone like Ralph Nader runs, a person with whom you may agree but who also demonstrably has no chance to win, then you should vote for some other candidate who is least objectionable to you, on the theory that if you don’t do that, then the least objectionable candidate stands to lose even while the candidate you really favor has no chance to win. Ergo, vote for the least objectionable candidate who has a chance to win, rather than the candidate you want but who has no chance to win.

It should be noted, of course, that in the time travel scenario mooted above, it would not be enough to tell prospective voters what the future held if they elected Bush. The time traveler should also be required to tell the prospective voters the counterfactual history of the world should Gore be elected — which obviously the time traveler would be unable to do. Given this limitation, the prospective voters informed about the Bush future would be entitled to ask: how do we know that things wouldn’t be worse under Gore?

But this is getting too philosophical. Consider two propositions:

2000: Even though you prefer Nader, you should vote for Gore, because Nader has no chance to win, and Gore is less objectionable than Bush.

2016: Even though you prefer Sanders, you should vote for Clinton, because Sanders has no chance to win, and Clinton is less objectionable than Trump/Cruz.

The problem is that these two propositions, though constructed identically, are disanalogous. While it was true that in 2000 Nader had no chance to win, it’s not true that in 2016, Sanders has no chance to win. Indeed, national polls have consistently shown Sanders outperforming Clinton against both Trump and Cruz. So, erimir, since you say you are ideologically closest to Sanders, why don’t you vote for him and work for him?

I live in New York, and a friend of mine was an early volunteer for Sanders: making calls, canvassing, handing out leaflets, etc. etc. On primary day, she voted for Clinton. Why? because she’s afraid Sanders can’t win, while Clinton can (whereas the evidence, as noted above, shows that Sanders outperforms Clinton against Trump/Cruz) and also “because I have a uterus.” WTF? :shrug:

Yeah, yeah, it’s long past time for a female president, I fully agree, but I’m looking at you, Elizabeth Warren, and you didn’t run. :glare:

Not in the case of Nader, but certainly in the case of Sanders, refraining to vote for the candidate you really want on the theory that he/she can’t win becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2016), But (09-04-2018)
  #825  
Old 04-26-2016, 12:59 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCXCI
Images: 11
Default Re: 2016 Presidential Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
But one could just as easily imagine the time traveler
There's no point in engaging with this time-traveller hypothetical.

You asked whether I thought that in the hypothetical that Nader didn't run, Bush would've lost. That is all. And I think that my argument for that is pretty persuasive that yes, most likely Bush would've lost. The end.

While it was not foreseen that it would be that close, my argument would've been that a vote for Nader would increase the chance of a Bush victory, even before the fact. It could not be foreseen that it would could down to a thousand votes in Florida (and that at the same time, Gore would win the popular vote), but it was entirely foreseeable that it would increase the probability that Gore would lose. And the result of the 2000 election is consistent with that. The end.

Quote:
2016: Even though you prefer Sanders, you should vote for Clinton, because Sanders has no chance to win, and Clinton is less objectionable than Trump/Cruz.

The problem is that these two propositions, though constructed identically, are disanalogous. While it was true that in 2000 Nader had no chance to win, it’s not true that in 2016, Sanders has no chance to win.
They're actually extremely non-analogous, but for an entirely different reason.

That reason being that Nader was not a primary candidate, and Sanders is not a general election candidate (at the moment, and I doubt he will become one).

If Sanders were the Democratic nominee, I would absolutely and enthusiastically tell people to vote for him. But he isn't, and he almost certainly won't be the nominee. Ergo, in November, I will not be telling people to vote for him.
Quote:
Indeed, national polls have consistently shown Sanders outperforming Clinton against both Trump and Cruz.
What this does not show is that he has a chance to win in November if he's not the Democratic nominee. Ralph Nader was not, and therefore had no chance of winning in November. There's also vanishingly little chance that Sanders running as an independent would result in a Sanders win. For one, general election ballot deadlines are approaching for independent filers, meaning it may not be possible for him to be on the ballot in all states. But even ignoring that issue, there is no poll showing that a Clinton/Sanders/Trump or Clinton/Sanders/Cruz matchup would result in a Sanders victory. The far more likely outcome is that they would split the liberal wing of the voting public, and hand the election to the Republican.
Quote:
So, erimir, since you say you are ideologically closest to Sanders, why don’t you vote for him and work for him?
I live in DC, which votes last. I may vote for him as a symbolic gesture (depending on how he is conducting his campaign at that point), but either way, it will be irrelevant as it will >99.9% probability be decided before or on June 7. And the chance of Bernie winning the primary is similarly low. And I disagree with the way he's running his campaign now, which is maximizing his own chances at the expense of the Democrat's November chances and also not aiding the Congressional wave election he says he wants.

He is raising no money for Congress in general elections, only a mere three primary challengers who have endorsed him, one of which is challenging for a completely safe Democratic seat. How will this grant him the Congressional majority required to pass his agenda? No clue. Perhaps he's just hypocritically relying on the DNC's and Clinton's fundraising while pretending he and the Democrats don't need it. Maybe you think he should be supporting more liberal/progressive/left-wing candidates for Congress? Well, he only supported those three. There's a senatorial candidate that he could've supported in Pennsylvania, for example, who endorsed him and is in agreement with Bernie's agenda. Bernie didn't help him at all. How is this revolution materializing then? How is it going to work if he's not going to work to both get MORE Democrats elected and get MORE progressive Democrats nominated? Three progressive House members ain't going to cut it.

I might've supported his campaign, and I was glad he was in and at least moving Hillary to the left. Once it became clear that the GOP had shit the bed, I was totally fine with him being the candidate because my worries about his electability went away. And if he had been more competitive, I would've switched to him. But it was clear after Super Tuesday that he couldn't win, even more clear after March 15, and yet again even more clear after New York. Given the polling, it will be even even more clear after tomorrow. He can't win the nomination now. So it switches to what is best for our November chances. And backing someone who is running a negative campaign against the presumptive nominee is not that. If he changes to once again running on issues only, I may vote for him, as I said.

So sorry, but no, you do not make a persuasive case that supporting Sanders at this moment in time is a proper strategic move.

Of course, I have advocated and will continue to advocate for policy positions that are to the left of where Hillary is, because as I said, I'm just talking about strategic voting here, not policy preferences.

Last edited by erimir; 04-26-2016 at 01:25 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2016)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.63338 seconds with 15 queries