Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[megaplayboy]

The theme of the speech seemed to be Brown People are Scary and I am the Only One Who Can Save You.

[CaptnStrawberry]

I suppose there were a few planks in the acceptance speech I actually responded to - the economy is rigged, our infrastructure is a disgrace, entrenched poverty in our urban cores, criticism of TPP and the other trade agreements.  But he's pretty obviously trying to peel away Sanders supporters (and said so).  And I don't remember hearing any policy solutions; just the repeated refrain of "We're gonna make it happen - BeLIEVE me."

 

Ivanka was gorgeous and seemed sharp.  But that carefully modulated voice, hair flips and self-satisfied chuckle got on my nerves after a while.

[Pariah]

I watched precisely none of the convention. And oddly enough, I survived.

 

I have resolved to tempt fate by doing the same next week.

[DasBroot]

The theme of the speech seemed to be Brown People are Scary and I am the Only One Who Can Save You.

 

That is the exact message my wife, a woman of colour, took away from his speech. She called it a rant, just like every other public appearance he's put in, and if it was written by a campaign speechwriter they should be fired (and for the sake of their career she hopes they used a pseudonym).

 

She just kept asking 'How? How will you save us, Mr Trump?" the entire way through - and found no answer.

[Starlord]

Fear is the path to the dark side.  Fear leads to anger.  Anger leads to hate.  Hate leads to suffering.

 

Yoda

[Hermit]

Well, since I fall into that group, that is actually more or less true.   I didn't fall for it myself.  I know some though that are desperate enough to, however.    One reason I am sitting it all out in November.  I just absolutely refuse to vote for "a lesser evil" when I personally cant stand either of them to the degree I do.

 

I'm afraid Trump has scared me into voting for someone I normally wouldn't (Hillary), but I can understand why you'd stand by your convictions in this and respect it. I hope local elections in your area are more palatable.

[csyphrett]

Fear is the path to the dark side.  Fear leads to anger.  Anger leads to hate.  Hate leads to suffering.

 

Yoda

I always liked that quote, but I also like this one from K

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. 1500 years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow...

CES

[Old Man]

Looks like Hillary is set to announce Tim Kaine as her running mate. This is a disappointing move to the right, especially on issues of bank regulation and trade.

[Certified]

Looks like Hillary is set to announce Tim Kaine as her running mate. This is a disappointing move to the right, especially on issues of bank regulation and trade.

 

So, Jill Stein? 

[dmjalund]

aside from all other consoderations

 

CLINTON

 KAINE

 

has a nice ring to it

[DasBroot]

Meh.  Trump and Pence have a ring to it too.

 

Such as Make America Great again 2016: It's time for the bad guys to get their comeTrumpPence!

 

(oh, hello mr desk. How do you do? Allow me to introduce you to my good friend mr forehead *wham wham wham wham wham wham*)

[Doc Shadow]

I'm only going to say this once and then I'll shut up.

 

A vote for Jill Stein, or any vote for a third party, is a vote for Donald Trump.

 

Trump knows he's not going to get the vote of Sanders supporters. And he doesn't want them. All he wants is for Hillary not to get them. If that happens, either by the votes going to a third party candidate or the voters just staying home on election day, he knows, he doesn't think, HE KNOWS, he'll win!

 

So unless you want to see Trump as President, do what I'm going to do.

 

Hold your nose and vote Clinton. No matter how bad she may be, I'm not afraid of her having the nuclear launch codes.  That should be reason enough but if you need another try this one on for size …

[megaplayboy]

Liking the person you're voting for is a privilege/perk, not a right or entitlement. Mostly agreeing with their policy agenda is sufficient, for most cases.

[Starlord]

*Waiting patiently for another Abraham Lincoln*

[Certified]

I'm only going to say this once and then I'll shut up.

 

A vote for Jill Stein, or any vote for a third party, is a vote for Donald Trump.

 

Trump knows he's not going to get the vote of Sanders supporters. And he doesn't want them. All he wants is for Hillary not to get them. If that happens, either by the votes going to a third party candidate or the voters just staying home on election day, he knows, he doesn't think, HE KNOWS, he'll win!

 

So unless you want to see Trump as President, do what I'm going to do.

 

Hold your nose and vote Clinton. No matter how bad she may be, I'm not afraid of her having the nuclear launch codes.  That should be reason enough but if you need another try this one on for size …

 

 

Normally I would agree with the conventional logic of suck it up, no third party has a chance. That said, Gary Johnson (L) is already polling at almost 10%. As the Libertarian candidate it is unlikely he's pulling a lot of the Bernie voters. If he continues to drive a wedge through the Republican party this opens up room for Jill Stein (G) to pick up the progressive voters that have been disenfranchised by the primaries and potential election fraud. In short, if this was a three way race I'd say no, hold your noise and vote for Clinton, but, we may actually be looking at a four way race where 30% of the electorate may be all it takes.  

[Old Man]

*Waiting patiently for another Abraham Lincoln*

 

 

Don't wait underwater.

[CaptnStrawberry]

It is true that low turn-out has historically benefited Republicans in national elections.  We'll likely have extremely low turnout this November, but I forecast  there will be as many Repubs as Dems staying home.   I'm not sure what the major parties expected putting up candidates that poll so low in terms of trustworthiness?

[Hermit]

I'm pretty sure Tennessee will go overwhelming Trump regardless of how I vote. So yes, I'm tempted to vote third party just to  help said party (I think, maybe I'm wrong... but I think if they get a certain percentage they become eligible for funding???) since I believe  Hillary couldn't win here if she were dispensing candy out of her navel. 

 

BUT... I'll probably wimp out and vote Hillary just to be sure.

[megaplayboy]

Well, the good news for those contemplating 3rd party votes is that you can read the tea leaves the day of the election and decide what's best on that day. If the third party is doing poorly in the polls, or the candidate you like is drawing support from your #2 choice, you can switch back.

[薔薇語]

Conventional logic: "A vote for the third party is actually a vote for the bad candidate."

Since this is a pervasive belief, and I most certainly will not be following it, allow me a moment to attempt to express why. 

1 - It just feels wrong

Perhaps a bit trite to some but gut feelings are important. Voting for someone I really dislike just to stop someone I hate leaves a terrible taste in my mouth. Have you ever played in a game where you were sent back in time and given the unfortunate task of saving some rather evil person just because their death might be worse? Not that you knew it would but simply suspected it would. How did it make your character and you the player feel? Pretty terrible I would imagine. That is the kind of feeling I get during the election cycle.

2 - It vastly underestimates the system we have

 

 

There have been a predictably high number of power hungry presidents in our short history. Ones that have grown the Presidency ever more. But no matter how power hungry one is, there are still limitations on them. The necessity of consensus does exist. It is what prevents President Obama from getting legislation through the Senate. It is what bogged down the process in the President Bush years. Consensus is hard to achieve even in the best of year, it is nigh impossible with politically charged candidates. Why this really matters here more than perhaps any other election cycle is that the two main party candidates are not well liked, especially Trump. 

Assuming for a moment you, the reader, are in the #NeverClinton camp: think about how unlikely it is for her to completely flip the Senate to a super majority. She might, and I stress the weakness of that might, flip the senate and house blue, but this still leaves a lot of chance for the Republicans to slow down or block legislation and in two years there will be a referendum vote in the House that disfavors the then current administration. There is very little chance that she will be enacting any legislation that is truly offensive to your sensibilities. 

Assuming for a moment you are in the #NeverTrump camp: He will not be flipping the Senate to a super majority and might even lose power in congress. Many legislators in his own party are terribly against him. Most of the most offensive legislative policies ascribed to him will not survive Congress or the Courts. He will be an island unto himself. He also has a long history of flipping on policy ideas. He is just as likely to support traditional Dem legislation as traditional Rep legislation. 

Ultimately, neither candidate is likely to walk in with a solid majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. It takes that level of mandate to affect extreme and immediate change - otherwise things will just be slow messes.

3 - the traditional logic has gotten us here

I think this is perhaps the most overlooked bit. To Melania a quote: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result." For most people it seems like the next presidential candidate of their and their opponents party is worse than the last. People are always complaining about holding their nose while voting. So the conventional logic has brought us only conventional outcomes. You can not expect to break that cycle by embracing its tenants.

 

 

4 - Voting third party actually makes the third party far stronger than you realize - even if they lose. 

Most people are not aware of how hard it is to get ballot access in most states. The Libertarian Party struggles every year to maintain access in most states. While not every state has this rule, many do: if you can achieve 2 percent of a vote in an area, you are automatically given access to all those areas. So, if a Libertarian Candidate for the 8th House district gets 2 percent, Libertarians are guaranteed ballot access to the 8th house seat and all other elected office in that area. If our gubernatorial candidate gets 2%, then we get access to ALL races. Same for president. By voting for a third party candidate, even in small numbers, you are opening up election cycles to vast numbers of candidates in the next cycle. And when a party, Green or Libertarian can focus on message and elevating one candidate rather than doing that also while having to canvas and fund raise to be granted ballot access. This directly rejects Dan Savage's comments from earlier - even if Dr. Stein loses, if she gains a non-trivial vote share, the Green Party in states as far flung as Missouri get a major boost to their ability to run. No longer would they have to canvas across the state's many districts gathering signatures just to have a chance to run, they could just run!

5 - If there is no threat that you will leave the bargaining table, your bargaining partner doesn't have to respect your wishes.

If a constituency is guaranteed to vote for a candidate even though they vehemently disagree one some key policies, that candidate never has to adjust their views on that policy. The same goes in reverse. Sec. Clinton doesn't really have to worry about earning the black vote or the environmentalist vote. She knows full well that those three blocks will absolutely vote for her. We can see this in her major speeches. She does give the occasional lip service to issues in the black communities and environment, but normally as opposition counterpoints: vote for me because Trump is racist / hates puppies. But she very rarely puts for positive policy ideas (I will do this! VS He will do that!). But where is this not true? Wall-street,  Immigration, and trade policy. She is putting forth a lot of views of what she wants to accomplish in terms of Wall-street and trade policy reform because she needs to sure up Senator Sander's supporters and gain white middle-class voters. On immigration she is a bit wishy washy but that is because conventional wisdom says the latino block has  moved largely democratic so she can defocus on it a bit. Senator Sander's supporters are getting commitments from Sec. Clinton not because she values their views, but because there is a chance they will stay home / vote third party / vote TRUMP! If the black community could push that point more, they would see greater movement.

6 - Ultimately it is about point 1. 

While I obviously think the reasons I stated are good, they won't change anyone's mind. The only thing that can is your heart. Do you feel clean when you hold your nose to vote? Do you feel honest and committed to yourself? Use a bit of social-psychology on yourself when you go to vote. Bring a small pocket mirror and a picture of a younger you. Before and as you cast your vote, look deep into that mirror at yourself. At the end of the day, we will only ever do what we can square away with subconscious self image - nothing else.

Soar. 

[Tom]

Well, the good news for those contemplating 3rd party votes is that you can read the tea leaves the day of the election and decide what's best on that day. If the third party is doing poorly in the polls, or the candidate you like is drawing support from your #2 choice, you can switch back.

 

True enough.  Your vote doesn't count until (unless) you actually cast it.

[薔薇語]

Normally I would agree with the conventional logic of suck it up, no third party has a chance. That said, Gary Johnson (L) is already polling at almost 10%. As the Libertarian candidate it is unlikely he's pulling a lot of the Bernie voters. If he continues to drive a wedge through the Republican party this opens up room for Jill Stein (G) to pick up the progressive voters that have been disenfranchised by the primaries and potential election fraud. In short, if this was a three way race I'd say no, hold your noise and vote for Clinton, but, we may actually be looking at a four way race where 30% of the electorate may be all it takes.  

Johnson is likely to be pulling equally from both parties. The same group found that when his name is added to polls, Sec. Clinton's lead does not increase (might decrease). This implies that he is not solely taking votes from Trump. 

 

Soar. 

[megaplayboy]

It's Tim Kaine. 20 years experience, mayor, governor, senator, foreign policy committee experience, speaks Spanish, probably delivers Virginia for the Dems. Solid pick. Doesn't inspire the base, but arguably we're already highly motivated by the most progressive policy platform ever and the most frightening Republican nominee ever. Maybe he'll pick up a few swing voters here and there.

[Iuz the Evil]

Ugh. Kaine is a really disappointing choice. He's a safe pick, but not appealing.

 

I will be even more fervently wishing Mrs. Clinton the very best of health. I do not want him in the Oval Office. He's a classic Virginia blue dog DINO based on more factors than I care to enumerate.

 

Nevertheless, it changes nothing regarding my vote (and likely that of others of a progressive persuasion). Which is probably the point. But still... disappointing choice with all the earmarks of playing it safe. Probably an indicator of the governance we may expect from this administration, playing to the center.

 

Not inherently bad, but not where I was hoping she'd go. Won't inspire the base.

[megaplayboy]

It is disappointing, but still beats the alternative by a country gigaparsec. My hope is that she will at least make an effort to implement her stated policy goals and the party platform, and that any impulse she may have to regress to neoliberal triangulation will be smothered in its infancy due to the complete intransigence of the modern GOP Congressional caucus.