543
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
543 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3512 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I met with a few that tries to argue that the correct choice is to vote for third party. And, other people called them out on it.
I'm far-left as you come, but, I still vote for the feasible and better option in the general. I always vote for the better in the primary without exception. I voted for Bernie in 2020 primary even if Biden is guaranteed to have the nomination, and voted for Biden.
And my opinion is that Biden is the better of the two in context of Israel. He at least sanctioned settlers, and some days that will include Jenin(?) settlers. Trump won't do that. And most people that are against Israel has less to do with war at Gaza than settlers and the clowns in Israel government.
The "I'm voting third party because I don't like either candidate" people are the reason for Trump's first presidency
So.. no, that's not even remotely true. The percentage of third party votes would not have helped Hillary win the 2016 election. She ran a terrible campaign and completely ignored the key states: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. All 3 states, at least at the time, were considered heavily blue states, and she proceeded to lose in all 3. Her campaign lacked a clear, articulated message that spoke to voters to draw out a significant voter turnout, and just underestimated the populism aspect of Trump's run. He was full of shit and his legacy will be the conservative supreme court justices he left behind, but his campaign promised to revitalize dying blue class industries in the Rust belt which incentivized working class voters in a way that Hillary's moderate campaign absolutely failed to.
I don't think the populism factor will attract new voters for this upcoming election, as both Trump and Biden have their core voter bases established. However, the campaign messaging that gives voters incentive for a better turnout will always be the key factor. The message of "Hey, at least I'm not the other guy" does not work. It didn't work in 2016. Hillary didn't even learn from her failed campaign because in the aftermath of her defeat she wrote in her book What Happened, "If just 40,000 people across Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania had changed their minds, I would have won". That whole mindset is just so out of touch with the political landscape in 2016, and this upcoming election cycle will be no different.
The third party voters in a handful of states absolutely ended up being the deciding factor. It's not the absolute number of electoral college votes which I think you know but instead the states like Wisconsin and Michigan that Trump won by less than the larger than typical number of green party votes. I don't think that this trick will work twice but it's certainly being astroturfed like crazy again
By how many votes did Hillary lose, again?
77 votes in the electoral college. The total electoral college votes for third parties combined (Gary Johnson + Jill Stein) was 7. So in the unlikely event that Hillary won over all of the Gary Johnson libertarian voters and Jill Stein green party voters, she would still have lost. By a lot. She won the popular vote so that's cool. But unfortunately that doesn't win elections.
It's such a practical topic for the election, too, right? Never mind the shit the Republicans are pulling on a day to day basis- that shit has already been normalized.
>I’m far-left as you come
i guarantee, you are not.
You sure do not have any idea who I voted for beyond Bernie. I always look up candidates and pick the ones with better access to healthcare, education, working environment, etc.
leftists are building a revolution to overthrow capitalism.
if all you're doing is voting, and for Democrats, then you are not, in fact, a leftist.
Fucking lulz.
Leftists don't actually have to be against capitalism as a concept. Some of us do support european-esque capitalism because of easier access to healthcare and education.
And that's the bare minimum, but the most impactful, and the most realistic. You, the 3rd party voter, can't even cite when they have ever made a dent in the nation-wide scale, and you very well know that you can't convince educated leftists to split their vote to give it to Trump. But, do try, and I'll be laughing at the attempts.
>you very well know that you can’t convince educated leftists to split their vote to give it to Trump
leftists certainly wouldn't give their vote to trump
Yeah, if they were leftists, they vote left on downballot and vote for realistic options that is closest to left on general. That means, third parties are out unless ranked choice is a thing.
>That means, third parties are out unless ranked choice is a thing.
why would a leftist vote for a conservative politician? they wouldn't
In context of Biden, it's to have him on the white house to get some benefits possible, and he is the most realistic option because of Duverger's Law. Which goes back to my point of there is no good answer as to when was the last time third party has made a huge dent electorally.
if you're a leftist, and you are voting for biden, don't pretend it's because he's a leftist or will help leftists. he's not and he won't.
Let's see. Student debt cleared to some degree. Pay raise for low wage workers. Yes, there were some.
Also, love that you ignored the issue of Duverger's Law.
>you ignored the issue of Duverger’s Law.
just as i would have if you'd raised the book of revelation. lots of people believe it predicts the future, but it doesn't.
One is observed, and the other is guess work. Nice try, anyway.
both have equal predictive power
By what evidence do you have for that? We can look at vote records and note that Duverger's Law matches electoral records, and it is based on real world observation of elections. The other one has zero predictive power because it's not based on anything other than guess work.
>We can look at vote records and note that Duverger’s Law matches electoral records, and it is based on real world observation of elections
so? so tell me what the split is going to be in november using duverger's law. make a prediction using it.
At this point in time, 2.5%(+/-).5% . Easy to figure out when it's only 2 parties since 1968 and looking up election results.
>Leftists don’t actually have to be against capitalism
there is a cure for political illiteracy
Note that capitalism is everywhere, and politicians that do not want to change their economic system to socialism are still counted to left for strong support toward welfare, healthcare, etc. Heavily regulated capitalism is left to the center. Do you have an argument against this?
>You, the 3rd party voter, can’t even cite when they have ever made a dent in the nation-wide voter
you never asked, and, frankly, there is a cure for historical illiteracy, too
Sure, try arguing when was the last time third party has made a dent, and by what percentage. Cure my supposed historical illiteracy please.
>Sure, try arguing when was the last time third party has made a dent
the prohibition party got an amendment passed
Ooh, wow, a party no one heard of, and are you talking about 1919? And this has nothing to do with vote percentage?
Color me shocked and amazed by your argument.
this is called a "horse laugh" fallacy or, formally, an appeal to ridicule
Did you know that I pointed out issues with your arguments? So, address them.
>Did you know that I pointed out issues with your arguments?
no. you raised irrelevant objections.
Then, explain it if that's the case.
what's the point?
i don't believe you're open to learning anything here. anyone who is reading this conversation can easily make up their own mind about who's right.
Other people reading the room is precisely why I am with you in the room now. I'm not doing this to change your mind.
>Fucking lulz.
this is an appeal to ridicule.