NationStates

The Andromeda Island Group wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Neither of you have provided any evidence, but feel free to continue your playground piss contest.

Ask the Green Party in Montana if there's evidence. You won't like the answer.

Hey, both main parties are shit. Republicans fear they can't win without gerrymandering and voter suppression, Democrats fear they can't win without shitting on and guilting every third party.

I'm tired of it, both parties bitch and moan and all we get is fuck all.

It doesn't seem terribly controversial to me that left-wing voters would vote for a less fitting left wing party, namely the Democrats, if the third parties were not available. Same for right wing voters and third parties with the Republicans.

Not to say ALL of them would follow that like a hivemind, since I think a large chunk would not vote at all otherwise, and a smaller fraction would for whatever reason vote for the other 'wing' of politics if their particular favoured party didn't win their vote.

True Refuge wrote:The capitalization's a bit silly. The point's obvious enough.

And it's not totally baseless to assume that a significant number of right-leaning third party voters have a strong enough distaste for the Dems that they'd have found a lesser of two evils argument (where Trump is the lesser) appealing if third parties had not run any candidates.

You have a point but going all absolute about it lacks nuance.

I will concede that a reasonable person can make an assumption that Trump would have won the popular vote in a two person race.

All I'm saying is that the assumption is no more or less valid than an assumption from someone who disagrees.

This is the real problem with American politics: We've got people who are ignoring facts and useful information who are, instead, relying on their feelings. If Donald Trump wins re-election, he can thank those voters who have abandoned their critical thinking skills and instead insist that their feelings are Gospel.

The Force may work in Star Wars movies, but it's a terrible tool for determining how you vote. It's also an awful way to govern.

Albrenia wrote:It doesn't seem terribly controversial to me that left-wing voters would vote for a less fitting left wing party, namely the Democrats, if the third parties were not available. Same for right wing voters and third parties with the Republicans.

Not to say ALL of them would follow that like a hivemind, since I think a large chunk would not vote at all otherwise, and a smaller fraction would for whatever reason vote for the other 'wing' of politics if their particular favoured party didn't win their vote.

The next question being of course whether there were enough third party votes of either leaning in swing states to actually make a difference.

Kannap wrote:

The Andromeda Island Group wrote:
Ask the Green Party in Montana if there's evidence. You won't like the answer.

Hey, both main parties are shit. Republicans fear they can't win without gerrymandering and voter suppression, Democrats fear they can't win without shitting on and guilting every third party.

I'm tired of it, both parties bitch and moan and all we get is fuck all.

Regardless of which of the two major parties has control of the White House, the rich and the big corporations get richer while everyone else gets screwed over. And I don't trust Biden or Trump to do anywhere close to enough to deal with the problem of climate change, which keeps getting worse. I'd rather vote for someone like Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins or maybe write in Bernie, because even though they probably won't win at least I'll be voting for someone who supports my values.

True Refuge wrote:

Albrenia wrote:It doesn't seem terribly controversial to me that left-wing voters would vote for a less fitting left wing party, namely the Democrats, if the third parties were not available. Same for right wing voters and third parties with the Republicans.

Not to say ALL of them would follow that like a hivemind, since I think a large chunk would not vote at all otherwise, and a smaller fraction would for whatever reason vote for the other 'wing' of politics if their particular favoured party didn't win their vote.

The next question being of course whether there were enough third party votes of either leaning in swing states to actually make a difference.

There certainly were for the GOP at least. MN and NH very plausibly could have flipped red without third parties.

MN is one I'm actually shocked by, looking into it Clinton only won by 45,000 votes. I don't remember it being that close.

The Andromeda Island Group wrote:

True Refuge wrote:The capitalization's a bit silly. The point's obvious enough.

And it's not totally baseless to assume that a significant number of right-leaning third party voters have a strong enough distaste for the Dems that they'd have found a lesser of two evils argument (where Trump is the lesser) appealing if third parties had not run any candidates.

You have a point but going all absolute about it lacks nuance.

I will concede that a reasonable person can make an assumption that Trump would have won the popular vote in a two person race.

All I'm saying is that the assumption is no more or less valid than an assumption from someone who disagrees.

This is the real problem with American politics: We've got people who are ignoring facts and useful information who are, instead, relying on their feelings. If Donald Trump wins re-election, he can thank those voters who have abandoned their critical thinking skills and instead insist that their feelings are Gospel.

The Force may work in Star Wars movies, but it's a terrible tool for determining how you vote. It's also an awful way to govern.

If Dems want people to vote for them, they need to pick a candidate who people will vote for. I hope Trump loses, I hope the Dems know what they're doing, but I'm not voting for Biden.

several things are almost predictable, like who ever gets the most air time tends to be who gets elected, even no matter how negative that air time might be.
i wish media would realize this and choose to allocate its coverage accordingly.
and according to that theory of course, the plague does seem to be our next executive branch in the u.s.
as if our current executive branch isn't a plague already.

nominees seldom pick anyone expected, anyone from among the field they competed against.
no real good reason for this that i known of.
occasionally one of the ones who dropped out early will be picked.
current political trends, it will be, or there is a majority hoping for, it will be a woman, but not any of the one's i or anyone else is likely to have expected or even heard of.
i know i'd like it to be warren, but i think biden's already mentioned somone who fits the above description, a name i don't remember and know nothing about.
i sure hope he picks people, like warren for the economy, who, unlike the present chrony system, actually know something about what they're picked for.

Kannap wrote:

The Andromeda Island Group wrote:
I will concede that a reasonable person can make an assumption that Trump would have won the popular vote in a two person race.

All I'm saying is that the assumption is no more or less valid than an assumption from someone who disagrees.

This is the real problem with American politics: We've got people who are ignoring facts and useful information who are, instead, relying on their feelings. If Donald Trump wins re-election, he can thank those voters who have abandoned their critical thinking skills and instead insist that their feelings are Gospel.

The Force may work in Star Wars movies, but it's a terrible tool for determining how you vote. It's also an awful way to govern.

If Dems want people to vote for them, they need to pick a candidate who people will vote for. I hope Trump loses, I hope the Dems know what they're doing, but I'm not voting for Biden.

Ultimately, people are more or less going to be voting for Biden's VP given his age. I suspect he has this in mind and will likely pick someone that mimics "the general public", which in that case, Klobuchar would seemingly be that choice with experience tied to her. But Biden has also stated he wants the ticket to look like "America" so I won't be surprised if he picks a minority like Duckworth, Grisham, and sighs, Harris... But! I do have confidence he will not pick the latter. After all, it would be making the same mistakes as McCain did: picking Palin.

As to the third party stuff, it certainly hurt Trump though if I recall, Johnson was doing a 60-40 split: 60% to Trump; 40% Clinton while 90% of Stein voters would have backed Clinton. But we should note that some would have stayed; I'm thinking a third from these groups respectively. I'll also note that Clinton was an absolute atrocious candidate: she was arrogant, lack a clear message, and like others, wrote off Trump's chances of winning and thus, felt they didn't need to vote. All in told, this election would have been close in my view popular vote wise.

You have to wonder how the New York Times went from a respected newspaper to this

Aureumterra wrote:

(Image)

You have to wonder how the New York Times went from a respected newspaper to this

What's wrong with the New York Times publishing an opinion piece?

Blargoblarg wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Hey, both main parties are shit. Republicans fear they can't win without gerrymandering and voter suppression, Democrats fear they can't win without shitting on and guilting every third party.

I'm tired of it, both parties bitch and moan and all we get is fuck all.

Regardless of which of the two major parties has control of the White House, the rich and the big corporations get richer while everyone else gets screwed over. And I don't trust Biden or Trump to do anywhere close to enough to deal with the problem of climate change, which keeps getting worse. I'd rather vote for someone like Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins or maybe write in Bernie, because even though they probably won't win at least I'll be voting for someone who supports my values.

Enjoy Trump picking RBG’s replacement. She just had another health scare

San Lumen wrote:

Blargoblarg wrote:Regardless of which of the two major parties has control of the White House, the rich and the big corporations get richer while everyone else gets screwed over. And I don't trust Biden or Trump to do anywhere close to enough to deal with the problem of climate change, which keeps getting worse. I'd rather vote for someone like Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins or maybe write in Bernie, because even though they probably won't win at least I'll be voting for someone who supports my values.

Enjoy Trump picking RBG’s replacement. She just had another health scare

Have you considered that it's actually an enormous failure that you rely so desperately on one old woman?

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Enjoy Trump picking RBG’s replacement. She just had another health scare

Have you considered that it's actually an enormous failure that you rely so desperately on one old woman?

I don’t want that amazing woman replaced by a right wing nut job

Kannap wrote:

The Andromeda Island Group wrote:
I will concede that a reasonable person can make an assumption that Trump would have won the popular vote in a two person race.

All I'm saying is that the assumption is no more or less valid than an assumption from someone who disagrees.

This is the real problem with American politics: We've got people who are ignoring facts and useful information who are, instead, relying on their feelings. If Donald Trump wins re-election, he can thank those voters who have abandoned their critical thinking skills and instead insist that their feelings are Gospel.

The Force may work in Star Wars movies, but it's a terrible tool for determining how you vote. It's also an awful way to govern.

If Dems want people to vote for them, they need to pick a candidate who people will vote for. I hope Trump loses, I hope the Dems know what they're doing, but I'm not voting for Biden.

Not voting for Biden for same reason. I want change in the political system and it won’t happen with Biden. Just going to sit around for 4 years or die before.

Poskistan wrote:

Kannap wrote:
If Dems want people to vote for them, they need to pick a candidate who people will vote for. I hope Trump loses, I hope the Dems know what they're doing, but I'm not voting for Biden.

Not voting for Biden for same reason. I want change in the political system and it won’t happen with Biden. Just going to sit around for 4 years or die before.

Enjoy Trumps second term and a right wing Supreme Court for the next fifty years striking down all progressive legislation

San Lumen wrote:

Poskistan wrote:Not voting for Biden for same reason. I want change in the political system and it won’t happen with Biden. Just going to sit around for 4 years or die before.

Enjoy Trumps second term and a right wing Supreme Court for the next fifty years striking down all progressive legislation

I seem to remember a Trump appointed justice being the swing vote they saved planned parenthood?

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Have you considered that it's actually an enormous failure that you rely so desperately on one old woman?

I don’t want that amazing woman replaced by a right wing nut job

Doesn't really address my post.

Poskistan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Enjoy Trumps second term and a right wing Supreme Court for the next fifty years striking down all progressive legislation

I seem to remember a Trump appointed justice being the swing vote they saved planned parenthood?

Kavanaugh is a fake conservative

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I don’t want that amazing woman replaced by a right wing nut job

Doesn't really address my post.

The survival of American democracy somehow relying solely on a feeble woman in her 80s isn't even the silliest part of American democracy

That RBG didn't retire under Obama shows she's a republican sleeper agent anyway.

South Odreria 2 wrote:That RBG didn't retire under Obama shows she's a republican sleeper agent anyway.

Also, Ukraine was the real interference in the 2016 election. *nod*

Gormwood wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:That RBG didn't retire under Obama shows she's a republican sleeper agent anyway.

Also, Ukraine was the real interference in the 2016 election. *nod*

In point of fact it was Israel.

Ifreann wrote:

Aureumterra wrote:

(Image)

You have to wonder how the New York Times went from a respected newspaper to this

What's wrong with the New York Times publishing an opinion piece?

They can do as they like, but the opinion is monstrous.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:What's wrong with the New York Times publishing an opinion piece?

They can do as they like, but the opinion is monstrous.

Gee, it's like they invented an opinion column for a reason. And that's rich, an ancap calling someone's opinion monstrous.