Grover Cleveland
Member
A lot of people seem to say on /r/sandersforpresident that they will vote for Jill Stein instead. Then some others are a bit crazier:
Oh
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The South Carolina Primary & Nevada Caucuses |Feb 20, 23, 27| Continuing The Calm
- Thread starter NeoXChaos
- Start date
- Status
Oh
It would not cause riots but in this climate that actually might cause voters to not show up in the general or vote 3rd party in larger numbers (but is very unlikely to occur. The same thing would happen on the other side if a brokered comvention put rubio up when trump had a delagate lead.A lot of people seem to say on /r/sandersforpresident that they will vote for Jill Stein instead. Then some others are a bit crazier:
Green party's the match I keep getting on those alignment tests, but the current system basically wipes out anyone but the two main players.
Well, 'cause of where I live technically my primary and general votes are so meaningless I could vote for Marvin the Martian, but still.
Good on you to get into the mud with them. I won't. There are several posters who shill this stuff. Like I said before, you've got some Hillary supporters who are socially-liberal but authoritarian/pro-corporation. It's an awkward position to hold, from where I'm standing, but whatever.
You're right, of course. Look at all of the things that were legal before they were declared unconstitutional- segregation, gender/race-based voting laws, limiting marriage to one man-one woman, etc. Bulk metadata collection is technically legal but, as you say, it's unethical, and I believe that it's unconstitutional. What I think, ultimately, is that history will look back at it as a disgusting practice of these times, and condemn it.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Exactly. You can't just take these numbers at face value.
Well you should read up on rent seeking and public choice. Scholars are more elaborate than a 10 min thought of mine to paraphrase it will ever be.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Because that worked so well after 2012. They'll triple-down and become even more unhinged.
When(if) Trump loses I guarantee he'll blame the RNC and establishment for not giving him their full backing and cause even more fracturing.
A lot of people seem to say on /r/sandersforpresident that they will vote for Jill Stein instead. Then some others are a bit crazier:
I hate how we're digging up random (4 karma, even) posts on reddit.
Those "a lot of people" are completely minuscule.
I realize that similarly to realizing how comments made by other people in Clinton's camp have been pretty defamatory towards Sanders and his supporters. If that's part of the plan to consolidate the left after the primary they are in for a long election.
This doesn't work. The Obama admin tried to do quite a few things that didn't go anywhere because of obstructionism, and you still see people today rattling on about how Obama didn't do this and that.
If people dont understand how it works, they will always swing at the low hanging fruit (sitting president). Most don't care to analyze the situation at all. Same would happen with Bernie or Hillary.
I'm not saying the more extreme people are "a lot of people", the pro-Jill Stein message is all over the place when someone asks what they would do if Hillary won. Is it a minuscule amount of people? Yes, but when its a common message from Bernie supporters online it might as well be brought up.
This is the worst. Threatening to abstain a vote is the only political power that most voters have. Voting for a candidate that you don't even like just because the alternative is worse is letting your vote be taken for granted. There's more to voting than which side wins, especially in a two-party system.
I mean, did anybody like the blue dogs? They may have been preferable in the short term to their Republican opponents, but now that they're gone there's a chance to take those seats with Democrats that aren't useless where it counts.
To be fair, the head to head polling is really the only evidence we have that Clinton does well against the Republicans too. If you look at her favorable/unfavorable, they are pretty scary for someone who is supposed to hold the White House for two terms and be the standard bearer of the Democratic party. Clinton's favorables are trending downward as well. I would not describe her current numbers as a "floor".
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
Sanders might be untested, but his numbers would have to reverse pretty dramatically to get to where Clinton's are.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating
Also, that link goes to an anonymous poster who claims to have seen the results of what basically amounts to push poll and "heard" of another such study that show Sanders doing poorly. I guarantee you that you could reproduce the same results for Clinton.
I'm not saying your link is wrong, but I'd like to see more information about what is being claimed.
Prodigal Son
Member
The number of Sanders supporters who wouldn't vote for Clinton in the general isn't high enough to cost her a victory, GAF. You guys are spinning controversy out of nothing.
Nope, not at all.
The first is cheap talk, the second is strategic voting. Your mechanism to signal your preferences are the primaries, the generals are a head-to-head.
Paradoxically, the impact of "threatening to abstain" requires even one step further in strategic voting: Its impact has to come from other voters understanding that, in case they don't choose your guy in the primary, other people will abstain in the generals.
We're willing to accept that kind of strategic voting thinking, but not in a straightforward head-to-head in the generals?
Abstaining from voting actually removes a person's political power unless they are a huge campaign donor or political operator who can exercise political power through other means. That doesn't describe 99.99% of people. For most people, the most they can do is volunteer for political campaigns and vote tactically through primaries and the general election.
yeah you can vote for mickey mouse for president for all i care but at least support local politics as that will have a huge effect going forward. hell if people cared about local politics then perhaps we could have enough politicians in place that would make somebody like bernie realize most of the things he wants to do.
Third Strike
Member
We use a FPTP system in America, so no, that's exactly how the system works. You vote for your preferred candidate in the primary, and if they don't win, you move to the other candidate that is most closest to your views. Abstaining to vote means the candidate that was most closest to your views won't get your vote, and that benefits the other candidate that will do the most harm to you. Even most conservatives understand this, and it boggles my mind that most liberals can't seem to grasp this.
And Blue Dog Democrats are not going to be replaced by liberal Democrats, at least in the South and Midwest.
No u.
This is why people talk about it being important for Sanders to get the minority vote. It's not just to beat Clinton. If it's Sanders vs Trump, then Sanders can't just tell all of the black people "Hey, too bad you all have no choice but to vote for me because the alternative is Trump!" No, he actually has to work to get that vote because while they might not like Trump, they can always choose to just not vote for Sanders.
Yeah. I don't get why so many young ones believe in this fantasy that the GOP will somehow make a guy who looks like he's only going to win Puerto Rico their nominee, above the candidate with a huge delegate and popular vote advantage. FANTASIES.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
I was saying that among his supporters, he has more enthusiasm, and that's really widely known. But primaries are about where the party will be going, that's what the battles are over. GE is where the country will be going. And when it comes to the GE, we likely won't even remember the nomination process. What will happen is Hillary will do her thing, Obama will come out and do some key campaigning in swing states to promote his messages and time in office, and he will help put the stakes in place for the country to consider.
Also, don't put down and make fun of Sanders supporters and how they campaign. While I view the "revolution" thing as more of a buzzword, it isn't just only college kids that support him. Sanders people know how important the SC is and you aren't going to find progressives that view it as a side issue. As I remember in 2008, there were questions about whether Obama was electable because Hillary was so experienced, and the long primary process was dividing the party, etc. The only thing right now that is dividing the party is people that want to twist and morph perspectives on candidates and their supporters.
You might not want Sanders as president over Clinton for various reasons, but you agree with him on most policy issues, right? Just like how Sanders and Clinton agree on most things. The main thing that Sanders wants for people to take note of is how money interests in politics over the decades has really morphed the system to favor certain groups for monetary benefit. He doesn't want Roe vs Wade to be over turned. He doesn't want 12 million Latinos to be deportered. He doesn't want woman rights to be taken away or for gay marriage to be taken away. He doesn't think climate change is a hox. ETC. ETC.
This primary has really been about one issue, income inequality, and how it effects the system as a whole.
For a side not, the whole free college thing isn't even my issue. I actually disagree with it because I think college is really about to morph into something else, more of a online system, and the costs will be greatly lowered over the coming decades. I feel like people don't mind paying for it, it just has to be affordable.
Healthcare? This issue is probably where I get the most upset with Hillary on. She tries to say he wants to dismantle and take it away from citizens that just got it. Its disingenuous and she knows it. Its a typical politician angle to use, and thats apart of the lukewarm feelings I have for her. Its the classic politics of inducing fear into people to get them to go away from something. Its the same method of what the GOP uses when it comes to background checks to buy a gun. Obama is going to take away your gun!!!!!
But anyway, the DEM is going to have a uphill(dawg) battle when they are in the whitehouse, come Jan 2017. Obstructionism will probably just intensify, nothing will happen, etc. The right HATES Hillary. Like more than I think people realize. They hate her more than Obama. Which of course, the hate for either isn't justified, and it speaks to how shitty the GOP is. And that's basically what all this primary season comes down to. You got a party that is at least in reality while you have another party that acts like a 5 year old that had their toy taken away from them, by crying (take our country back!) and throwing a tantrum (obstructionism).
There it is
Voter turnout is exactly what this is about. The threat of voters not turning out is what keeps candidates from taking their own base for granted.
Given that scenario not much else to do really.
User 463088
Banned
Essentially, there is none. Super Tuesday will pretty much end the race, unless something drastic happens between now and then. We don't have a ton of Super Tuesday polls, but we did get a batch from PPP a few days ago.
I did rough math the other day, and posted the following in PoliGaf:
Basically, if we give Hillary and Bernie each the percentage of the vote they have now, and I go ahead and say that every single undecided voter breaks for Bernie (which is incredibly unrealistic, but to make a best case scenario for him) the pledged delegate allocation would be somewhere around
Hillary 558
Bernie 467
When we consider Super Delegates,
Hillary 920
Bernie 475
However, Bernie already failed to meet best case because he lost NV, so, the more likely outcome (keeping the same poll numbers and splitting the undecideds along equal lines)
Hillary 624
Bernie 397
And with Super Delegates
Hillary 1053
Bernie 413
There's just no where for him to make up the pledged delegates, let alone the Supers. These were rough estimates, strictly proportional.
LOL
Not even fucking close. They only hate Hillary when she's running for office.
The vast majority really do respect her.
Obama though...that shit is genuine.
EatinOlives
Member
A lot of people seem to say on /r/sandersforpresident that they will vote for Jill Stein instead. Then some others are a bit crazier:
...conveniently ignoring Sanders himself saying "vote Democrat in the primaries regardless of who it is".
I know I keep saying this, but all these so-called Sanders supporters are choosing to ignore one of his most important messages. Well, two, because they'd also be ignoring the "get out there and vote!" message as well.
Nobody can in good conscience say they support a candidate whose platform involves high voter turnout and a political revolution at every level, if they literally throw in the towel at the very first setback. There's nothing progressive about tuning Bernie's campaign into a fad.
And ultimately, I'm at the exact same position and it's quite frustrating.
People threaten to abstain, even if it would not be logical to do so, and I feel the knife on my neck. I get the impression that for some people, losing the general just means licking their wounds and protesting for 4-8 years to get ready for the next round -- and that makes abstaining to send a murky signal acceptable.
You'll excuse me for not thinking that this is an acceptable outcome when I feel like I have a whole LOT to lose if Republicans control the presidency for at least the next four years.
And I am saying that's not logical. It's a two-step removed strategic voting strategy that's dominated by the one-step strategy of voting in the Generals. The point is exceedingly simple -- murky signals 4 to 8 years in the future should not be in our consideration set, when we have the chance to send a strong signal in the generals, 4 years before.
Third Strike
Member
That this poster understands how strategic voting works, and he doesn't want someone to fuck them over on their social and economic rights? Or were you implying something else?
User 463088
Banned
Also forgot to mention in my other post, I'm not sure how long Bernie can ride it out if Super Tuesday shapes up the way we think it will. He's been berning through the money in January. While he brought in $21.5 million he spent $34 million, including heavily outspending Hillary in NV and SC. He has, by most estimates, about $14 million cash on hand. If he only manages 8 and 22 in the month of March (which is being a bit generous) I'm not sure the money is going to keep coming in. At that point, I would argue the remaining supers will commit to make it mathematically impossible for Bernie to win.
We know from past elections that the bernie supporters will toe the line just like hillary supporters did in 2008. If you're worried about hillary losing the general you should be focusing on the issues that would actually cause that to happen. She has high unfavorables, trust issues with a large segment of the electorate and the republicans have had high turnout this cycle. I assure you a handful of vocal bernie supporters should be the least of your worries in this regard.
I don't think it's murky. Maybe my previous example was too extreme. Let's say Clinton is the nominee and she loses because the youth vote didn't show up for her. You don't think the beancounters at the DNC and future presidential exploratory committees are going to look at this and think "Wow, we really underperformed with young voters. We should consider ways to alter the party platform and messaging to try to attract these voters next time."
I think it's pretty clear. Then you have to remember that this all happens in real-time with polling. Clinton doesn't have to wait 4 or 8 years to adjust her message. The beancounters at her campaign can see anticipated low voter turnout and adjust the messaging during the campaign.
You can see where this is going right? I don't want to stray too far from reality with hypotheticals but in a world where everyone votes doing what you say is "logical" then the best place for Clinton to stand is basically right next to Trump but ever so slightly to the left. You need people who won't just vote for Trump-lite to prevent that outcome. Thankfully, that's a pretty significant amount of voters.
Exactly, many people are demonizing this behavior. I hear so many minorities saying they can't afford another republican president. They are voices calling out for reason in the face of people selfishly not-voting because they didn't get 100% of their desires met. It's insulting to blame people who have very real immediate concerns that to them outweigh income inequality as the most important issue. People that want democratic socialism but can't come together for anything besides their own interests aren't very progressive at all.
Fuck.
Is the star of the reality TV series "The Apprentice" going to be President of the United States, guys?
Fuck.
Is the star of the reality TV series "The Apprentice" going to be President of the United States, guys?
No, i don't think so but those would be the issues that would cost her the general if she did lose, not bernie supporters. If rubio somehow pulls off the nomination then she will most likely lose.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
Only when she is running for office? Why would it end the minute she is elected? She wasn't running for office when she was secretary of state. Oh, because she was likely going to run for president in 2016? Well if she gets elected this year, she will likely run again in 2020. So your saying all the hate will go away after that election?
Thanks for going deeper, I appreciate it.I've been skeptical since the start whether or not it was possible to run in a modern election without SuperPAC $$ and it really just might not work. You'd assume he'd get a bit more donors if were able to win the nomination, but probably not enough for the onslaught of bullshit campaign ads in the summer
Citizen's United sucks
People who aren't willing to show up and vote aren't people you can consider trying to appeal to. They'd have to adjust based on the people who voted for the other candidate.
Not to mention that demographics shift as time passes moving to the next election. The issues and voters might be different. The party isn't going to chase the "ghost voters" that it doesn't even have much information on, because they didn't vote!
Not voting is not wise and your voice is not heard if you don't voice it, by voting
Agreed. Hilary has far more pressing problems than a few Sander supporters not showing up at the GE.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I've lived with radical leftists, anarchists and communists so far out on the left that they make Bernie look like a conservative, and I feel recognize some of the anger and disgust from Bernie Supporters.
They've been told what they are, shoehorned for what they are about, and called realistic for having a very potent wish to exercise tried-and-true policy from other countries. When Bernie does the impossible and gets further than anyone before on his terms, it hits hard, and that is understandable.
But like Noam Chomsky says, the real tragedy is not Bernie Sanders not becoming president. It his grassroots movement dying. Bernie Sanders seems to be a great man, but it was his policy who got him here, and those that needs to be carried forward.
Political activism is about consistency, not just during an election circus. A charade where most of the populace is unengaged in politics and vote for the person they recognize the most or they feel they know about. So many world leaders have won on the media exposure. It's just the way many of the masses are.
Sanders movement should keep the momentum going, and try and pick another strategy. Ask Hillary to endorse some of Bernies positions, and rally behind her.
Take a note from the 15 dollars minimum wage- That didn't come out of thin air.
People say all the time that protests don't work, but that was the work of thousands of people picketing McDonalds and others, consistently.
It does work, but it requires mobility, consistency and engagement.
Obama himself has gone around the gridlock, by consulting Govenors and mayors to do lobbying from outside, to help change public opinion on various issues when SC wouldn't play ball.
Bernies movement- be it a new party, the social democrats, or as a group within the democrats or whatever else, they should keep up the fight, and possible working with other groups.
Income inequality is going to keep going worse, and we risk a new recession if this keeps going on.
So there is a lot at stake, and a lot of worth fighting for.
Bernie Sanders was not going to accomplish anything in the white house without the grassroots movement either. So I feel that everyone who beliefs in him, needs to keep up the fight after the election and be engaged. We've compromised ourselves when so many people only pay attention during elections.
I think most people Bernie fans who say they'll vote for Trump, will vote for Clinton. Bernie and Clinton are good friends. They have known each other for 25 years, and they respect each other. Bernie and Clinton have not been very toxic towards each other. Nothing like Obama vs Clinton in 08, and even then, it's only politics. Bernie would want you to vote for Hillary.
Things can change at the state level and sneak it's way into congress. This 15 dollars minimum wage thing is going to happen. It is becoming a issue with many republican voters too. It's only a matter of time.
They've been told what they are, shoehorned for what they are about, and called realistic for having a very potent wish to exercise tried-and-true policy from other countries. When Bernie does the impossible and gets further than anyone before on his terms, it hits hard, and that is understandable.
But like Noam Chomsky says, the real tragedy is not Bernie Sanders not becoming president. It his grassroots movement dying. Bernie Sanders seems to be a great man, but it was his policy who got him here, and those that needs to be carried forward.
Political activism is about consistency, not just during an election circus. A charade where most of the populace is unengaged in politics and vote for the person they recognize the most or they feel they know about. So many world leaders have won on the media exposure. It's just the way many of the masses are.
Sanders movement should keep the momentum going, and try and pick another strategy. Ask Hillary to endorse some of Bernies positions, and rally behind her.
Take a note from the 15 dollars minimum wage- That didn't come out of thin air.
People say all the time that protests don't work, but that was the work of thousands of people picketing McDonalds and others, consistently.
It does work, but it requires mobility, consistency and engagement.
Obama himself has gone around the gridlock, by consulting Govenors and mayors to do lobbying from outside, to help change public opinion on various issues when SC wouldn't play ball.
Bernies movement- be it a new party, the social democrats, or as a group within the democrats or whatever else, they should keep up the fight, and possible working with other groups.
Income inequality is going to keep going worse, and we risk a new recession if this keeps going on.
So there is a lot at stake, and a lot of worth fighting for.
Bernie Sanders was not going to accomplish anything in the white house without the grassroots movement either. So I feel that everyone who beliefs in him, needs to keep up the fight after the election and be engaged. We've compromised ourselves when so many people only pay attention during elections.
I think most people Bernie fans who say they'll vote for Trump, will vote for Clinton. Bernie and Clinton are good friends. They have known each other for 25 years, and they respect each other. Bernie and Clinton have not been very toxic towards each other. Nothing like Obama vs Clinton in 08, and even then, it's only politics. Bernie would want you to vote for Hillary.
Things can change at the state level and sneak it's way into congress. This 15 dollars minimum wage thing is going to happen. It is becoming a issue with many republican voters too. It's only a matter of time.
eBay Huckster
Member
If actual results from mostly-Latino precincts are any indication, Clinton actually won the Latino vote by about 15%.
Entrance polls are garbage not worth the paper and/or bandwidth they're printed on.
Its 2014 results notwithstanding, Florida has actually shifted slightly to the left (there's been a fuckton of immigration to the state from Puerto Rico, and PR has generally leaned left as of late)
Vade
Member
Bailout boys
- Status