There's not as much money in local elections. :lol
2 Super 2 Tuesday |OT| I'm Really Feeling (The Bern) (3/15, 3/22, 3/26 Contests)
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
There's not as much money in local elections. :lol
Well, here's an interesting question to consider: would you take the Green party winning 5% of the vote, if it also meant that Donald Trump would be president for (at least) four years?
I don't know the answer to that question, but I think it's a useful thought exercise about who you vote for and why you're voting for them. Because that's exactly the decision calculus you have to make when voting third party.
Mix Master
Member
lmao
Debates don't make a candidate and if someone actually has real national traction they can easily clear the hurdle to get into the debates. Ross Perot didn't have any problem with that and he was a fuckin' nut.
You own your vote. You choose what you do with it. We have this crazy thing called the internet now, you don't need a debate or network news coverage to learn about the candidates. Personal responsibility for how you exercise your vote is at an all time peak. Claiming otherwise is a plea to the notion that you're just a poor little sheep in search of your shepherd.
I don't think he'll even be that particularly terrible. Probably GWB/Dick Cheney levels in that he'll have some ideological goals to achieve and he'll pick a VP and cabinet who will do the real heavy lifting of manipulating and exploiting the office. He'll be facing some stiffer opposition than GWB did for 6 of his 8 years however, so there's that.
I'm dubious that Trump believes any of the hate speech he's throwing out now, but that really isn't the point. He's running on that platform and winning in the GOP Primary. That should be the single biggest motivator to any reasonable adult in this entire country.
The foremost reason to vote for Clinton isn't to reward the ordained nominee of the DNC. It isn't out of fear of Trump as POTUS. And it shouldn't come from a place of resignation towards the two party system (which I personally think is on the brink of collapse anyhow).
The foremost reason to vote for Clinton is to issue as strong and stern a repudiation for the platform Trump is running on that the nation can muster. If Trump loses in a comparatively close race, which the two party system and electoral college will help ensure, we will see Trump's pseudo-fascist campaign largely rewarded. We will open the door for individuals who truly feel that way to come out of the shadows, put away their dog whistles, grab up the megaphone, and run for political office on those very beliefs in a multitude of congressional districts carried by Trump.
If instead the general populous does the principled thing and votes en-masse against Trump's rhetoric to generate a massive landslide loss we can quell the resurgence of overt isolationist, segregationist hate speech that Trump has re-introduced. At a time when the party who have been dog whistling many of those same sentiments are at their weakest.
Maybe you think the differences between Clinton and the GOP establishment that big. You are entitled to that view to be sure. But to ignore the tactics that Trump has used to get where he is and willfully avoiding a repudiation of those tactics is the political equivalent of watching a racist attack a minority or a man sexually assault a woman and hurrying away in the opposite direction.
Not exactly. The decision calculus forced upon us by the founding fathers, not the current leaders. That's the Constitution. That's the way it's designed, for better or worse. It's been that way for 200 years. It's not a conspiracy. It's just the rules.
The funny, or unfunny, thing is that the republican party will end up using the 'vote against Hillary' to rally their base to the polls and vote for Trump. The democrats don't have any such power. Probably the biggest reason that the republican party exists currently is their ability to paint democrats as evil, usually based on one or two issues, and to galvanize their base.
shoplifter
Member
This, and quite honestly, my answer is that if it meant matching funds for a message I agreed with I would take it. Never mind that losing that much of the popular vote would move the dems to the left pretty quickly.
The fact is that when the RNC and DNC took over the debates in 1988 it effectively killed discourse and visibility to the fringe parties. There's a reason the League of Women voters bailed out when this happened.
Ross Perot bought half hour segments on network TV multiple times, and got millions of viewers. He also wasn't subject to the infamous 15% Rule that went into effect in 2000, to effectively keep Perot-like candidates out of the debates.
\/\/\/ thank you for this reasonable, non-condescending argument in favor of Secretary Clinton.
Hillary is by far the most capable and prepared candidate in the race. She has years of experience in both the executive and legislative branches, creating and enacting real policies. If you're going to choose one person out of all the people in the race on both sides who you would trust to simultaneously hold the nuclear codes, negotiate an international climate deal, and push a police reform bill through Congress, I don't see any argument for any candidate except Hillary Clinton.
Most notably, while I wish that Hillary were less hawkish and hope that the Democratic Party can provide a check on her, she's the only candidate I can trust not to go to war just because the generals and the intelligence apparatus say we have to. The American military-industrial complex has an intrinsic drive towards war -- it's not enough for a President to just oppose it. It's already happened multiple times to multiple Presidents -- the last President to successfully manage America's military fixation was George H.W. Bush, because he was the former director of the CIA! Without a deep grounding in foreign policy and intelligence, I don't believe you will be able to stop the Pentagon from driving us into unnecessary conflict. I need a president with experience, not just desire.
Hillary is, I believe, the most trustworthy candidate on social justice. She's demonstrated an understanding of the intersectional nature of social justice causes and the necessity of building a comprehensive alliance. The Obama coalition is best understood as the victory of intersectionality as a mechanism for creating a unified and allied social consciousness, and there's a reason Hillary wins all aspects of that -- people of color, GLBT, and women. I trust Hillary over any other candidate to continue this fight, which is really the defining fight of our generation.
I think Hillary's policies are just better with regards to many subjects. Her financial regulation proposal is the strongest out there -- unlike Glass-Steagall, it might actually have made a difference in the financial crisis, as it recognizes the real way financial markets work today to create interdependent moments of danger. Her understanding of the role that free trade plays in raising the standard of living of the average American is very important to me as well.
This is just a quick, not too detailed response, but I hope it generally covers why I personally support Hillary. I think she's actually the best candidate when it comes to moving America forward towards more progressive and socialist policies and fulfilling our moral responsibility towards American citizens.
It's more of a side-effect than an intentional feature. I don't think there were many founders that would have advocated for a strict two-party system. Just because the system we have in place now naturally lends itself to two dominant parties does not mean that's the way it was intended.
Hell, check out Madison's argument against factionalism in Federalist 10. Not a canon document that sets political rules, but certainly shows the dude who wrote the damn document wouldn't have supported what we have now.
See, I respect the fact that you're willing to make that concession. But I don't agree with that logic: the Republicans winning in 2000 didn't push the Democrats to the left, it forced them to the right! And that's to say nothing of the short term damage that you would do to, for example, the enviornment! with Republicans controlling the White House.
I completely agree and, even if it was the founder's intent, they did plenty of fucked up shit (see: slavery). The American political process was never designed to sustain parties. But we can't just burn the very framework of the Constitution and start over again -- I'd rather work within the confines of what we have. Because at least we have 200 years of evidence to suggest that actually works.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Hillary is tough on banks and a friend of gay rights. I feel like I'm in bizarro world.
Honestly, people who are either too naive or selfish to not see that they're voting against their interests or throwing away their vote on "principle" deserve the pile on. Stay home and keep your head high and morals intact that you rose above the sheeple.
This is a great example of why Hillary supporters don't bother trying to make positive arguments.
Not sure anyone here is advocating tearing down the Constitution and starting from scratch. There are plenty of ways to work within the confines of the Constitution to ensure that voters can express their true beliefs in the polling place while simultaneously remaining pragmatic.
See Instant Runoff Voting
Would love to see an Amendment that requires this style of voting.
What makes you think she's unfriendly toward gay rights?
Moreover, what makes you think she will not actively work for LGBT rights in much the same way that Obama did?
Also, what makes you think she won't be tough on banks?
Agreed. It's sickening. My girlfriend is from Indonesia, and for the last two years we've been working towards getting her here just so she can meet my parents. If Trump's little muslim travel ban were to ever become law, I'd have to choose between the person I love and the home that I love. Fuck Trump and fuck his cowardly, piece of shit supporters.
To hardcore Bernie supporters: If you stay home just because your candidate of choice doesn't get the nomination and you think that's the best way to further your "political revolution," I have about as much respect for you as I have for a dog turd. In other words, you're not much better than Trump's army of hate and dumb.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
This is an overimplification. You have another option, which is to move the party to your positions by working within it. You can see the GOP dealing with this right now as the voters force a re-shuffling of economic policy within the party. You can see it in the Democratic party on numerous things like LGBT rights or prison reform.
No it wouldn't, and we've already seen this play out. The McGovern blow out did not push Dems to the left, it pushed them to the center. When running on a lefter-leaning platform results in a loss, the takeaway for the party is not to then veer further left.
Me too. But I would argue that is a change that would fundamentally alter the way our democracy functions, certainly as much, if not moreso, than any amendment in the Constitution's history (even more than the 14th) -- and is therefore a complete non-starter.
Thanks. I think that's a well thought out list of reasons why you support her. That was all I ask.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Her history? Like almost any controversial issue, she waited until the 'correct' answer was already decided before taking a stand and declaring one way or another. Gay marriage was legal in my state for almost a decade before Hillary came out in support of it.
Because no president has been tough enough on banks. The two parties collect plenty of money from them and in return the SEC remains a joke, no one is sent to jail, and obvious loopholes (like the carried interest one) remain open and tax coffers are robbed of billions of dollars.
Your premise assumes that we as individuals have much of a say in how the parties work on a whole. While we may be able to have some kind of influence over local party operations (like if you're from a small town), it's impractical to assert that you can actually sway national policies in the short or long term. You can vote pragmatically and hope that your party of choice eventually lurches in the direction you like, or you can just throw your vote away and possibly support a less-desirable candidate.
The only true tangible measure of support you can provide to who wins elections is your vote, and I firmly believe we need a system where people can vote with their conscious without feeling like they're violating some pragmatic code.
The cynic in me agrees with you, but other countries do it, and some local municipalities in the US do it. It's only a non-starter in so much as we're willing to acknowledge that the two parties have a stranglehold over the democratic process in this country.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Are we back at the "voting for Trump to stick it to the Democratic Party" phase?
shoplifter
Member
That's not sticking it to the democratic party, it's sticking it to innocent minorities and people with different religious beliefs. You know, for reasons.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Voysa Reezun
Banned
I think that if you look at things from a historical vantage point, there is no assumption necessary. It is clear that individuals form coalitions that influence the parties.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Privilege-goggles means they see it as sticking it to the party for "not listening to them" or something like that.
shoplifter
Member
To be fair, I don't think that's going to be a concern among most voters. It isn't something that they think about and it isn't going to be something that any major party has as part of it's platform.
I've actually considered trying to get IRV or something similar on the ballot here in Ohio as an amendment. I can only imagine how much money would be spent campaigning against it given how much is being spent to fight gay marriage/pot, when something like this would weaken the hold both major parties have on politics.
Dash_Riprock
Member
It would be adorable were it not for the serious real world repercussions.
Karsticles
Member
I have heard a lot of great "lesser of two evils" arguments for Hillary, but I have no heard anything that suggests I would actually want her to be in charge of my country. The marks against her are too strong to warrant that.
This is just adding layers of granularity to the end-point of the electoral system. The individual is still limited to their role in the group though, wherein they can only hope that their voice is heard. And above that, the group as a whole is limited to their role in the larger group/party, wherein they can only hope that their voice is heard too. All in the hope against hopes that they influence the party enough to promote a policy top-down, providing voters with candidates they actually feel excited about voting for.
Rather than that, why not try to reform the system to cut out all these increasing levels factionalism so that you know your voice is having an immediate effect on the outcome of the election?
Angelus Errare
Banned
Oh I agree. It's an uphill battle when your opponent is a mix of: little to no understanding of politics, privilege, and entitlement.
While true, I don't see why Hillary coming out in support of gay marriage "late" would preclude her from continuing to support gay rights. Her official website says:
So there it is, she thinks the fight for equality of LGBT Americans is unfinished.
You can be tough on banks while still collecting money from bank donors. Again, if you look at her official policy positions, she has laid out a detailed plan on how to reform the banks and how to stop "shadow banks" from skirting under regulatory agencies.
Since her time as a New York senator she's been calling for tax loopholes exactly like the carried interest loophole to be closed. She was calling for mortgage asset reform years before Lehman collapsed, and she's continued to talk about going after big banks and protecting existing regulations
Not to mention as SoS she fought for LGBT rights incredibly hard. And if someone wants to bring up Hillary's spotty history they would do just as well to bring up Sanders spotty history on the same subject.
Why is she a good candidate?
1. She's brilliant. And I mean that literally. She was a National Merit Finalist, She graduated from Wellesley College with honors and was the first student ever to give a commencement speech at the request of her classmates. She followed then Senator Edward Brooke who basically told the students to get in line. She tore his rhetoric down with enough effect to get modest national coverage. Did her JD at Yale Law School where she was a clear standout. Throughout she interned and clerked at some of the most prestigious socially progressive law firms in the nation. After college she made partner in such a law firm at 32. She is one of the best minds on political policy of her generation, and that isn't an exaggeration of any kind.
2. She is an unabashed pragmatist who actually understands what the POTUS represents. You might not appreciate this as many deride Obama for being weak or acting as a centrist, but the job of the POTUS is to govern for everyone. That is important if we're ever going to return to a point where the U.S. is a less fractured republic, which it desperately needs. She has been very clear that her personal beliefs come second to the political will of the people and has a track record of legislation to that end.
3. There is no sacred cow for her. She grew up with a conservative father and as a teenager did work on Goldwater's campaign. Meanwhile she met Martin Luther King Jr. as a teenager through a progressive minister. She saw both sides of the isle when both sides of the isle weren't as entrenched as they are now and in college still found her path as a progressive democrat, just one opposed to the violent protest model many progressive dems were applying a the time.
4. She's a real progressive, just not an ideologue. Her academic work on education and children's rights is legit. Her record on healthcare in unimpeachable, she's just not willing to sacrifice something good (the ACA) for something great that can't yet be realized (universal single payer). That doesn't mean she won't lay the groundwork if the opportunity presents itself.
5. She knows how to negotiate even with entrenched opposition and get legislation done. Clinton was Obama before Obama in terms of GOP obstructionism (they basically turned the dial from a hard 8 up to 10 and broke the nob trying to turn it higher for Obama though). Bill and Hillary still got a lot of things they wanted passed, including an assault weapons ban. Progress can still be made, the sell just needs to be done correctly and Clinton has the skills to do just that.
6. While this won't sound like a ringing endorsement it's worth a lot more than you think: she is an ideal place holder on the path to future progress. She GOP has done everything they can to smear her and she's still standing. As POTUS she would present another left of center leader for the nation who actually makes the country better while the GOP is imploding. This is the time to get more people into the pews on the left and a moderate progressive is how you do that, not an extreme left candidate. As a reslut she would very possibly be a two term POTUS and significantly remake the SCOTUS to the left for years to come.
7. Re-districting. The next census will land in the next POTUS' term along with the re-districting associated with that. You won't find a person more capable and willing to build a strong U.S. AG's office to drag conservative gerrymandering in front of the courts and get meaningful legal precedent stopping voter disenfranchisement in it's tracks. That matters more than ever when Clinton as POTUS would ensure a favorable SCOTUS at the end of that legal track.
8. We get to crack the glass ceiling with the first woman POTUS directly after we had the first black POTUS. Nothing better than that to send a message to regressive bigots that the nation is done with them. A strong repudiation of Trump in this cycle coupled with said female POTUS would do massive damage to the Tea Party/regressive movement in this country.
Just a few reasons. I say all this as a person who actively campaigned for Obama over her. She's not Obama, but she is a damn good choice in her own right.
superdeluxe
Member
I think its a bit different. Many of Sanders supporters are independents
Voysa Reezun
Banned
I disagree that most reforms would dramatically increase the power of the individual. Any reforms would still force individuals to form coalitions to make their voices heard.
The real problem with our system is that individuals make these half-assed attempts at influencing the system every four years on the national level instead of making sustained efforts at the local level first, where a sizeable coalition has a chance to establish itself into the mainstream. This is not a brush that I mean to tar you with, but parties are simply national representations of regional coalitions, and those regional coalitions gain power from local elected individuals.
You can influence the national parties here quite easily; do the legwork at the local level. That isn't significantly more granular than other comparative government systems in terms of how individual people must find ways to make their voices heard.
The majority of them aren't.
Obama has been as hard on banks as the economic recession would allow.
No, nobody was arrested, but Bernie wouldn't arrest anybody either.
superdeluxe
Member
And I know many people dislike this, but I like how much experience she has with Foreign Policy. I like that she won't back down from Putin.
btw, that is a really good post
You'd think so....
superdeluxe
Member
I can agree with that, just pointing out why this is different between Obama/Clinton.
I know. I just wanted show that if we're running on the notion that Hilary will be Obama 2.0 policy-wise, then you're going to have to take the good and the bad in which that entails.
- Status