This "I'm a progressive but if Hillary is the nominee, I'm not voting" shit is stale
- Thread starter PlayALLtheGames
- Start date
- Status
People trying to shame people into voting for Clinton is really annoying. To be clear: if I was eligable to vote, and the situation was Trump vs Clinton, I personally would vote against Donald Trump. But the narrative that all progressive people must vote for Clinton because they must that is so very annoying.
What Nina Turner said about the black vote goes als for every vote. "You don't own the black vote, you earn the black vote!". If your best argument is "she is less shit than the alternative, so you have to give her your vote of confidence", then something is wrong.
What Nina Turner said about the black vote goes als for every vote. "You don't own the black vote, you earn the black vote!". If your best argument is "she is less shit than the alternative, so you have to give her your vote of confidence", then something is wrong.
Something is indeed wrong, but shit being wrong isn't new.
If people didn't vote when something was wrong then no one would vote.
Unknown Soldier
Member
This explains why voter turnout in the US hangs out around the 50% mark.
And this explains why nothing changes.
teruterubozu
Member
Then don't eat it.
IrishNinja
Member
next you're gonna say ninjas aren't people either, huh fam
SneakersSO
Member
I've said this before a few times. so for people who have kept up, here's my input & why i'm providing it.
I won't be voting for Hillary, and i'm a huge Bernie supporter. I will still be voting come GE even if Bernie does not receive the nomination; an independent candidate will be who my vote goes to. No, i'd never vote for anyone on the GOP slate. I have significant reasons & concerns as to why i'd never vote for Hillary (none of which have to do with her gender, in case you were gonna throw that shit at me), but that is irrelevant; I only vote for candidates I believe in, and Hillary is not someone I feel would have the best interests of the general public at heart.
I've gone into several threads where this sort of topic has been discussed specifically to tell other people who are in a similar boat that you aren't alone, and don't let the sort of dog-piling we see in these threads get you down. I do recommend you go out & vote, if you're not inclined to vote for Hillary. Just vote for an independent candidate you do believe in. Sure, our vote may not go to someone who will win, but it doesn't mean our vote isn't being counted. It still shows that these things that we believe in that a candidate is seeking to address are so important to us that we will still vote for them come the GE.
I won't be voting for Hillary, and i'm a huge Bernie supporter. I will still be voting come GE even if Bernie does not receive the nomination; an independent candidate will be who my vote goes to. No, i'd never vote for anyone on the GOP slate. I have significant reasons & concerns as to why i'd never vote for Hillary (none of which have to do with her gender, in case you were gonna throw that shit at me), but that is irrelevant; I only vote for candidates I believe in, and Hillary is not someone I feel would have the best interests of the general public at heart.
I've gone into several threads where this sort of topic has been discussed specifically to tell other people who are in a similar boat that you aren't alone, and don't let the sort of dog-piling we see in these threads get you down. I do recommend you go out & vote, if you're not inclined to vote for Hillary. Just vote for an independent candidate you do believe in. Sure, our vote may not go to someone who will win, but it doesn't mean our vote isn't being counted. It still shows that these things that we believe in that a candidate is seeking to address are so important to us that we will still vote for them come the GE.
L4DANathan
Member
The problem with your argument OP is that you're ragging on people for having morals. Some of us are voting for Sanders because he represents the fixing of a completely broken political system. As far as fixing the system goes, Clinton is on par with every GOP candidate, aka profiting off of it with no intention to change anything. I want to live in a democracy where my voice is heard, even if only one of a hundred million, I apologize if you consider that selfish.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Sanders candidacy has changed the dialogue for every future election. Your participation in that, including voting in your local primary if you could, was a part of that
But if he doesn't get the nomination, staying home to not vote doesn't further that. There's no additional statement being made in that abstinance
I fail to see how willingly accepting the potential for the system to get even worse is furthering the cause of fixing the system.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Here's a point I touched on earlier: lets say Hillary was...95% identical to Ted Cruz, against him in the election. Like, just generally awful on abortion, fiscal policy, everything, and we were going to be stuck with one of them. But she had one really good position, one progressive and actionable plan to improve K-12 education across the entire nation
Is that little amount of good really worth less than the 30 minutes its going to take you to go vote at your local polling place? Really? This is different if voting requires you to...take off work and financially damage yourself, if that's the case obviously do what's better for yourself. But if its literally less than an hour of your time to contribute towards a decision that might even positively effect a few million lives in some positive way, are you really not going to take it? Are you that high-minded that maintaining your internal righteousness is so much more critically important than marginally moving the country forward in some tangible way?
If you feel that abstaining from voting would cause more good, please tell me how. I haven't heard that argument yet. I've heard moral arguments aplenty, but not many for how anyone credibly believes voting abstinence contributes to change
Is that little amount of good really worth less than the 30 minutes its going to take you to go vote at your local polling place? Really? This is different if voting requires you to...take off work and financially damage yourself, if that's the case obviously do what's better for yourself. But if its literally less than an hour of your time to contribute towards a decision that might even positively effect a few million lives in some positive way, are you really not going to take it? Are you that high-minded that maintaining your internal righteousness is so much more critically important than marginally moving the country forward in some tangible way?
If you feel that abstaining from voting would cause more good, please tell me how. I haven't heard that argument yet. I've heard moral arguments aplenty, but not many for how anyone credibly believes voting abstinence contributes to change
excelsiorlef
Member
Your morals aren't gonna stop the oppression under Trump.
teruterubozu
Member
There's enough voters in the general. Save the shaming for midterm elections.
Well, that depends on where he is.
If he's in a battleground state, it's counterproductive to his own interests to have someone complete oppositional to his positions voted in - so he should go out and ensure that someone that is at least tangentially supportive of his positions goes in.
If he's not (and thus the vote doesn't really matter much), then, there's a political statement to be had with low turn out numbers
Fox Mulder
Member
Vote shaming is annoying. I think like 35% of people in my state voted in the primary.
Clinton is a shit candidate and not voting for her will not ruin America or throw people in chains.
Clinton is a shit candidate and not voting for her will not ruin America or throw people in chains.
Yeah, but it'll make it easier for Trump to win.
If only that were just "annoying".
EdibleKnife
Member
No but there will be people in the ballot boxes soon who actually have to deal with the fallout from a republican candidate pushing planned parenthood closures, or xenophobic/racist/bigoted ideals, or voter restrictions, or continued kowtowing to the NRA, or police militarization, or avoidable military action in general. And if they end up having to deal with that still despite their efforts, the only two groups at fault for making their own lives significantly more difficult are the people who voted for Trump and the people who chose to stay home and do nothing rather than at least help push the least worst option for the sake of people who are actually gonna be in the crosshairs . Same goes for midterm elections too.
not psycho
Member
For all the people saying the voting system is horrible, what would you replace it with?
Like I've been saying throughout the thread, superdelegates are awful. So is the role of money in elections. But in theory, doesn't Bernie have a chance in a system of "two primaries, and then a general election"? Don't people have an opportunity to vote for him? And couldn't an even more liberal candidate run in a primary and, if they were popular enough, get votes? You know, if more than a fraction of America actually voted?
All voting methods have their faults. For one example, consider runoff voting. Let's say you prefer candidate A to candidate B, and both over candidate C. In a runoff election it is possible to make candidate A lose by voting for them as your top choice. If you strategically voted B>A, even though you prefer A, you could cause A to win (by helping B survive to the final runoff instead of C). Additionally, during runoff voting a candidate who would beat every other candidate 1 on 1 may lose.
This is not to say a 2 party system is good, just that people may not be thinking about problems with other systems. And people may be buying into lies about how their voting can't do anything (tell that to Trump).
Like I've been saying throughout the thread, superdelegates are awful. So is the role of money in elections. But in theory, doesn't Bernie have a chance in a system of "two primaries, and then a general election"? Don't people have an opportunity to vote for him? And couldn't an even more liberal candidate run in a primary and, if they were popular enough, get votes? You know, if more than a fraction of America actually voted?
All voting methods have their faults. For one example, consider runoff voting. Let's say you prefer candidate A to candidate B, and both over candidate C. In a runoff election it is possible to make candidate A lose by voting for them as your top choice. If you strategically voted B>A, even though you prefer A, you could cause A to win (by helping B survive to the final runoff instead of C). Additionally, during runoff voting a candidate who would beat every other candidate 1 on 1 may lose.
This is not to say a 2 party system is good, just that people may not be thinking about problems with other systems. And people may be buying into lies about how their voting can't do anything (tell that to Trump).
If Sanders is a steak, and Clinton is a stale piece of bread, and trump is getting stabbed in the face, if someone asks you to vote on the bread or the face stabbing and you decide to sulk in a corner and not say anything because you wanted steak, then guess what fucko, you don't get to complain when the face stabbings commence because you didn't help prevent them. Enjoy your facial lacerations.
What? These examples get weirder and weirder.
Everyone is entitled to vote how they want, the expectation is that you will do so based on a logical and well informed view, but ultimately that is on you.
The reasons why I would say that a vote for Clinton over a third party or write-in candidate matters this November are all based on what votes actually produce, other than a winner.
First, understand that we are locked in the two party system until something dramatic happens to bust one or both of the coalitions. Second, these two parties and the politicians from them only "see" your vote in one sense, the red v. blue ratio within districts.
Accepting those two points as fact, which they are, leads us to the third reality unique to this election cycle: The Republican party is facing such a crisis and potential breakup. This is a result of Donald Trump running on a platform of bigotry and hate.
So we as the electorate are given a pretty clear option. Vote en masse to reject that platform as strongly as possible, or don't.
If the American people do the former we will likely see traditionally red districts go blue or at the least be far closer than normal. This would likely result in Republican candidates across the country moving back to the middle as it would put their seats at risk. That is what they respond to and this is how you get a response. It would also give a strong national rejection of Trump which is simply good for America's union to see a strong national sentiment against hate speech.
Now what happens when you don't vote in the way that most clearly rejects Trump? We'll see Trump do well throughout the traditional GOP controlled states and districts even if he loses. That then establishes a clear path to election when running on such a platform, while at the same time energizing the racists in the United States to continue further race based politics. In 2018 and 2020 we would likely see a multitude of GOP candidates replaced with a Tea Party style insurgence, only this time instead of dog whistling racism they'll openly run on it. And they'll win.
When that happens we'll have openly racist politicians having an equal voice in our political process, gaining influence, gaining a voice for their hate, and being able to sabotage any kind of progressive reform that would push back against them.
This is how the polarization of party politics happened. Up until this point that polarization was never starkly and overtly drawn on race-based lines. This election will determine what the new reality will be going forward.
Personally I think there are enough racists, bigots, xenophobes, lazy millennials and Gen X'ers, ideological purists, and disconnected "progressives" to give Trump a sizable amount of the vote and baking in his platform as a viable regional party if nothing else. It's depressing but I haven't seen anything from the general populous to make me think they get it enough to understand what they're really voting for. C'est la vie.
The reasons why I would say that a vote for Clinton over a third party or write-in candidate matters this November are all based on what votes actually produce, other than a winner.
First, understand that we are locked in the two party system until something dramatic happens to bust one or both of the coalitions. Second, these two parties and the politicians from them only "see" your vote in one sense, the red v. blue ratio within districts.
Accepting those two points as fact, which they are, leads us to the third reality unique to this election cycle: The Republican party is facing such a crisis and potential breakup. This is a result of Donald Trump running on a platform of bigotry and hate.
So we as the electorate are given a pretty clear option. Vote en masse to reject that platform as strongly as possible, or don't.
If the American people do the former we will likely see traditionally red districts go blue or at the least be far closer than normal. This would likely result in Republican candidates across the country moving back to the middle as it would put their seats at risk. That is what they respond to and this is how you get a response. It would also give a strong national rejection of Trump which is simply good for America's union to see a strong national sentiment against hate speech.
Now what happens when you don't vote in the way that most clearly rejects Trump? We'll see Trump do well throughout the traditional GOP controlled states and districts even if he loses. That then establishes a clear path to election when running on such a platform, while at the same time energizing the racists in the United States to continue further race based politics. In 2018 and 2020 we would likely see a multitude of GOP candidates replaced with a Tea Party style insurgence, only this time instead of dog whistling racism they'll openly run on it. And they'll win.
When that happens we'll have openly racist politicians having an equal voice in our political process, gaining influence, gaining a voice for their hate, and being able to sabotage any kind of progressive reform that would push back against them.
This is how the polarization of party politics happened. Up until this point that polarization was never starkly and overtly drawn on race-based lines. This election will determine what the new reality will be going forward.
Personally I think there are enough racists, bigots, xenophobes, lazy millennials and Gen X'ers, ideological purists, and disconnected "progressives" to give Trump a sizable amount of the vote and baking in his platform as a viable regional party if nothing else. It's depressing but I haven't seen anything from the general populous to make me think they get it enough to understand what they're really voting for. C'est la vie.
This notion that we need to nominate Hillary in order to beat Trump (or Cruz) is the real bullshit.
What does this have to do with people who would refuse to vote because Bernie lost to Hillary?
I'm just not gonna vote. Voting for Hillary would be going against everything good I see in Bernie. She's just a corporate shill who is completely untrustworthy. The fuck ups and comments she's made the last 2 weeks have made her look even worse. She'd make an awful president, I don't see why gaf has a hard on for her. To each their own
It means they don't matter. That is, unless you actually buy into this strawman argument as being real.
brianjones
Member
can someone give me the tldr of who to vote for
This is a good, persuasive post. Appeals to self interest through common goals.
EdibleKnife
Member
I think you're mistaking a desire for the expressed prevention of Trump or Cruz gaining office as enthusiasm for Hillary
voting a comic book villain into office because someone was annoying to you on NeoGAF does not make sense to me.
321florida
Banned
You ain't gotta eat the bread tho.
People can vote vote they want and you are an ass for judging them.
People can vote vote they want and you are an ass for judging them.
Guy LeDouche
Banned
normalizing apathy as the best alternative to dissatisfaction is the establishment's greatest weapon in continuing to be the establishment. they've already won.
I don't buy it being entirely real, because I think the people who would honestly not vote or vote for Trump over voting for Hillary are a hilarious (and sad) minority. That said, I'd rather not take chances.
But not voting and letting the machine carry on as it has for centuries is totally the way to start a revolution, brah. Bernie would be proud.
Bernie:
- (+) Long history of standing for the poor and minorities
- (+) Same message for at least twenty years, stands firm in his believes
- (+) Won't yield to injustice, is able to compromise, but never without doing as much as he can.
- (+) Worked with Republicans positively on issues
Hillary:
- (+) Firm and long time defender of women's rights
- (+) Connections
- (-) Connections
- (-) Known to suddenly change opinions on issues
- (-) As real as Sophie the robot. Loves to pander to the crowd she is currently speaking to.
Trump:
- No.
Ranked choice voting: http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#how_rcv_works
That said, when it comes to actually voting, you have to work with the system that exists, not the one that you wants. WTA voting always ends up making voting against someone more important than voting for a third party candidate who fits your views exactly.
If you are a liberal who won't vote Hillary in the fall you are a white male more than likely. And clearly do not give one single shit about minorities or the LGBT community because you would happily let them get thrown under the bus because you rather act like a child throwing a tantrum for not getting their way.
Liberals who don't vote for the party line in the fall are just as detrimental to the well being of our non-white male citizens as the hardcore tea party republicans.
When the GOP shuts down planned parenthood, deports immigrants, curtails the rights of the LGBT, and goes after Muslims remember your lack of vote. Because you will share equal blame in what goes down. You will be to blame for this.
The "fuck you I got mine" mentality of many white liberals is disgusting.
Liberals who don't vote for the party line in the fall are just as detrimental to the well being of our non-white male citizens as the hardcore tea party republicans.
When the GOP shuts down planned parenthood, deports immigrants, curtails the rights of the LGBT, and goes after Muslims remember your lack of vote. Because you will share equal blame in what goes down. You will be to blame for this.
The "fuck you I got mine" mentality of many white liberals is disgusting.
EdibleKnife
Member
Well it makes sense if you don't actually have a singinficant amount riding on the issues and can treat voting as flippantly as betting with a friend on the Super Bowl.
Exactly.
Not voting doesn't solve anything. State and local elections are, in the long term view, what really decides the direction this country is going in. States decide their districts, which thanks to gerrymandering decides the House of Congress, who has direct control of the federal purse strings.
Apathy will not effect change. Abstaining will not effect change. Voting early and often will effect change. Voting in primaries is good, voting in November is better, and voting in mid-terms is the single best thing you can do to exercise your voice in the political process.
Not voting at all because you don't like Clinton leaves a lot of politicians down the ballot you might actually like out in the cold. In fact, the power of the far left in this Democratic primary has all but ensured a more progressive batch of candidates have won state and local primaries across the country. Not voting leaves them out in the cold when the opportunity to make a tangible difference is at your finger tips.
Not voting isn't a valid option. Not voting for specific candidates or elections can be a valid option, but I would implore everyone to seriously consider what abstaining on the POTUS level really means when we're faced with an establishment politician v. a fascist. The former might be distasteful but the later is flat out dangerous.
Democratic representation is, at it's very core, antithetical to purist ideology. It is based on relativism so while Clinton might not be as far to the left as you might personally like the concept of democratic representation is that you still vote and still vote for something as close to what you believe, if nothing else because if that candidate wins the goal posts move slightly closer to your ideal.
Voting for Clinton is the best way to deny a vocal minority's hate based politics, but if you really can't bring yourself to do that at least vote for someone. Make a choice. Fence sitting is not a mature or intelligent option. No one is going to look at the numbers and say "Oh shit Jane Smith didn't vote at all! We need to re-align the politics of this nation to get her in the tent!" The only people who effect any change, even if it may be minor, are the people who vote. The more people who vote the more change we can achieve. Defeatism is the end game for establishment politics as usual.
Also, if Clinton wins the election and drags a democratic wave with her into the Senate all you true progressives might get to say the phrase "Senate Majority Leader Elizabeth Warren" and there is nothing on this earth that would 1. pound the final nails into the GOP coffin and 2. push Clinton's policies to the left more than that.
If Cruz is the nomination I don't think we even have this conversation. No one would need motivation or cajoling to vote against that asshole. ;P
Ryouji Gunblade
Member
If she picks Warren as her VP, I won't even hesitate.
I'm sure it's been said already in this thread but I'm going to say it myself. The world you live in is not a fucking fantasy self centered magical Christmas land where every time you vote you get to vote for a candidate who represents your values and ideas perfectly. It's a shit hole of greed, power and corruption and your role in voting is more about who you DON'T elect than who you do.
Doubt Warren would take it when she's probably the leading candidate for the next Senate Majority Leader position. She can effect much more policy from that post, her own policy, and use that to push Clinton further to the left. At the same time as a VP she would vacate a senate seat that she is basically guaranteed until time immemorial if she wishes.
Clinton is likely going to pick a male minority with a strong policy base and one or two big calling cards to hang his hat on in the race. They'll do their best to find such a candidate from a swing state. Perez is a solid mention as they could get away with a VP who has never won elected office in an election against Trump and whomever his VP pick is.
Bingo.
Fucking yuuuuup.
The epitome of white male privilege here. Sure is nice to not have to worry about who wins in the end.
If the RNC does this every poltician should be worried because extreme racists are going to start shooting politicians they only disagree with on just how racist we should be as a nation. Not long until they realize there is an entire other side of the isle who isn't for their racist shit at all and re-calibrate their aim.
Some good discussion here, and not much to add in terms of the debate over voting, but just remember that a president is only as effective as the Senate and House will allow. People thought there was going to be a wave of progressive reforms when Obama was elected, and we all saw how that worked out.
If Bernie gets elected but has a GOP majority to contend with, none of his proposed reforms will get passed. Or they'll be gutted beyond recognition.
If Bernie gets elected but has a GOP majority to contend with, none of his proposed reforms will get passed. Or they'll be gutted beyond recognition.
- Status