Obama Wins 303 : 206

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

I don't know where you get off saying Obama's not fiscally conservative, I really don't.

You can't see that neither party is?

Wow. Just wow.

[Taskmage]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

No, you should just stay home, because you don't seem to understand how the fucking political process actually works. Amazingly, shit is complicated. Get out there and help to make it a reality for a third party to actually have a chance at winning an office. ANY OFFICE. And then, THEN aim for the big job. I mean seriously. You're smarter than that.

Obama's not perfect. I've never said he was. But I'm pragmatic. I know what my options are. I also know how our three branches of government work, and I know what the President's powers actually are. And I know what Obama has done. Gary Johnson though? A fucking charlatan.

Did you miss the part where Gary Johnson was a two-term governor of New Mexico? Were you even aware of that? Because that's "AN OFFICE." That means two things. He did a good enough job that they reelected him as a Republican in a blue state, and he's got eight more years more executive experience than Obama did when he started office. But by your twisted logic, that eight years he spent in an elected office was some kind of confidence ploy to trick us into thinking he's a competent executive so he can go be a crazy person in a national office. That is the kind of delusional, tinfoil-hat kind of bullshit that Fox News levels at Obama. And don't even try to tell me I'm putting words in your mouth because what I just said is the fucking definition of a charlatan or a snake oil salesman.

Did you know, since you're so much more educated about how our political process works, that if a third party candidate pulls 5% of the popular vote, that qualifies the party for public campaign funding in the next election? Did you know that raising $5000 in 20 states is the requirement for receiving federal matching funds in the primary? So these things that you're giving us shit about doing are the exact things that need to be done to start earning parity for our chosen party so that they can stand up to the monolithic structures that are already in place. Parties which are so corrupt that they script the results of their own national conventions before even hearing the votes of their electors, and, in the case of the Republican party where Libertarian values have the most support, change their bylaws on the fly to allow them to forcibly unseat electors who do not tow the party line. So yeah. I know how our system works. It doesn't, and I'll be damned if I waste my vote supporting these fucked up institutions that actively refuse to represent me and my beliefs. Voting for a candidate who you think sucks because you don't think your guy will win is worse than wasting your vote. It's voting against your interests.

On a different note, what the fuck is wrong with you? We have had two months of amazingly respectful disagreement and exchange of ideas about political issues up in this place, and then you come back from outer space and start talking shit about third party supporters like you're some kind of licensed authority on what constitutes a valid political opinion. Spoiler: You are not.

[Icemage]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

Re: Whether or not voting 3rd party is a throw-away vote

The answer to this is that everyone is right, depending on how you look at the situation.

From a political convictions standpoint, voting for the candidate you agree with most is absolutely the correct way to do it.

On the other hand, from a game theory standpoint, it's not a good choice because you become, in effect, the kingmaker. Whichever candidate "would" have otherwise gotten your vote due to pragmatism has effectively lost a vote because of your decision.

BOTH views are simultaneously correct. The only question becomes which outcome is more important to you; that you vote your conscience, or that you pick the most practical choice (even at the possible expense of an even less desirable winner).

Also:

/moderator hat on - hi guys, I'm back!

Might want to tone down the profanity, guys. We can discuss this without the mudslinging and tempers.


Icemage

[Taskmage]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

I can understand making the pragmatic vote if you're in a swing state. I know cid voted Obama even though his views align more closely with Stein because Virginia was such a close race, and that's perfectly reasonable. But for someone who lives in Texas, California, or Illinois, which are in one party's favor by a huge margin, voting for the lesser of two evils is nothing but a vote for evil.

[Icemage]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

If you live safely in a state that did not have its final outcome at all in doubt, then yes, the kingmaker problem dissipates because your vote will not change the election result.

Speaking as someone who lives in Florida, I did not have that luxury. Even now, my home state is STILL uncalled by the press.

If you dig down deeper and look at the (not-quite-finalized) results:

2012 Florida Election Watch

The current difference in votes with nearly all votes counted is:

Democrat (Obama) 4,161,864
Republican (Romney) 4,110,272

Difference of 51,592 votes.

But look where the third party votes are:

Libertarian (Johnson) 43,950
Green (Stein) 8,769
Peace and Freedom (Rosanne Barr - wtf) 8,036

...plus several more thousand votes.

If the majority of those votes would have aligned with Romney (not necessarily the case, but we're talking about plausible possibilities here), then the outcome would have changed.


Icemage

[Taskmage]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

More's the benefit, in that case! If the Republican party lost enough votes to those Libertarians to actually lose them a state, that's a push in the direction of them shaping up and becoming a respectable party. Meanwhile, in this case, the less objectionable candidate reaps the electors. So it's a double win for me. Of course, odds are those Green Party votes weren't going toward Romney in the first place, and Libertarians break down more evenly than you'd expect across the battle line when it comes down to Reps vs Dems. So it's a bit of a wash.

[Icemage]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

More's the benefit, in that case! If the Republican party lost enough votes to those Libertarians to actually lose them a state, that's a push in the direction of them shaping up and becoming a respectable party. Meanwhile, in this case, the less objectionable candidate reaps the electors. So it's a double win for me. Of course, odds are those Green Party votes weren't going toward Romney in the first place, and Libertarians break down more evenly than you'd expect across the battle line when it comes down to Reps vs Dems. So it's a bit of a wash.

There's a problem with your reasoning, and the reason is this:

The modern base of the GOP isn't interested in analysis. They hold the Bible and their guns on a pedestal, and openly disdain science, math, statistics, and logic. If you don't think this is true, look at the absolute shock with which nearly every Republican pundit - even the reasonable ones! - missed their election projections by. Peggy Noonan, Michael Barone, Joe Scarborough... these are not your typical wingnut pundits. They're "mainstream", and virtually all of them ignored the polling data that showed Obama winning in 8 out of 9 battleground states (FL, OH, NH, MI, WI, PA, IA, NV, CO vs. NC for Romney).

Expecting the rank-and-file people in the GOP to make the connection of "we might have just lost an entire state worth 29 electoral votes" with "oh yeah we kicked out all the fiscally conservative libertarians in our party" is a bit of a stretch under those circumstances, don't you think?


Icemage

[Taskmage]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

I don't disagree with a word of that, but if the Republican party does continue down the rabbit hole as expected, that just underscores the need for third parties to get more attention and power, and yes the increased scrutiny and accountability that come along with those things.

If there is any chance they can change, and again it's a possibility I don't hold a lot of hope for, then we should be sending them every signal we can that change is necessary, and defecting to third parties is a pointed and measurable way of doing so.

[Icemage]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

What we're seeing right now is a watershed moment in American history. The two-party system is at a crossroads, because for the first time in several decades, one of the two major parties is in serious trouble.

The GOP and Democrats have waxed and waned over the past century, each time finding new equilibrium by changing their focus. The problem the GOP has now is that their remaining coalition of factions can barely stand one another because they've alienated so many moderates. We had a discussion a while back about who exactly makes up the Republican Party these days, but their problem lies in demographics. Minorities are now almost 30% of the electorate, and Obama won the minority vote by over 75%. Women are 55% of the electorate, and Obama won 53% of them.

The GOP can't easily reach out and include minorities (who make up over 1/4 of the electorate now) because there's a chunk of their party that is overtly racist. Bringing minorities into their party means they will have to jettison this faction, which doesn't help their numbers as much as it otherwise might. It'd be the right thing to do, but one can at least understand the reluctance on an intellectual level. Bringing in the majority of women is impossible because of the abortion issue.

If you're a third party supporter and want the two-party system to go away, the best thing to hope for is that the GOP never takes this step and disintegrates due to their own intransigence over the next decade or so. Without a major enemy to oppose them, the Democrats will probably score some easier victories for a short while, until the lack of a unifying enemy causes their own coalition to fall apart (but that's making something of an assumption - it's also plausible that in such a scenario, the Democrats become the only major party and stay that way for a while, much like how Microsoft managed to dominate the PC software landscape for two decades).


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

Expecting the rank-and-file people in the GOP to make the connection of "we might have just lost an entire state worth 29 electoral votes" with "oh yeah we kicked out all the fiscally conservative libertarians in our party" is a bit of a stretch under those circumstances, don't you think?

That's not really why they lost, though.

- They alienated the Latino vote, which is the opposite of the appeals Regan and Bush Jr. made
- They would have continued the drug war that grossly expanded under Obama.
- They can't keep their noses out of other people's bedrooms.
- Oh, and rape is apparently God's will. I'd like to know where that is in the Bible.

Accountability on fiscal conservatism would be nice, but that's not why Republicans lost.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

I like to believe they lost because they're stuck in a previous century, although I couldn't tell you which one.

[Icemage]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

That's not really why they lost, though.

- They alienated the Latino vote, which is the opposite of the appeals Regan and Bush Jr. made
- They would have continued the drug war that grossly expanded under Obama.
- They can't keep their noses out of other people's bedrooms.
- Oh, and rape is apparently God's will. I'd like to know where that is in the Bible.

Accountability on fiscal conservatism would be nice, but that's not why Republicans lost.

You can't really pin any one reason down for "why Romney lost", and that's precisely why I take issue with the sentiment that any of them will bother to notice that Gary Johnson garnered a hefty chunk of votes in some very critical states. To the GOP at large, they think that their problems have to do with "not being conservative enough" or "not packaging their message properly" or "terrible candidates". They won't pin the cause on "we no longer have a moderate wing in our party" - not even in part, which is something the GOP really, REALLY needs to address if they want to avoid extinction in the next two decades.

The truth, sadly for them, is that it's not about enthusiasm or wording. It's that their message now only speaks to a large but shrinking minority of the electorate.


Icemage

[Taskmage]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

It's all true to one degree or another. Quibbling over which ways they are bad are the ways in which they are the worst is rather splitting hairs. Suffice to say they're pretty awful.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206

The whole "message" issue isn't a symptom of one party or another, but the symptom of an entire generation. When us younger adults shoot down their outdated ideas we just don't "understand" them, we're "rebelling against our upbringing" and they think they have to try harder.

It might not change Pelosi, McCain or others past 65 and 70, but those people in politics in their 30s, 40s and 50s are the ones that need to do some soul searching if they want a political future. Note the GOP-supporters were not totally gung-ho on their social issues in attack ads. They tended to stick to the economy pretty rigidly, its the convention and public statements that got them in trouble.

Baby boomer politicians tend to still think their world is a little bubble that we can't listen in on, but that's just not the case in the era of social media and smartphones - everything will be scrutinized. Other facets of the Republican platform got exposed. If they think some wordsmithing around social issues and rebranding is all it takes to win people back they are in for a rude awakening.

[Jarre]

Re: Obama Wins 303 : 206



and it is the same as the Conservative government in the UK that this relates to.