I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
Who the hell is gary johnon? I've seen people screaming about him in youtube comments like he's the second coming but can't seem to recall ever hearing about him before... I wanna say august.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
Who the hell is gary johnon? I've seen people screaming about him in youtube comments like he's the second coming but can't seem to recall ever hearing about him before... I wanna say august.
He's the Libertarian Candidate. So a bunch of fools who think they've got everything figured but don't seem to understand what their candidate wants to do beyond a few points are endlessly devoted to him.
He recently did a fund raiser for a million dollars all of which was supposed to go to advertisement. He has spent 900 of it on actual ads.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
Who the hell is gary johnon? I've seen people screaming about him in youtube comments like he's the second coming but can't seem to recall ever hearing about him before... I wanna say august.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
Who the hell is gary johnon? I've seen people screaming about him in youtube comments like he's the second coming but can't seem to recall ever hearing about him before... I wanna say august.
He's the Libertarian Candidate. So a bunch of fools who think they've got everything figured but don't seem to understand what their candidate wants to do beyond a few points are endlessly devoted to him.
He recently did a fund raiser for a million dollars all of which was supposed to go to advertisement. He has spent 900 of it on actual ads.
Less than one in a thousand, if you phase out at zeros. If it took them just a month to get that money, and if they have only 6 people on the campaign, they probably spent more on lunch.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
I know a few.
I'm trying to explain to them as peacefully and calmly as I can that this election is not the time to be grandstanding and making your big noble stand against the two-party system and maybe do it when there's less at stake.
It's usually met with "Nope I'd rather just not vote then"
Great thanks good to know you care more about being smug on facebook than actually fucking trying.
You just need to learn mockery.
"Gary Johnson is too mainstream, I'm voting for Lyndon LaRouche."
Oh man the Larouchies are out by the metro station handing out literature all the time. Scary.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I heard from my Romney friends. They are newly energized and think Mitt has a real shot now. I wonder how much of that optimism is based on direct interactions with the campaign. . .
I heard from my Romney friends. They are newly energized and think Mitt has a real shot now. I wonder how much of that optimism is based on direct interactions with the campaign. . .
Are they energized because their opinion of Romney himself has improved, or just because they think he can win now?
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
Who the hell is gary johnon? I've seen people screaming about him in youtube comments like he's the second coming but can't seem to recall ever hearing about him before... I wanna say august.
Isnt he the mormon independant moderate?
Are you thinking of Huntsman? I don't think Johnson is mormon. Huntsman is "moderate" (well, less crazy, as I'd say) than most republicans and is also mormon, but he's not independent.
PSN: Drakieon XBL: Drakieon Steam: TheDrakeon
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I heard from my Romney friends. They are newly energized and think Mitt has a real shot now. I wonder how much of that optimism is based on direct interactions with the campaign. . .
Get back to us after Tuesday. Tell them last week was a preview of coming attractions.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
I know a few.
I'm trying to explain to them as peacefully and calmly as I can that this election is not the time to be grandstanding and making your big noble stand against the two-party system and maybe do it when there's less at stake.
It's usually met with "Nope I'd rather just not vote then"
Great thanks good to know you care more about being smug on facebook than actually fucking trying.
See, I disagree with this. The argument that "this is not the time" or that "there's too much at stake" is a bit reductive - every presidential election is important, to be sure. There's never a "good" time to do it, so carrying this out means that there's little room for this to change. And to belittle that stand because you don't agree with it is unhelpful.
I'm probably not voting Obama this year, though I campaigned, canvassed, phone banked, and the like for OFA in '08. I think he's leagues better than Romney, to be sure. But on a bunch of really important issues, he's really not done things I had hoped he'd do. Things like ending rendition, indefinite detention, and the huge expansion of the drone war is really unsettling to me. I think the regulation of the financial sector could've been much more effective - reinstitution of Glass-Steagall, for example. I think these are legitimate reasons to not want to vote for someone.
I'm also not voting for Gary Johnson, because, well, yeah. $900. And the fact that he was trying to get the Republican nom until he found it was too tough and went full Libertarian. But I am looking at Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. She's definitely got policy positions that I find better, but still researching.
Of course, the moral calculus for me is easy - I live in NY, so my vote for president is worth precisely dick. But I will still be voting - the downticket races are, if anything, more important.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
I know a few.
I'm trying to explain to them as peacefully and calmly as I can that this election is not the time to be grandstanding and making your big noble stand against the two-party system and maybe do it when there's less at stake.
It's usually met with "Nope I'd rather just not vote then"
Great thanks good to know you care more about being smug on facebook than actually fucking trying.
Like I said last thread, it's political masturbation. It's just about making yourself feel good and doesn't actually change anything.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
I know a few.
I'm trying to explain to them as peacefully and calmly as I can that this election is not the time to be grandstanding and making your big noble stand against the two-party system and maybe do it when there's less at stake.
It's usually met with "Nope I'd rather just not vote then"
Great thanks good to know you care more about being smug on facebook than actually fucking trying.
See, I disagree with this. The argument that "this is not the time" or that "there's too much at stake" is a bit reductive - every presidential election is important, to be sure. There's never a "good" time to do it, so carrying this out means that there's little room for this to change. And to belittle that stand because you don't agree with it is unhelpful.
I'm probably not voting Obama this year, though I campaigned, canvassed, phone banked, and the like for OFA in '08. I think he's leagues better than Romney, to be sure. But on a bunch of really important issues, he's really not done things I had hoped he'd do. Things like ending rendition, indefinite detention, and the huge expansion of the drone war is really unsettling to me. I think the regulation of the financial sector could've been much more effective - reinstitution of Glass-Steagall, for example. I think these are legitimate reasons to not want to vote for someone.
I'm also not voting for Gary Johnson, because, well, yeah. $900. And the fact that he was trying to get the Republican nom until he found it was too tough and went full Libertarian. But I am looking at Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. She's definitely got policy positions that I find better, but still researching.
Of course, the moral calculus for me is easy - I live in NY, so my vote for president is worth precisely dick. But I will still be voting - the downticket races are, if anything, more important.
your choices are Romney or Obama. you are saying Obama is a better choice, and then saying you're not voting for either of them. I don't get it.
Just to point out that any vote that is not Obama is a vote for Romney. Stay home, Gary Jonson, Jill Stein, draw dick pictures on the ballot: all are just as good as a Republican vote. You may happen to be doing it in a state where he's got no chance to win, but you're still voting Romney.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Even if you're not in a swing state it's important, because while the popular vote means dick, the administration gets a lot more pull if they have a mandate.
If it's a 49/49 split, the Republicans can continue to pretend that they have the backing of the American people in their shit.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
I know a few.
I'm trying to explain to them as peacefully and calmly as I can that this election is not the time to be grandstanding and making your big noble stand against the two-party system and maybe do it when there's less at stake.
It's usually met with "Nope I'd rather just not vote then"
Great thanks good to know you care more about being smug on facebook than actually fucking trying.
See, I disagree with this. The argument that "this is not the time" or that "there's too much at stake" is a bit reductive - every presidential election is important, to be sure. There's never a "good" time to do it, so carrying this out means that there's little room for this to change. And to belittle that stand because you don't agree with it is unhelpful.
I'm probably not voting Obama this year, though I campaigned, canvassed, phone banked, and the like for OFA in '08. I think he's leagues better than Romney, to be sure. But on a bunch of really important issues, he's really not done things I had hoped he'd do. Things like ending rendition, indefinite detention, and the huge expansion of the drone war is really unsettling to me. I think the regulation of the financial sector could've been much more effective - reinstitution of Glass-Steagall, for example. I think these are legitimate reasons to not want to vote for someone.
I'm also not voting for Gary Johnson, because, well, yeah. $900. And the fact that he was trying to get the Republican nom until he found it was too tough and went full Libertarian. But I am looking at Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. She's definitely got policy positions that I find better, but still researching.
Of course, the moral calculus for me is easy - I live in NY, so my vote for president is worth precisely dick. But I will still be voting - the downticket races are, if anything, more important.
That's a fair to not like Obama for those reasons, but if you are at the voting booth anyway why not just vote for him?
He is probably not going to lose NY but his share of the popular vote may matter in how much he can do if he gets elected.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
I know a few.
I'm trying to explain to them as peacefully and calmly as I can that this election is not the time to be grandstanding and making your big noble stand against the two-party system and maybe do it when there's less at stake.
It's usually met with "Nope I'd rather just not vote then"
Great thanks good to know you care more about being smug on facebook than actually fucking trying.
You just need to learn mockery.
"Gary Johnson is too mainstream, I'm voting for Lyndon LaRouche."
Oh man the Larouchies are out by the metro station handing out literature all the time. Scary.
I saw them at Rosslyn once. I would've gone over to fuck with them, but I couldn't remember who LaRouche was until I was already down the stairs.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
I know a few.
I'm trying to explain to them as peacefully and calmly as I can that this election is not the time to be grandstanding and making your big noble stand against the two-party system and maybe do it when there's less at stake.
It's usually met with "Nope I'd rather just not vote then"
Great thanks good to know you care more about being smug on facebook than actually fucking trying.
See, I disagree with this. The argument that "this is not the time" or that "there's too much at stake" is a bit reductive - every presidential election is important, to be sure. There's never a "good" time to do it, so carrying this out means that there's little room for this to change. And to belittle that stand because you don't agree with it is unhelpful.
I'm probably not voting Obama this year, though I campaigned, canvassed, phone banked, and the like for OFA in '08. I think he's leagues better than Romney, to be sure. But on a bunch of really important issues, he's really not done things I had hoped he'd do. Things like ending rendition, indefinite detention, and the huge expansion of the drone war is really unsettling to me. I think the regulation of the financial sector could've been much more effective - reinstitution of Glass-Steagall, for example. I think these are legitimate reasons to not want to vote for someone.
I'm also not voting for Gary Johnson, because, well, yeah. $900. And the fact that he was trying to get the Republican nom until he found it was too tough and went full Libertarian. But I am looking at Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. She's definitely got policy positions that I find better, but still researching.
Of course, the moral calculus for me is easy - I live in NY, so my vote for president is worth precisely dick. But I will still be voting - the downticket races are, if anything, more important.
Since you're in NY, I agree with you. I voted third party in 2008, when I lived in New York. But for people in swing states, there is a right time. The primaries. You can go for extremists like Paul or Kucinich or Johnson or whomever is active in your favored third party, and it won't make a great deal of difference. If you do it in the actual election, you're throwing your vote away.
Obama had his chance to represent me but expanding the illegal drone war and supporting NDAA, among other things, means I won't be voting for him again. He may be the better candidate, but I wouldn't vote for anyone that supported those things. Instead I'll vote for the liberal candidate who believes in better policies.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Obama had his chance to represent me but expanding the illegal drone war and supporting NDAA, among other things, means I won't be voting for him again. He may be the better candidate, but I wouldn't vote for anyone that supported those things. Instead I'll vote for the liberal candidate who believes in better policies.
Mitt Romney thanks you for your vote.
+14
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
Who the hell is gary johnon? I've seen people screaming about him in youtube comments like he's the second coming but can't seem to recall ever hearing about him before... I wanna say august.
he was a republican governor of new mexico who lost re-election when he decided he wanted to legalize heroin.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Obama had his chance to represent me but expanding the illegal drone war and supporting NDAA, among other things, means I won't be voting for him again. He may be the better candidate, but I wouldn't vote for anyone that supported those things. Instead I'll vote for the liberal candidate who believes in better policies.
Obama had his chance to represent me but expanding the illegal drone war and supporting NDAA, among other things, means I won't be voting for him again. He may be the better candidate, but I wouldn't vote for anyone that supported those things. Instead I'll vote for the liberal candidate who believes in better policies.
Mitt Romney thanks you for your vote.
At least he's more honest about being a warmonger with little respect for individual liberties.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Obama had his chance to represent me but expanding the illegal drone war and supporting NDAA, among other things, means I won't be voting for him again. He may be the better candidate, but I wouldn't vote for anyone that supported those things. Instead I'll vote for the liberal candidate who believes in better policies.
Mitt Romney thanks you for your vote.
At least he's more honest about being a warmonger with little respect for individual liberties.
And herein we find the brilliance of the third party position.
You know, if you're not voting for the candidate who best represents your beliefs and positions, you're kinda doing this whole representative democracy thing wrong.
+1
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Obama had his chance to represent me but expanding the illegal drone war and supporting NDAA, among other things, means I won't be voting for him again. He may be the better candidate, but I wouldn't vote for anyone that supported those things. Instead I'll vote for the liberal candidate who believes in better policies.
Mitt Romney thanks you for your vote.
At least he's more honest about being a warmonger with little respect for individual liberties.
uh he's actually more of a warmonger with less respect for individual liberties and is definitively less honest about both of these things, but i'm sure you know what you're doing.
Obama had his chance to represent me but expanding the illegal drone war and supporting NDAA, among other things, means I won't be voting for him again. He may be the better candidate, but I wouldn't vote for anyone that supported those things. Instead I'll vote for the liberal candidate who believes in better policies.
Mitt Romney thanks you for your vote.
At least he's more honest about being a warmonger with little respect for individual liberties.
the word honest cannot be used to describe the man, no
Did somebody just claim Mitt Romney was honest about something? At this point I don't think he could tell the truth even if it would benefit his campaign.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
I know a few.
I'm trying to explain to them as peacefully and calmly as I can that this election is not the time to be grandstanding and making your big noble stand against the two-party system and maybe do it when there's less at stake.
It's usually met with "Nope I'd rather just not vote then"
Great thanks good to know you care more about being smug on facebook than actually fucking trying.
You just need to learn mockery.
"Gary Johnson is too mainstream, I'm voting for Lyndon LaRouche."
Oh man the Larouchies are out by the metro station handing out literature all the time. Scary.
I saw them at Rosslyn once. I would've gone over to fuck with them, but I couldn't remember who LaRouche was until I was already down the stairs.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
I know a few.
I'm trying to explain to them as peacefully and calmly as I can that this election is not the time to be grandstanding and making your big noble stand against the two-party system and maybe do it when there's less at stake.
It's usually met with "Nope I'd rather just not vote then"
Great thanks good to know you care more about being smug on facebook than actually fucking trying.
See, I disagree with this. The argument that "this is not the time" or that "there's too much at stake" is a bit reductive - every presidential election is important, to be sure. There's never a "good" time to do it, so carrying this out means that there's little room for this to change. And to belittle that stand because you don't agree with it is unhelpful.
I'm probably not voting Obama this year, though I campaigned, canvassed, phone banked, and the like for OFA in '08. I think he's leagues better than Romney, to be sure. But on a bunch of really important issues, he's really not done things I had hoped he'd do. Things like ending rendition, indefinite detention, and the huge expansion of the drone war is really unsettling to me. I think the regulation of the financial sector could've been much more effective - reinstitution of Glass-Steagall, for example. I think these are legitimate reasons to not want to vote for someone.
I'm also not voting for Gary Johnson, because, well, yeah. $900. And the fact that he was trying to get the Republican nom until he found it was too tough and went full Libertarian. But I am looking at Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. She's definitely got policy positions that I find better, but still researching.
Of course, the moral calculus for me is easy - I live in NY, so my vote for president is worth precisely dick. But I will still be voting - the downticket races are, if anything, more important.
Since you're in NY, I agree with you. I voted third party in 2008, when I lived in New York. But for people in swing states, there is a right time. The primaries. You can go for extremists like Paul or Kucinich or Johnson or whomever is active in your favored third party, and it won't make a great deal of difference. If you do it in the actual election, you're throwing your vote away.
Granted that you can definitely vote in the primaries, and that the moral calculus is a bit more muddled in swing states (I would likely vote Obama were I in Ohio or the like). But if my party nominates someone I can't stand - say I'm a moderate Republican and the party nominates an ultra-conservative whose positions I can't abide - what's the call there?
There was a thing back in '04, I believe, called the Nader Trader, when Nader, worried about being a spoiler, set up a site where people could "trade" votes. So those who wanted to support his candidacy in swing states voted for Kerry by trading with someone in a more solidly red or blue state. Kind of a win all around - the third party got recognition and ballot support, and the "better" choice would not be impacted in swing states.
And as to arguments that I should vote because a better popular vote total will give a bigger "mandate", yeah, I don't see any evidence of that. Obama won a 7 point victory, but the congressional balance was more important to getting the ACA and the stimulus out. I'm open to evidence, haven't seen any of that.
EDIT: And also, I doubt even a landslide victory would deter the current Republican obstructionism. If Obama wins by double digits in the popular vote, Republicans will still obstruct and claim the populist high ground.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
I know a few.
I'm trying to explain to them as peacefully and calmly as I can that this election is not the time to be grandstanding and making your big noble stand against the two-party system and maybe do it when there's less at stake.
It's usually met with "Nope I'd rather just not vote then"
Great thanks good to know you care more about being smug on facebook than actually fucking trying.
You just need to learn mockery.
"Gary Johnson is too mainstream, I'm voting for Lyndon LaRouche."
Oh man the Larouchies are out by the metro station handing out literature all the time. Scary.
I saw them at Rosslyn once. I would've gone over to fuck with them, but I couldn't remember who LaRouche was until I was already down the stairs.
I met someone this weekend who is planning on voting for Gary Johnson. Blew my mind.
I know a few.
I'm trying to explain to them as peacefully and calmly as I can that this election is not the time to be grandstanding and making your big noble stand against the two-party system and maybe do it when there's less at stake.
It's usually met with "Nope I'd rather just not vote then"
Great thanks good to know you care more about being smug on facebook than actually fucking trying.
See, I disagree with this. The argument that "this is not the time" or that "there's too much at stake" is a bit reductive - every presidential election is important, to be sure. There's never a "good" time to do it, so carrying this out means that there's little room for this to change. And to belittle that stand because you don't agree with it is unhelpful.
I'm probably not voting Obama this year, though I campaigned, canvassed, phone banked, and the like for OFA in '08. I think he's leagues better than Romney, to be sure. But on a bunch of really important issues, he's really not done things I had hoped he'd do. Things like ending rendition, indefinite detention, and the huge expansion of the drone war is really unsettling to me. I think the regulation of the financial sector could've been much more effective - reinstitution of Glass-Steagall, for example. I think these are legitimate reasons to not want to vote for someone.
I'm also not voting for Gary Johnson, because, well, yeah. $900. And the fact that he was trying to get the Republican nom until he found it was too tough and went full Libertarian. But I am looking at Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. She's definitely got policy positions that I find better, but still researching.
Of course, the moral calculus for me is easy - I live in NY, so my vote for president is worth precisely dick. But I will still be voting - the downticket races are, if anything, more important.
Since you're in NY, I agree with you. I voted third party in 2008, when I lived in New York. But for people in swing states, there is a right time. The primaries. You can go for extremists like Paul or Kucinich or Johnson or whomever is active in your favored third party, and it won't make a great deal of difference. If you do it in the actual election, you're throwing your vote away.
Granted that you can definitely vote in the primaries, and that the moral calculus is a bit more muddled in swing states (I would likely vote Obama were I in Ohio or the like). But if my party nominates someone I can't stand - say I'm a moderate Republican and the party nominates an ultra-conservative whose positions I can't abide - what's the call there?
There was a thing back in '04, I believe, called the Nader Trader, when Nader, worried about being a spoiler, set up a site where people could "trade" votes. So those who wanted to support his candidacy in swing states voted for Kerry by trading with someone in a more solidly red or blue state. Kind of a win all around - the third party got recognition and ballot support, and the "better" choice would not be impacted in swing states.
And as to arguments that I should vote because a better popular vote total will give a bigger "mandate", yeah, I don't see any evidence of that. Obama won a 7 point victory, but the congressional balance was more important to getting the ACA and the stimulus out. I'm open to evidence, haven't seen any of that.
EDIT: And also, I doubt even a landslide victory would deter the current Republican obstructionism. If Obama wins by double digits in the popular vote, Republicans will still obstruct and claim the populist high ground.
Unless we get to a point where there is a realistic third party candidate, the choice is between two candidates. Last time that happened was, what, Teddy Roosevelt in 1912? If you are a moderate Republican, and your choice is between a moderate Democrat and a far right Republican, then your choice is still between those candidates. If you believe that your party's candidate is really that horrible, that's the time to switch sides. I know several Republicans here have made that choice (I think AManFromEarth is like that). You might dislike both candidates, but it's still your duty to vote for the lesser of two evils.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Yup, registered Republican.
Of course I picked that one because 1.) Florida and 2.) Lincoln, TR, and Ike.
Obama had his chance to represent me but expanding the illegal drone war and supporting NDAA, among other things, means I won't be voting for him again. He may be the better candidate, but I wouldn't vote for anyone that supported those things. Instead I'll vote for the liberal candidate who believes in better policies.
Mitt Romney thanks you for your vote.
At least he's more honest about being a warmonger with little respect for individual liberties.
Ahh yes, because the important thing is that the guy fucking you over is honest about it.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Obama had his chance to represent me but expanding the illegal drone war and supporting NDAA, among other things, means I won't be voting for him again. He may be the better candidate, but I wouldn't vote for anyone that supported those things. Instead I'll vote for the liberal candidate who believes in better policies.
Mitt Romney thanks you for your vote.
At least he's more honest about being a warmonger with little respect for individual liberties.
Ahh yes, because the important thing is that the guy fucking you over is honest about it.
it would be a stupid argument even if it were true.
Obama had his chance to represent me but expanding the illegal drone war and supporting NDAA, among other things, means I won't be voting for him again. He may be the better candidate, but I wouldn't vote for anyone that supported those things. Instead I'll vote for the liberal candidate who believes in better policies.
Mitt Romney thanks you for your vote.
At least he's more honest about being a warmonger with little respect for individual liberties.
You know what the end goal of voting is suppose to be? Voting for the mainstream candidate which you think would be the best president. That's it. Voting for anyone else doesn't show anyone anything. It doesn't absolve you of anything. It's throwing your vote away, and by extension voting against your own interest. It's even worse than not voting at all, because you actually took the time to vote against your own interest, while apathy takes nothing.
Your choices on who you can vote for are decided before the election. If you want different candidates, you have to be more involved in the decision making process. Complaining about it after the fact is silly.
Since you're in NY, I agree with you. I voted third party in 2008, when I lived in New York. But for people in swing states, there is a right time. The primaries. You can go for extremists like Paul or Kucinich or Johnson or whomever is active in your favored third party, and it won't make a great deal of difference. If you do it in the actual election, you're throwing your vote away.
Granted that you can definitely vote in the primaries, and that the moral calculus is a bit more muddled in swing states (I would likely vote Obama were I in Ohio or the like). But if my party nominates someone I can't stand - say I'm a moderate Republican and the party nominates an ultra-conservative whose positions I can't abide - what's the call there?
There was a thing back in '04, I believe, called the Nader Trader, when Nader, worried about being a spoiler, set up a site where people could "trade" votes. So those who wanted to support his candidacy in swing states voted for Kerry by trading with someone in a more solidly red or blue state. Kind of a win all around - the third party got recognition and ballot support, and the "better" choice would not be impacted in swing states.
And as to arguments that I should vote because a better popular vote total will give a bigger "mandate", yeah, I don't see any evidence of that. Obama won a 7 point victory, but the congressional balance was more important to getting the ACA and the stimulus out. I'm open to evidence, haven't seen any of that.
EDIT: And also, I doubt even a landslide victory would deter the current Republican obstructionism. If Obama wins by double digits in the popular vote, Republicans will still obstruct and claim the populist high ground.
Unless we get to a point where there is a realistic third party candidate, the choice is between two candidates. Last time that happened was, what, Teddy Roosevelt in 1912? If you are a moderate Republican, and your choice is between a moderate Democrat and a far right Republican, then your choice is still between those candidates. If you believe that your party's candidate is really that horrible, that's the time to switch sides. I know several Republicans here have made that choice (I think AManFromEarth is like that). You might dislike both candidates, but it's still your duty to vote for the lesser of two evils.
That first sentence is the rub, and what makes it kind of a catch-22. You shouldn't vote for a third party until they've got a realistic shot at winning, but in order for them to have a realistic shot, you've got to vote for them.
Everyone points to TR, but there's been a lot of big third parties. Historically, third parties come out of regional concerns or due to a deficiency in the existing party platforms. The latter is how the Progressive (bull moose) party came out, and it's why Ross Perot got traction in '92. I know Perot's more of a punchline these days, but gotta remember - dude pulled nearly 20% of the nationwide vote in a national election for president. And let's not forget George Wallace - more a regional thing, being pro-segregation and all, he won 5 entire states in 1968. He was a dick, but his policies were less important than the idea that he made a pretty significant dent in presidentialpolitics.
I get some people are in "safe*" states, but let's be honest the biggest problem with a the third parties is that they don't make an attempt build up an actual power base or are they just trying to skip all that and win the Presidency. My personnel opinion is, a party isn't worth your vote if they can't be bothered to run in the lower ticket races.
See, I disagree with this. The argument that "this is not the time" or that "there's too much at stake" is a bit reductive - every presidential election is important, to be sure. There's never a "good" time to do it, so carrying this out means that there's little room for this to change. And to belittle that stand because you don't agree with it is unhelpful.
I'm probably not voting Obama this year, though I campaigned, canvassed, phone banked, and the like for OFA in '08. I think he's leagues better than Romney, to be sure. But on a bunch of really important issues, he's really not done things I had hoped he'd do. Things like ending rendition, indefinite detention, and the huge expansion of the drone war is really unsettling to me. I think the regulation of the financial sector could've been much more effective - reinstitution of Glass-Steagall, for example. I think these are legitimate reasons to not want to vote for someone.
I'm also not voting for Gary Johnson, because, well, yeah. $900. And the fact that he was trying to get the Republican nom until he found it was too tough and went full Libertarian. But I am looking at Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. She's definitely got policy positions that I find better, but still researching.
Of course, the moral calculus for me is easy - I live in NY, so my vote for president is worth precisely dick. But I will still be voting - the downticket races are, if anything, more important.
I have no problem with people voting for third party candidates in theory. My only problem is when they pick someone who would be absolutely horrible for the sake of a protest vote.
Jill Stein makes a far better protest vote than Gary Johnson. She pretty much has all of Johnson's good views, without having the terrible economic policy.
OTOH, Jill Stein simply isn't qualified to be president. I could imagine Nader being president, because he actually knows how the system works, and has actually managed to get stuff done. But let's look at Jill Stein:
Jill Stein (born May 14, 1950) is an American physician and the nominee of the Green Party for President of the United States in the 2012 election.[1][2][3] Stein was a candidate for Governor of Massachusetts in the 2002 and the 2010 gubernatorial elections.[4][5][6] Stein is a resident of Lexington, Massachusetts. She is a graduate of Harvard College (1973) and the Harvard Medical School (1979).[7][8][9] She serves on the boards of Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility and MassVoters for Fair Elections, and has been active with the Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities.[10]
Now that we live in a post-Nader society, the idea of ever finding a qualified person to run as a third party candidate is next to zero. Anyone smart enough to actually serve as president is also probably smart enough to realize that he or she doesn't want to be a spoiler.
Posts
Who the hell is gary johnon? I've seen people screaming about him in youtube comments like he's the second coming but can't seem to recall ever hearing about him before... I wanna say august.
He's the Libertarian Candidate. So a bunch of fools who think they've got everything figured but don't seem to understand what their candidate wants to do beyond a few points are endlessly devoted to him.
He recently did a fund raiser for a million dollars all of which was supposed to go to advertisement. He has spent 900 of it on actual ads.
Isnt he the mormon independant moderate?
Less than one in a thousand, if you phase out at zeros. If it took them just a month to get that money, and if they have only 6 people on the campaign, they probably spent more on lunch.
Oh man the Larouchies are out by the metro station handing out literature all the time. Scary.
Are you thinking of Huntsman? I don't think Johnson is mormon. Huntsman is "moderate" (well, less crazy, as I'd say) than most republicans and is also mormon, but he's not independent.
Get back to us after Tuesday. Tell them last week was a preview of coming attractions.
See, I disagree with this. The argument that "this is not the time" or that "there's too much at stake" is a bit reductive - every presidential election is important, to be sure. There's never a "good" time to do it, so carrying this out means that there's little room for this to change. And to belittle that stand because you don't agree with it is unhelpful.
I'm probably not voting Obama this year, though I campaigned, canvassed, phone banked, and the like for OFA in '08. I think he's leagues better than Romney, to be sure. But on a bunch of really important issues, he's really not done things I had hoped he'd do. Things like ending rendition, indefinite detention, and the huge expansion of the drone war is really unsettling to me. I think the regulation of the financial sector could've been much more effective - reinstitution of Glass-Steagall, for example. I think these are legitimate reasons to not want to vote for someone.
I'm also not voting for Gary Johnson, because, well, yeah. $900. And the fact that he was trying to get the Republican nom until he found it was too tough and went full Libertarian. But I am looking at Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. She's definitely got policy positions that I find better, but still researching.
Of course, the moral calculus for me is easy - I live in NY, so my vote for president is worth precisely dick. But I will still be voting - the downticket races are, if anything, more important.
Like I said last thread, it's political masturbation. It's just about making yourself feel good and doesn't actually change anything.
your choices are Romney or Obama. you are saying Obama is a better choice, and then saying you're not voting for either of them. I don't get it.
If it's a 49/49 split, the Republicans can continue to pretend that they have the backing of the American people in their shit.
That's a fair to not like Obama for those reasons, but if you are at the voting booth anyway why not just vote for him?
He is probably not going to lose NY but his share of the popular vote may matter in how much he can do if he gets elected.
I saw them at Rosslyn once. I would've gone over to fuck with them, but I couldn't remember who LaRouche was until I was already down the stairs.
Since you're in NY, I agree with you. I voted third party in 2008, when I lived in New York. But for people in swing states, there is a right time. The primaries. You can go for extremists like Paul or Kucinich or Johnson or whomever is active in your favored third party, and it won't make a great deal of difference. If you do it in the actual election, you're throwing your vote away.
Mitt Romney thanks you for your vote.
he was a republican governor of new mexico who lost re-election when he decided he wanted to legalize heroin.
uh would that be Jill Stein?
At least he's more honest about being a warmonger with little respect for individual liberties.
And herein we find the brilliance of the third party position.
You know, if you're not voting for the candidate who best represents your beliefs and positions, you're kinda doing this whole representative democracy thing wrong.
uh he's actually more of a warmonger with less respect for individual liberties and is definitively less honest about both of these things, but i'm sure you know what you're doing.
the word honest cannot be used to describe the man, no
what if you're an artiste, sig, and the ballot is your canvas?
o imagine the worlds we could make. vanilla is now illegal and chocolate is mandatory!
jill stein is president and the middle east is now pillow-topia!
Granted that you can definitely vote in the primaries, and that the moral calculus is a bit more muddled in swing states (I would likely vote Obama were I in Ohio or the like). But if my party nominates someone I can't stand - say I'm a moderate Republican and the party nominates an ultra-conservative whose positions I can't abide - what's the call there?
There was a thing back in '04, I believe, called the Nader Trader, when Nader, worried about being a spoiler, set up a site where people could "trade" votes. So those who wanted to support his candidacy in swing states voted for Kerry by trading with someone in a more solidly red or blue state. Kind of a win all around - the third party got recognition and ballot support, and the "better" choice would not be impacted in swing states.
And as to arguments that I should vote because a better popular vote total will give a bigger "mandate", yeah, I don't see any evidence of that. Obama won a 7 point victory, but the congressional balance was more important to getting the ACA and the stimulus out. I'm open to evidence, haven't seen any of that.
EDIT: And also, I doubt even a landslide victory would deter the current Republican obstructionism. If Obama wins by double digits in the popular vote, Republicans will still obstruct and claim the populist high ground.
Unless we get to a point where there is a realistic third party candidate, the choice is between two candidates. Last time that happened was, what, Teddy Roosevelt in 1912? If you are a moderate Republican, and your choice is between a moderate Democrat and a far right Republican, then your choice is still between those candidates. If you believe that your party's candidate is really that horrible, that's the time to switch sides. I know several Republicans here have made that choice (I think AManFromEarth is like that). You might dislike both candidates, but it's still your duty to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Of course I picked that one because 1.) Florida and 2.) Lincoln, TR, and Ike.
Stupid crazification.
Ahh yes, because the important thing is that the guy fucking you over is honest about it.
it would be a stupid argument even if it were true.
You know what the end goal of voting is suppose to be? Voting for the mainstream candidate which you think would be the best president. That's it. Voting for anyone else doesn't show anyone anything. It doesn't absolve you of anything. It's throwing your vote away, and by extension voting against your own interest. It's even worse than not voting at all, because you actually took the time to vote against your own interest, while apathy takes nothing.
Your choices on who you can vote for are decided before the election. If you want different candidates, you have to be more involved in the decision making process. Complaining about it after the fact is silly.
That first sentence is the rub, and what makes it kind of a catch-22. You shouldn't vote for a third party until they've got a realistic shot at winning, but in order for them to have a realistic shot, you've got to vote for them.
Everyone points to TR, but there's been a lot of big third parties. Historically, third parties come out of regional concerns or due to a deficiency in the existing party platforms. The latter is how the Progressive (bull moose) party came out, and it's why Ross Perot got traction in '92. I know Perot's more of a punchline these days, but gotta remember - dude pulled nearly 20% of the nationwide vote in a national election for president. And let's not forget George Wallace - more a regional thing, being pro-segregation and all, he won 5 entire states in 1968. He was a dick, but his policies were less important than the idea that he made a pretty significant dent in presidentialpolitics.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
I have no problem with people voting for third party candidates in theory. My only problem is when they pick someone who would be absolutely horrible for the sake of a protest vote.
Jill Stein makes a far better protest vote than Gary Johnson. She pretty much has all of Johnson's good views, without having the terrible economic policy.
OTOH, Jill Stein simply isn't qualified to be president. I could imagine Nader being president, because he actually knows how the system works, and has actually managed to get stuff done. But let's look at Jill Stein:
Now that we live in a post-Nader society, the idea of ever finding a qualified person to run as a third party candidate is next to zero. Anyone smart enough to actually serve as president is also probably smart enough to realize that he or she doesn't want to be a spoiler.