USA Politics

LooseCannon said:
I wholeheartedly agree. She does have a bevy of far more popular surrogates surrounding her, though. If anything can do it, that can. The Obamas, Bill, Elizabeth Warren, etc can do that. Whether or not it will work it will depend on how many unforced errors Hillary makes - and it will depend a lot on what Trump does too. If Trump does something like insult her for being a woman at a debate, that will really hurt him, for example.


Maybe it's because I come from a Parliamentary system, but I think this is bullshit. When you are deciding on who to vote for, you can also decide on who to vote against. And my reason to vote against someone is just as valid as Carey's choice to vote for someone. He's right, you have to get the votes, but dismissing the concept that voting for a helpless candidate is assisting a far more vulgar candidate...that's silly and it's not very clever, either. It's just as valid.
Click to expand...

His point, which is valid, is ignore the "you are tossing the election to one of these two morons and you must vote the lesser of two evils" vote for who you like. Maybe it does toss this election one way or another, but it signals both parties that they need to change to keep attracting voters. Much like Perot put a focus of the defecit
 
bearfan said:
His point, which is valid, is ignore the "you are tossing the election to one of these two morons and you must vote the lesser of two evils" vote for who you like.
Click to expand...
The problem is that it's a valid argument - even if Carey doesn't like it. People can vote their conscience, yes. But for some people, the conscience means trying to help the lesser of two evils win, too. It's just as valid as anything else.

That being said, this promises to be a good election for the Libertarians.
 
They are both valid ... again you do not have to vote lesser of two evils. You can go Libertarian .. you can go Green. I think Stein is a huge hack, but the Libertarian's put together a very credible ticket with 2 ex governors ... one from a blueish purple state and one from a very blue state
 
LooseCannon said:
But for some people, the conscience means trying to help the lesser of two evils win, too. It's just as valid as anything else.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is playing into the two party system, isn't it? And living in a parliamentary system, as you do, we elect an MP never a PM. So who you chose on the ballot paper surely must be who you want to serve you in the HoC's.
 
bearfan said:
I think Stein is a huge hack, but the Libertarian's put together a very credible ticket with 2 ex governors ... one from a blueish purple state and one from a very blue state
Click to expand...
Probably, but if you live in a place like Ohio, it could matter. I think if you live in Alaska or Massachusetts or Vermont or Texas and vote for whoever, sure. If you live in Ohio or Virginia or North Carolina, you have to add in the very real possibility that your state might swing towards the person you really don't want to be president if you don't help stem the tide.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't vote for whoever they want. I'm simply saying that who they want to vote for may be influenced by other concepts rather than which candidate suits me the best politically. And that choices made on who to vote for based on those influences are equally as valid as those made excluding those influences.

Albie said:
The problem with that is playing into the two party system, isn't it? And living in a parliamentary system, as you do, we elect an MP never a PM. So who you chose on the ballot paper surely must be who you want to serve you in the HoC's.
Click to expand...
I have lived a long while with the Anyone But Conservative philosophy, voting for the candidate that has had the best statistical chance of defeating the Conservative in my riding. This was entirely due to my desire to deny the Conservatives a government, and thus, a Prime Minister. In Canada there are three left-wing parties, the Greens, NDP, and Liberals, and one right wing party, the Conservatives. Canada is a very progressive nation, and vote splitting on the left is usually the reason why the Conservatives get to form government. But yeah, to me, it is most important to avoid a Conservative government, and which of the opposing parties actually do form government is far far less important to me.

So no, I don't really vote based on who is going to go to the House. They won't get to do anything anyway. Maybe if it was a statistical tie between a NDP and Liberal candidate, and the Conservative was down and out, I would consider their personal attributes. But parties are whipped rather strictly in Canada, and as a result, they're nothing more or less than a vote in favour or against the current PM's policies.

A caveat - I would be very, very concerned with voting for a candidate who was strongly against abortion or gay marriage. It's highly unlikely this will happen, as all three of the progressive parties have made support for these issues mandatory, with Trudeau making abortion support mandatory in the run up to the most recent election. But these issues are decided on using Private Members Bills, and as a result, less whipping occurs.
 
LooseCannon said:
I have lived a long while with the Anyone But Conservative philosophy
Click to expand...
We have that here - but it does not work. We seem to get more Toy Govts than any other. My problem is that I'm not keen on Tory Govts, but neither am I with Labour Govts.


LooseCannon said:
caveat - I would be very, very concerned with voting for a candidate who was strongly against abortion or gay marriage.
Click to expand...
Is gay marriage not already legal in Canada? This is what I would so agree with - it's de-regulation of marriage.
 
Albie said:
We have that here - but it does not work. We seem to get more Toy Govts than any other. My problem is that I'm not keen on Tory Govts, but neither am I with Labour Govts.
Click to expand...
Works in Canada, at least it worked in 2015.

Albie said:
Is gay marriage not already legal in Canada? This is what I would so agree with - it's de-regulation of marriage.
Click to expand...
That's really a falsehood to say, though. Canada was the second country in the world to legalize gay marriage (thankfully) and it's been over 10 years now of equal marriage. But it wasn't really a de-regulation so much as it was a question of civil rights. It would be very difficult to change in Canada (given that the Supreme Court has given an en blanc opinion that marriage is a human right and covered under our Charter), but still people campaign to get rid of it. I am not worried about it happening - but I would not want to give my vote to someone who wants to try.
 
LooseCannon said:
But it wasn't really a de-regulation so much as it was a question of civil rights.
Click to expand...
To be honest, the state only needs to set a few stipulations on marriage:

Both parties are willing
Both are of a certain age
Not directly related.

Anything else can be considered interference.
 
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...ks-elections-only-safe-correct-choice-w431159

Aside from writing songs about war and historical atrocities, Slayer have hardly been the sort of band to dabble in politics. And while guitarist and chief songwriter Kerry King expects his fans to come to their own conclusion in November, he has made up his mind. "I'm certainly not a political analyst, but I think that Hillary Clinton is the safe, correct choice," he tells Rolling Stone.

"Trump is just a sideshow," he continues. "I'm not even going to apologize to all the Trump followers." King laughs. "I think the reason he's so popular is because he's like the politics version of WWE. He's sensational like wrestling and that's why middle America loves him."

King thinks that part of Trump's wrestling-like appeal is his ability to talk smack. "He's the biggest liar I've ever seen in politics," he says with a laugh. "I mean, most of them are liars, but he just outright in-your-face lies."

When Rolling Stone mentions that King might offend some of his more conservative fans, he says his opinion shouldn't make any difference to them. "People just have to make up their minds and not be into things because their friends are into it or because their girlfriend or their spouse or whoever is into it," he says. "People have to be individuals. ... Sounds like I'm talking about religion, doesn't it?" He laughs.
 
Thanks to Bernie Sanders we saw a very progressive Hillary Clinton yesterday. I hope that all Bernie fans and other people who are skeptic about her, keep showing that. It will draw her more to the left.
 
I think Hillary is a bit more progressive then Bernie Bros give her credit for, but yes, the entire party has been shoved to the left. And that is just the start of the leftwing Democrat journey over the next few years. As long as they can avoid nominating progressive patsies like Walter Mondale, they will be okay.
 
Looking at the energy of the building, Bernie really should've been the Democratic nominee. Hillary hasn't created half the energy Bernie creates in her entire life.
 
No...Bernie creates energy in a smaller percentage of people than are willing to support Hillary. Energy doesn't win elections.
 
LooseCannon said:
No...Bernie creates energy in a smaller percentage of people than are willing to support Hillary. Energy doesn't win elections.
Click to expand...

If Trump wins, that statement will be incorrect.

Bernie always polled better against Trump than did Hillary. So I don't really see your point.
 
Not really. Energy isn't the reason Trump is winning. There are other more complicated reasons, such as years of fringe groups like the Tea Party gaining momentum in America's right and this perpetuated attitude that the government is out to get you.

Early polling data doesn't mean all that much. It typically isn't representative and the polls are conducted very early. A lot will happen between now and November.
 
Modern elections in the USA are won by three things:
1. Getting your people out to vote.
2. Convincing the other guy's people to stay home.
3. Out-arguing the other guy to build a larger coalition.

Energy only helps with one of those three things and organization is way more important than energy in getting out the vote. If energy won elections, Bernie would be the nominee. None of the other crap made a difference other than Bernie & bros could not convince more people to vote for him than Hillary.

In fact, if the Democrats used primaries in all locations instead of caucuses, I bet Bernie would have lost worse. Bernie overperformed because of the way energetic youth who have free time can dominate the caucus system unfairly.

Trump won his primary because 1) he tapped into a unified bloc of hate-filled voters for his primary and 2) because the rest of the GOP was split amongst 16 other candidates. By the time the GOP unified against Trump, it was too late and his lead was unsurmoutable - and Ted Cruz was not really getting his people out to vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top