ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Did you consider Tulsi?
Voting the "lesser of two evils" vs. voting third party (conscience vote/wasted vote?)
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
It's not a surprise that of those AAs who did vote, the overwhelming majority of them did vote for the Democrat. That's expected.
But Hillary lost states that were won by Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry! That is hugely surprising, actually.
"If they had voted against Trump" is interesting commentary indeed.
Are you aware that over 40% of the electorate is so disenfranchised from the system that they don't even vote? So imagine if, instead of telling them they need to vote "against" some person or thing, these people were given something to actually vote for? But the Democrats don't do that because it's not in the interests of their corporate owners. Instead, they say, "Vote for us because we're not the other guy!" That doesn't seem to be a very compelling argument to them, so they don't even bother--the politicians aren't speaking to their issues.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:mock: states that voted for Tank Doofus, Manbearpig and Frankenstein
Right Divider
Body part
That has nothing to do with my opinion.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
No.
Didn't say it did. I'm merely pointing out the fact that that is a viable option worth considering. But feel free to take a dump on it if you so choose.
Right Divider
Body part
Indeed I will.
There is simply no way that a third party can produce, for example, a president. Therefore, a vote for a third party only supports the existing corrupt two party system.
As long as enough people think the way you do, that will be true. My advise? Break the mold.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
That's one way to look at it, though.
It's pretty normal, I think. At least according to these numbers:
Given that around 239.2 million Americans were eligible to vote in 2020, the projected number of voters brings us to a 66.8% turnout rate. This makes 2020 the year with the highest voter turnout since 1900, when Republican William McKinley won reelection with 73.7% turnout.
I agree voting "for" someone is a more optimistic way of looking at it, and Democrats did exactly that with Obama's hope and change campaign. But the 2020 election was more fraught, and many millions of voters who saw the danger of another Trump term voted against Trump more than were enthusiastic about candidate Biden.
Right Divider
Body part
Voting in this corrupt system only supports the system. The more people that vote, the more our corrupt politicians claim that they have the "support of the people" and a "mandate for change", etc, etc, etc.
My advice? Break the mold and abstain.
Two thirds of the electorate turned out to vote? Pretty impressive. That leaves one third who didn't vote (I'm a math wiz). One-third of the electorate is somewhere around 75 million people (I looked it up).
So if Clinton had managed to scrounge up a mere 80k votes across 3 specific states, she could have won the presidency in 2016. And meanwhile, 75 million people didn't vote at all. What's wrong with this picture?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
That was for 2020, not 2016.
2016's turnout rate was 60.2%.
And the number of votes for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson in PA, MI and WI? According to Heavy, it's possible, if you include FL, that those votes made the difference in Trump's win.
Wisconsin
Overall Trump margin of victory: 27,257 votesJill Stein vote total: 30,980
Gary Johnson vote total: 106,442
Michigan
Overall Trump margin of victory: 13,107 votesJill Stein vote total: 51,427
Gary Johnson vote total: 172,726
Pennsylvania
Overall Trump margin of victory: 71,794Jill Stein vote total: 48,657
Gary Johnson vote total: 142,334 (with 99.93% in)
Other Key States
Florida
Overall Trump margin of victory: 119,489Jill Stein vote total: 64,060
Gary Johnson vote total: 206,189
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Ok, so 2016 was even worse than I thought in terms of voter turnout.
But you're missing my point. The Republicans have their constituencies in their back pocket already--the religious right, Confederacy sympathizers, neo-Nazis and other fascists, White supremacists, etc. The Republican Party has pretty much all of the voters they're ever going to get.
On the other hand, there are tens of millions of people in America who are so disenfranchised from the system that they don't vote at all. Democrats could appeal to this large plurality of the electorate, but they don't. Why?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
She's not. In many ways, from her support of Assad (including her bungled visit to Syria, her unwillingness to disclose who funded the trip and her eventual reimbursement of the funds), her weird guru, her fuzzy hawk/dove stance while receiving campaign money from defense contractors, and more - including that Steve Bannon loved her which was as big a red flag as there could be. I have no idea why she was a Democrat, and wouldn't be surprised that if she tries her hand at another campaign, it won't be as one.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I see what you're saying. I'm not a Democrat so I can't speak for them, but I read enough of them to have an idea.
Serendipitously, I literally just read this today, it was just posted today, from a commentator I visit regularly.
He makes the point that Democrats campaign on substance and Republicans on emotion.
I'm just an average citizen. I don't know how you fix that.
Substance isn't sexy but a big GOP non-stop rage machine is sexy to those who feed off shared outrage.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
No surprise you couldn't maintain a conversation without trolling.
The best comparison is a multi-car pile up … people tend to gawk at the mayhem…
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
If it was a multi-MAGA flag-waving pickup truck pile-up and all the MAGA drivers blamed the onlookers for what they did themselves...