2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:16 am UTC

I'm feeling the vibe of this comic a little bit too much right now, but given recent events, it's that time of... well... multiple years again.


Hillary Clinton has announced that she is running for President of the United States in 2016. Long expected to be the Democratic frontrunner, this news is about as surprising as hearing that bread comes sliced. Nonetheless, it is important.

In addition, besides her, others have already announced or are expected to announce their candidacy. Amongst them are Republicans Randall Paul, John Bush, Marco Rubio, Rafael Cruz, and company.

So with that the races are off! Discuss all up-and-coming US Presidential election news here.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3035
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:57 am UTC

We really need to reform our presidential debates so Jill Stein and Gary Johnson get invited and seen and heard.

It used to be the League of Women Voters who organized the debates, but then the two major parties conspired (literally!) to take over the process and keep out third parties.

Right now, candidates have to receive 15% support in a poll that asks, “Who would you vote for if the election were held today?” just to get invited to the debates.

It would be vastly better to leave the 15% threshold in place, and simply change the question to, “Which candidates would you like to see in the debates? Check all that apply.”
wee free kings

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:50 am UTC

We did that four years ago, remember? There were weekly debates with eight or nine nominees up on stage. It turned out to be a race to see who could come up with the pithiest soundbite in the five minutes that were eventually allotted to them, with virtually no actual information conveyed to the viewers. And half of the top candidates were seemingly treating the campaign as a book tour or tryouts for the lecture circuit. The GOP concluded that the whole thing was a disaster, because the first past the post was mildly distasteful to nearly everyone and bruised to boot.

Derek
Posts: 2145
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Derek » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:09 am UTC

Yes, the problems that third party candidates have have little or nothing to do with the way debates are held. A change to the election system will be necessary to have viable third parties. But we already have multiple threads on this forum to discuss that.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:14 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:John Bush
Google suggests that this person is either the former lead singer of Anthrax or a mathematics professor at MIT.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3035
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:52 am UTC

ahammel wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:John Bush
Google suggests that this person is either the former lead singer of Anthrax or a mathematics professor at MIT.

Tell me those are the same person and I’ll vote for them.
wee free kings

benefluence
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:23 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby benefluence » Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:20 am UTC

ahammel wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:John Bush
Google suggests that this person is either the former lead singer of Anthrax or a mathematics professor at MIT.

That's the first time I've ever seen him referred to as 'John Bush' and not as 'Jeb Bush.' John, however, is apparently his actual given name. TIL.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1401
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:23 pm UTC

Since the "Jeb" stands for his full name, John Ellis Bush, calling him Jeb Bush is apparently a redundant acronym like "ATM Machine".
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1401
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:39 pm UTC

So, I like the idea of the two warring families.
Spoiler:
Image

George H.W. Bush,
Bill Clinton,
George W. Bush,
[historical blip],
Hillary Clinton,
JEBush,
Chelsea Clinton,
George P. Bush (JEB's son),
umm...
Tyler Clinton (Bill's nephew),
Jenna Bush Hager,
Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky (6 months old now, but she'll be plenty old enough by 6 presidents from now when most of them serve two terms!)
etc. (future Bushes and Clintons not yet born!)

Interestingly, both George P. Bush and Chelsea Clinton are old enough to be President now. (GPB is 38, Chelsea 35. The Bush twins will be old enough by the 2020 election.) I think it would be more interesting if they were running against each other next year. Some younger blood.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:45 pm UTC

I know it's wrong, but I honestly can't help a negative bias against someone with a name I don't like when it comes to the Presidency. Jeb Bush could have 100% exactly my views on everything, and I'd have to force myself to ignore his name to vote for him. I couldn't vote for Jeb any easier than I could vote for Darryl Strawberry.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1401
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:49 pm UTC

... because you don't like strawberries?
... or Newhart?
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:26 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:I know it's wrong, but I honestly can't help a negative bias against someone with a name I don't like when it comes to the Presidency. Jeb Bush could have 100% exactly my views on everything, and I'd have to force myself to ignore his name to vote for him. I couldn't vote for Jeb any easier than I could vote for Darryl Strawberry.


Yeah, I gotta say, endless Bush vs Clinton back and forth does not appeal to me. Even if the candidates do merit it, I'd prefer not to have two families fighting endlessly for power. Two parties is already quite bad enough.

I started an account on predictit so this year, I can actually start making money on my predictions. A few days in, I'm already a few bucks up, so hey.

Clinton's pretty much got this locked down as far as the Dem nom goes. Republican side is MUCH more open. Like a dozen candidates or something, even though about half of them or more are...niche candidates at best. Even if Trump runs, he can't possibly get the nom, because, as usual, nobody actually wants Trump in charge of them. He is at best an obnoxious thing to be gazed at from afar in amusement and horror.

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Wed Apr 15, 2015 9:40 pm UTC

No matter who wins, we all loose. You know you're in trouble when Hillary Clinton is as far left as you get.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:13 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:No matter who wins, we all loose. You know you're in trouble when Hillary Clinton is as far left as you get.


Well, O' Malley is waaay further left than Hillary. But he can't win, on account of being a jerk. Careful public persona or not, that'll creep out if he gets national. And for one reason or the other, none of the other really liberal candidates have any real traction. So yeah, Hillary is likely the most liberal of actual candidates with a shot at the general.

Well, Biden, maybe. I don't think he'd actually get the nom over Hillary, but I think it'd be fun to see him run. He's an enjoyable sort to listen to.

Flip side is, if some fluke happens, and another democrat beats Hillary, her political career is basically over. So, high stakes for her there.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3035
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:04 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Clinton's pretty much got this locked down as far as the Dem nom goes.

Vahir wrote:No matter who wins, we all loose. You know you're in trouble when Hillary Clinton is as far left as you get.

Tyndmyr wrote:And for one reason or the other, none of the other really liberal candidates have any real traction. So yeah, Hillary is likely the most liberal of actual candidates with a shot at the general.


What do you think about Elizabeth Warren making a go of it?
wee free kings

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:37 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Clinton's pretty much got this locked down as far as the Dem nom goes.

Vahir wrote:No matter who wins, we all loose. You know you're in trouble when Hillary Clinton is as far left as you get.

Tyndmyr wrote:And for one reason or the other, none of the other really liberal candidates have any real traction. So yeah, Hillary is likely the most liberal of actual candidates with a shot at the general.


What do you think about Elizabeth Warren making a go of it?


She's explicitly said that she isn't interested. No such luck there.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:26 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Flip side is, if some fluke happens, and another democrat beats Hillary, her political career is basically over. So, high stakes for her there.



She's 67 right now. If you win the Presidency, that's basically your last job (you do some stuff afterwards, but it's not really so much a job-job). If she was a younger candidate losing, I'd say she could still have a future. But not now.

That's why I don't mind her being the "inevitable" candidate as much as I would, say, if this was 8 years back. This is her final shot. Either she gets it or she doesn't. So far, all the other candidates could return at some future time.

User avatar
Christo
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Christo » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:14 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:
Qaanol wrote:What do you think about Elizabeth Warren making a go of it?


She's explicitly said that she isn't interested. No such luck there.


Shhh... we can still hope. Maybe if Clinton just isn't getting it done, then Warren will step up. Sort of like when Rick Perry entered the race sort of late because no one liked Romney.
www.cuttingroomcomic.com - a twice a week webcomic about recently released and upcoming movies.

User avatar
Christo
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Christo » Thu Apr 16, 2015 12:23 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:That's why I don't mind her being the "inevitable" candidate as much as I would, say, if this was 8 years back. This is her final shot. Either she gets it or she doesn't. So far, all the other candidates could return at some future time.


I mind her being the "inevitable" candidate no matter her age. First of all, it's frustrating as hell to me that our choices may come down to the wife of a former president or the brother of a former president. Mathmannix, I love the cartoon, but at least GoT has more than two families.

More importantly, I just don't want her to be my president. She doesn't seem to have any vision, any philosophy, any charisma, any mission. I know she's brilliant, and I know she's got qualifications, but I just don't like what she brings to the table.

She's the anti-Obama. Did you all see when Obama had a conversation with David Simon, creator of The Wire?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/03/26/barack_obama_interviews_david_simon_creator_of_the_wire_video.html
www.cuttingroomcomic.com - a twice a week webcomic about recently released and upcoming movies.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:06 pm UTC

Christo wrote:
Vahir wrote:
Qaanol wrote:What do you think about Elizabeth Warren making a go of it?


She's explicitly said that she isn't interested. No such luck there.


Shhh... we can still hope. Maybe if Clinton just isn't getting it done, then Warren will step up. Sort of like when Rick Perry entered the race sort of late because no one liked Romney.


Granted, but Romney still unfortunately got the nom. Starting too late can definitely hurt, you're behind on momentum. If anything, I think the trend is to start campaigning early. Hell, we effectively have the groundwork actively underway for a while now, before the candidates have even announced themselves as officially running, and we're way off from election day yet. It looks like, popular or not, starting early is seen to matter.

*shrug* I'm apathetic about Clinton in general. I get you on the whole family thing, and you might have a point about her charisma being low in comparison to Obama...but that doesn't bother me excessively. More just a mix of issues. I don't really have anyone I'm super hopeful for just yet. Rand, maybe, but he'd have to overcome a few lingering oddball ideas that could hopefully be blamed on his dad. I dunno how realistic that is to expect, though. Probably not very.

commodorejohn
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:20 pm UTC

I'm writing in for Lee Mercer Junior. I meant to do this in 2008 and I never did, so 2016 is my year to remedy that. Because if the major parties aren't going to give us hilarious, wonderful figures like Dan Quayle anymore, I'll just have to take the ones the Internet has given us instead.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Christo
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Christo » Thu Apr 16, 2015 4:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:*shrug* I'm apathetic about Clinton in general.


Right. I think that's the response most give her, and I don't want that in a president. I want someone who inspires others to follow her.

Her big line in her declaration to run was, "Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion." We don't need a champion. We're not locked in a tower. We want someone to rally the troops. Moreover, the sentence is an arrhythmic, unpoetical, syntactically awkward soundbite that declares what "Americans need" and what she "wants" and puts more focus on the latter. Is that the best her and her crew could come up with?
www.cuttingroomcomic.com - a twice a week webcomic about recently released and upcoming movies.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Thu Apr 16, 2015 4:22 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:That's why I don't mind her being the "inevitable" candidate as much as I would, say, if this was 8 years back. This is her final shot. Either she gets it or she doesn't. So far, all the other candidates could return at some future time.


Joe Biden can't -- he's 72. I know he has a "charming" quality of going off script in ways that are sometimes facepalming, but he's been a pretty brilliant Vice-President. And he's the only person in the Democratic party who can negotiate with Senate Republicans, which is a huge plus for me right now. I don't know how much of it is her own fault, but Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office would mean 4-8 more years of government gridlock because the Republicans in Congress think she's the most sinister figure of our generation.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:11 pm UTC

Christo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:*shrug* I'm apathetic about Clinton in general.


Right. I think that's the response most give her, and I don't want that in a president. I want someone who inspires others to follow her.

Her big line in her declaration to run was, "Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion." We don't need a champion. We're not locked in a tower. We want someone to rally the troops. Moreover, the sentence is an arrhythmic, unpoetical, syntactically awkward soundbite that declares what "Americans need" and what she "wants" and puts more focus on the latter. Is that the best her and her crew could come up with?


That does seem like a fairly weak line. I admit, I didn't listen to it, as I figured she was pretty much a known quantity, and her running was not really news. Might have to flip through it later, and see if context at least weaves the champion bit into something coherent.

I'd probably rather Biden over Hillary. He puts his foot in his mouth every now and then, sure. But he at least seems to mean well, and what not. He's basically that jovial, slightly offbeat neighbor or grandpa or whatever. Even if he's not perfect, he's hard to dislike. Probably not the most intellectual of reasons, but eh.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3755
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:16 pm UTC

Christo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:*shrug* I'm apathetic about Clinton in general.


Right. I think that's the response most give her, and I don't want that in a president. I want someone who inspires others to follow her.


It's a beautiful idea, but as far as presidential candidates go it's at best a rarity to find a -candidate- that inspires with leadership, and even once you get one of those for that candidate to continue to inspire once elected is even harder to find.

Until you have a leadership candidate that actually has a chance of getting enough votes, the candidate that seems competent but otherwise inspires apathy is a better 'lesser evil to chose' than one that inspires "What the Fuck!?!?!?"
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Christo
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Christo » Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:31 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Christo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:*shrug* I'm apathetic about Clinton in general.


Right. I think that's the response most give her, and I don't want that in a president. I want someone who inspires others to follow her.


It's a beautiful idea, but as far as presidential candidates go it's at best a rarity to find a -candidate- that inspires with leadership, and even once you get one of those for that candidate to continue to inspire once elected is even harder to find.

Until you have a leadership candidate that actually has a chance of getting enough votes, the candidate that seems competent but otherwise inspires apathy is a better 'lesser evil to chose' than one that inspires "What the Fuck!?!?!?"


I hear that, but I agree with Tirian's comment. Liberals might feel apathy toward Clinton, but conservatives certainly don't. They hate her with almost as much passion as they hate Obama.

The more I study him, the more I love Martin O'Malley. He doesn't initially create a lot of excitement, but he's sort of a slow burn candidate. I don't know if he can invigorate the base, but I know he can kick the crap out of any Republican in a national election.
www.cuttingroomcomic.com - a twice a week webcomic about recently released and upcoming movies.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:15 pm UTC

Please elaborate on why your guy would kick butt.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5496
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:05 pm UTC

Christo wrote:Liberals might feel apathy toward Clinton, but conservatives certainly don't. They hate her with almost as much passion as they hate Obama.


What Democrats do conservatives *not* hate with a passion?
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:29 pm UTC

Christo wrote:I hear that, but I agree with Tirian's comment. Liberals might feel apathy toward Clinton, but conservatives certainly don't. They hate her with almost as much passion as they hate Obama.

The more I study him, the more I love Martin O'Malley. He doesn't initially create a lot of excitement, but he's sort of a slow burn candidate. I don't know if he can invigorate the base, but I know he can kick the crap out of any Republican in a national election.


Hardline conservatives are probably going to hate literally whoever gets the democratic nom. Just the way it goes.

O'Malley is horrible. Probably worst potential candidate on the left. I rank him as the equivalent of Trump in desirability. I'm from Maryland, and have had the misfortunate to actually meet the guy. We mostly hate him, and as a super-blue state, went republican rather than vote for his pick to follow him(his lt gov).

I guarantee he can't survive a general election. He has a severe lack of appeal to moderates, and even manages to offend some solidly in his base. If he were anywhere less blue than here, he'd never have had a significant career. He polls poorly everywhere, and probably can't even carry his home state at this point.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5496
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:38 pm UTC

Code: Select all

SELECT * FROM PotentialAmericanPresidentialCandidates WHERE Electable = 1 AND Horrible = 0
0 Rows Returned
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:08 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:

Code: Select all

SELECT * FROM PotentialAmericanPresidentialCandidates WHERE Electable = 1 AND Horrible = 0
0 Rows Returned


Yeah, that really does sum it up. Surveying the lot, it's just kinda sad.

Granted, horrible may be a bit strong. We have candidates ranging all the way up to "meh".

Hope this changes somewhere along the way, or I might be picking a third party candidate out of a hat.

commodorejohn
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:12 pm UTC

I was done worrying about "electability" after 2004. If my choices are to vote for a guy I want and have no effect whatsoever or vote for a guy I don't want and have a negligible effect, I might as well go with the one that doesn't make me feel disgusted with myself. The complete buy-in of the voting public to this notion that you have to vote for the one of the two presented options that you hate the least because otherwise the guy you hate more might win is half the reason American politics are such a mess.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5496
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:27 pm UTC

Unless you live in a swing state, your vote doesn't really matter, so you might as well vote third party.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10130
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:36 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:I was done worrying about "electability" after 2004. If my choices are to vote for a guy I want and have no effect whatsoever or vote for a guy I don't want and have a negligible effect, I might as well go with the one that doesn't make me feel disgusted with myself. The complete buy-in of the voting public to this notion that you have to vote for the one of the two presented options that you hate the least because otherwise the guy you hate more might win is half the reason American politics are such a mess.


Electability matters in the presidential primaries. For the big two, anyway. It doesn't matter so much for third parties.

Now, I don't feel like I *have* to vote for the main two only, and I don't...but from their perspective, it totally matters.

Thesh wrote:Unless you live in a swing state, your vote doesn't really matter, so you might as well vote third party.


Sadly, very, very true. But it'd be nice to see a person I actually want to win have a shot at winning.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:54 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:I was done worrying about "electability" after 2004. If my choices are to vote for a guy I want and have no effect whatsoever or vote for a guy I don't want and have a negligible effect, I might as well go with the one that doesn't make me feel disgusted with myself. The complete buy-in of the voting public to this notion that you have to vote for the one of the two presented options that you hate the least because otherwise the guy you hate more might win is half the reason American politics are such a mess.


Electability matters in the presidential primaries. For the big two, anyway. It doesn't matter so much for third parties.

Now, I don't feel like I *have* to vote for the main two only, and I don't...but from their perspective, it totally matters.

Thesh wrote:Unless you live in a swing state, your vote doesn't really matter, so you might as well vote third party.


Sadly, very, very true. But it'd be nice to see a person I actually want to win have a shot at winning.
your vote matters, just not for the nationwide seats. Your state and local elections matter a lot. For example there was a barely publicized election to throw out the local college board of trustees. I think only 500 people voted for seats that controlled million dollar budgets and educates our young. You're telling me that a if I made every single collete kid vote, they won't matter?

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Mon Apr 20, 2015 8:59 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Unless you live in a swing state, your vote doesn't really matter, so you might as well vote third party.


Not really. If the winner wins by a margin of more than two votes, then your vote (or abstention) didn't matter. And whenever an election is nowhere near that close, it gets tossed into courts with the price of the lawyers or the partisanship of the judge determining which absentee and provisional ballots to throw out.

If you define the relevance of your vote by the ability to change the outcome of an election, then nobody's vote anywhere has ever mattered.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5496
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:05 pm UTC

sardia wrote:your vote matters, just not for the nationwide seats. Your state and local elections matter a lot. For example there was a barely publicized election to throw out the local college board of trustees. I think only 500 people voted for seats that controlled million dollar budgets and educates our young. You're telling me that a if I made every single collete kid vote, they won't matter?


This thread is about Presidential elections, not state and local elections.\

Tirian wrote:
Thesh wrote:Unless you live in a swing state, your vote doesn't really matter, so you might as well vote third party.


Not really. If the winner wins by a margin of more than two votes, then your vote (or abstention) didn't matter. And whenever an election is nowhere near that close, it gets tossed into courts with the price of the lawyers or the partisanship of the judge determining which absentee and provisional ballots to throw out.

If you define the relevance of your vote by the ability to change the outcome of an election, then nobody's vote anywhere has ever mattered.


Hence the "swing state" qualifier. The electoral college system significantly reduces the relevance of votes in non-swing states. I would guess somewhere around 50% of the people who voted for Obama could have switched their vote to Romney without effecting the result of the election in 2012.

EDIT: If every voter who voted for Obama in a state Romney held switched their vote to Romney, as well as every Obama voter in Washington DC, Maine's First District, Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Rhode Island, as well as just under half the "excess" Obama voters in the remaining statesy, that comes out to 47.5% of Obama's votes, and Romney still would have lost with 93 million votes to Obama's 35 million votes. That 93 million is what I would call "Inconsequential" votes, as no matter who they changed their votes to it would have not changed the outcome of the election.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tirian » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:46 pm UTC

Yes, I understand you're talking about swing states. I'm saying that your vote in a swing state also doesn't matter. Heck, Al Gore would have won in 2000 if a couple hundred Florida voters had voted for him instead of Ralph Nader (or Palm Beach voters who accidentally voted for Pat Buchannan). But that is still hundreds of times greater than the impact of an individual voter's decision to vote for a major party candidate or a minor party candidate or not vote at all. Because that's what lead to this discussion, whether people like Tyndmere and commodorejohn should feel okay about "throwing their vote away" on a noble but futile candidate.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:06 pm UTC

That is hind sight analysis of the votes, for future votes the only thing that makes sense, imo, for an individual is looking at it probabilistically. As in how does my vote modify the chances. Granted that still results in "how large is the chance that one vote changes the result" resulting in a very small number.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:39 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Unless you live in a swing state, your vote doesn't really matter, so you might as well vote third party.


And then 1992 happens again.

------------

Uggghhh. I was hoping for Jon Huntsman for the Republican Side, but it seems like he doesn't want to run again. So... is Lindsey Graham actually the sanest Republican right now?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests