Who will you be voting for in 2020?

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | Who will you be voting for in 2020?

Viewing 28 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #313003
      PADemD
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,132
    • #313014
      Hobbit709
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,105

      Green if there’s the option.

      There’s no way in hell I’ll vote for an R or an R-Lite.

      I don't waste my time teaching pigs to sing.

    • #313047
      Ohio Barbarian
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 17,986

      .

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman

    • #313048
      Red Cloud
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,494

      He got 4 votes from our family.

    • #313049
      elias39
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,244
    • #313053
      HassleCat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,905

      That’s what They told me to do and I always obey Them. Seems like a funny name for a candidate, but I’ll look for it and check the box when I find it. No idea if Blue No Matter Who is a man or woman. “Blue” could be either gender, right?

      • #313736
        Haikugal
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 1,847

        In Australia red dogs are called Blue….no matter.

        The DNC “big tent” excludes Nina Turner but includes John Kasich.
        God, guns, and gobbledygook...we live in an aquarium of nightmares.

    • #313057
      mmonk
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 900

      Except my Governor. He’s done a worthwhile job.

      Fear not the path of Truth for the lack of People walking on it. - RFK

    • #313059
      Jan Boehmerman
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 3,717

      … FOR THE CANDIDATE WHO PUTS THE BIGGEST MIDDLE FINGER IN THE EYE OF BOTH CORPORATE PARTIES!

    • #313063
      leftcoast mountains
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,087
    • #313076
      Earthartist
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,020
    • #313082
      doh1304
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,384

      I took a vow in 1996 to never vote for a Democrat or a Republican ever again, unless one was so bad he must be stopped regardless of the consequences. This made me vote for a Republican in a CA Attorney General race  I think in roughly 1996 (the Dem made it personal)

      Biden and Trump are both existential threats, but Trump is not enough the lesser evil to vote for, even in protest. I will vote Green if at all.

       

    • #313087
      Satan
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,847

      I’d consider a Green vote just for the platform. I’d say the odds of a blizzard here in Hell in mid July are slightly higher than the odds of me voting for the Democratic nominee… and even that assumes they dump Biden and replace him with somebody capable of the job (i.e. NOT Hillary Clinton, Cuomo Jr, and most definitely not the treasonous poodle who single-handedly lost over 1,000 elected seats over 10 years during her disastrous reign over the DNC)

      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". - John F. Kennedy

    • #313088
      NV Wino
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 6,079

      Probably Green if they have a decent candidate.

      “As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore.” Barbara Lee
      “Politicians and pro athletes: The only people who still get paid when they lose.” William Rivers Pitt

    • #313089
      B Calm
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 995

      Did it 2016 and will proudly do it again this November!

    • #313099
      whispers
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 417

      Green happens to be my favorite color!

    • #313114
      gordyfl
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,044

      I’ve voted for an Independent since 2004. Looking at the two major party candidates this year I see no reason to change.

    • #313119
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 10,353

      there’s still a lot of time til the election.

      i hope to have a better option then than any available now.

    • #313174
      xyzse
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,696

      Please vote, no matter what.  Be it Green, Write-In or whatever.  It just shows that you are still engaged in politics, and giving them the middle finger that they deserve.

      Would love to see a write-in, 3rd party or whatever get a sizable percentage of votes that can not be ignored.  It means, actual voters showing the two parties that they are unacceptable.  Not voting, just means, no vote and uncounted.  They only care about votes they can actually get.

    • #313185
      Betty Karlson
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 467

      Why always vote for the lesser evil?

    • #313200
      MizzGrizz
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,671

      ..it will be Green.Doubt if I will bother.

    • #313205
      ozoneman
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 325

      If Biden drops out, and Bernie is in, unlikely as it is, I will vote for him naturally.

      Otherwise Green.

    • #313224
      JonLP
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,688

      My mom is voting Green for the first time as well. We both don’t like Biden.

      Let this radicalize you rather than lead you to despair - Mariame Kaba

    • #313280
      closeupready
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,680

      I don’t care one bit whether anybody counts it, or notices/not notices.

      In an alternate universe, Bernie somehow becomes the nominee, and then I vote a straight Democratic ticket.

      The opinions and personal views expressed herein are solely those of the author, and should never be taken seriously.

    • #313615
      FloridaProg
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 344

      It won’t be Biden or Trump. It may not be anybody.

      I know there are those who vote for the Green Party because they support the party. I’ve gotten the impression over the years that a lot of disillusioned Democrats vote Green to send a message to the Dems of “Here’s how many extra votes you COULD have had if you were a truly liberal party.” And I agree the message SHOULD work.

      But it doesn’t.

      If the Democrats wanted to get the message and adjust accordingly, they would have done so by now. I don’t believe they’re so stupid to have not received the message, so I’m left to know they got it and don’t care.

      So, I’ve thought about voting Green, but I’m not fully a Green, as it were. I’ll keep looking, but chances are I’ll not vote for president at all.

      • #313788
        Jim Lane
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 627

        @floridaprog

        You write:

         I’ve gotten the impression over the years that a lot of disillusioned Democrats vote Green to send a message to the Dems of “Here’s how many extra votes you COULD have had if you were a truly liberal party.” And I agree the message SHOULD work.

        But it doesn’t.

        I appreciate the note of realism.  The conditions of this minor-party strategy are that the Republican becomes President, but the Democrat would have become President if all the Green Party voters had instead voted Democratic.  (I’m not saying they all “owed” their votes to the Democrats or any such thing.  I’m pointing out the implication of the strategy that you correctly summarize.)

        Those conditions were met in 2000 and again in 2016.  Nevertheless, those electoral results didn’t effect a huge change in the opinions of Democratic primary voters.  People who love to point out that Bernie’s campaigns “failed” never acknowledge that the Nader and Stein campaigns also “failed” — in that none of these campaigns had the effect of producing a Democratic nominee who inspired the most progressive voters.  If this strategy worked, the Democrats would have nominated Kucinich in 2004 and Bernie in 2016.

        Why did it fail?  You write:

        If the Democrats wanted to get the message and adjust accordingly, they would have done so by now….

        It’s not that simple.  The calculation above assumes that the Democrats get all the votes that were cast for the Greens, but, despite the leftward shift necessary for that gain, still retain all the votes they actually got.  That’s not plausible.  For example, advocating Medicare for All swings some progressives from Green to Democratic, but it swings some less progressive voters from Democratic to Republican, or to not voting.

        If we assume that most Democratic voters care nothing about policies that help people, care nothing about pleasing corporate donors, and care only about winning — assumptions I don’t accept, but let’s just analyze the simpler case — it’s far from clear-cut for them to move left.  The American electorate is huge and diverse.  There are many factors that will affect a candidate’s chances of winning.

        • #313790
          Ohio Barbarian
          Moderator
          • Total Posts: 17,986

          @jimlane That’s an excellent argument against democracy, you know. I don’t mean that as an attack; philosophically and  rhetorically it is a good argument against democracy.

          If most voters don’t care to make policies meant to improve the future for younger generations, not to mention the planet, the top priority in their voting choices, then why should they be allowed to vote? People who know WTF they are doing should hold power, for the good of the society as a whole. Everything after that is just a debate on what class of people should rule.

          IOW, meritocracy, which decides which classes of society will prosper and which will not. Who will get government subsidies and investments and who will not. IOW x2, what the Democratic Party truly represents: Oligarchy.

          It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

          Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman

          • #313836
            Jim Lane
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 627

            @ohiobarbarian

            What I wrote was:

            The American electorate is huge and diverse.  There are many factors that will affect a candidate’s chances of winning.

            Logic and policy are certainly involved (along with whether a candidate looks good on TV).  For example, I mentioned that a candidate’s position on Medicare for All would influence some voters.  In my post I focused only on the chance-of-winning factor because that was the subject of the post I was answering.  I said this was a “simpler case” — the point being to look at only one factor at a time, while acknowledging that others exist.

            Most voters in Democratic primaries do care about what’s best for the country.   One problem for progressives is that many of those people sincerely believe that policies like Medicare for All would be bad for the country.

            • #313838
              Ohio Barbarian
              Moderator
              • Total Posts: 17,986

              @jimlane And if Democratic voters truly don’t believe that policies like Medicare for All are good for the country, then they are my political enemies and they should not expect me to vote for their candidates.

              It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

              Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman

              • #313891
                Jim Lane
                Participant
                • Total Posts: 627

                @ohiobarbarian

                I expect to vote for Bernie in the primary (my state’s primary was postponed to July) and then vote for Biden in the general.  What will I be voting for?  I’ll be voting for my beliefs that Bernie is better than Biden and that Biden is better than Trump.

                • #313931
                  Ohio Barbarian
                  Moderator
                  • Total Posts: 17,986

                  The last word is yours, counselor.

                  It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                  Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman

                • #313937
                  djean111
                  Participant
                  • Total Posts: 5,015

                  peoples’ best interests, if you cannot understand and accept why other people do not feel the same as you do, given that we all have different frames of reference and different wants and needs, then perhaps it is not a good use of time to have this discussion.

                  IMO everything you post can be distilled into one essence – vote for the blue no matter who.  All the obscuring confetti of polls and rules and percentages do not really obscure that.

                  And voting for Bernie in this farce and sham and canard of a primary – courtesy of the Democratic Party – is now an empty gesture.   Just sets up the always-entertaining “I voted for Bernie, BUT” posts later in the year.

                  Oh, and this time people are voting Green because they want to vote Green, cannot see the point of voting against their interests and needs  for Trump OR the Vichy Dem, and is not meant as an empty gesture designed to send some sort of message.  We received a message loud and clear from the Democratic Party.  Biden, Summers, Dimon, Emanuel, greasing the runway for Buttigieg, no to M4A, student loan forgiveness, free public college, and, really pretty much all of Bernie’s platform.  No change,  continue on with Obama’s warmongering and austerity and subservience to Wall Street.  We get it.  We just will not be obediently shuffling into that noisome tent and voting for that.

                  If, as you say, most of Bernie’s supporters will be voting for Biden, then I do wonder why you bother.  Come to think of it, most people here discuss how they are going to vote, and why.  And just a very few spend their time telling everyone else how to vote.  Did not work in 2016, will not work in 2020.  IMO.

                  Every day I am happy that Hillary and her dissolute husband are not in the White House.  Every single day, and nothing Hillary has said or done has made even a microscopic dent in that.  Biden is no better.  So – nope.


                  @jimlane

                  • #314126
                    Jim Lane
                    Participant
                    • Total Posts: 627

                    @djean111

                    You write:

                    Come to think of it, most people here discuss how they are going to vote, and why. And just a very few spend their time telling everyone else how to vote.

                    On this political message board, people post their opinions about the election. Apparently, as you see it, anyone who agrees with you is discussing how they are going to vote and why. Anyone who disagrees with you is telling everyone else how to vote.

                    Frankly, I haven’t seen anyone “telling” everyone else how to vote. No one has the power to dictate. When I post my reasons for voting for Biden over Trump, I’m offering my thoughts for the reader’s consideration, just as you are doing with your posts.

                    You also say to me:

                    (I)f you cannot understand and accept why other people do not feel the same as you do, given that we all have different frames of reference and different wants and needs, then perhaps it is not a good use of time to have this discussion.

                    I believe that my posts have consistently presented my own opinions without implying that I was infallible. Of course I understand that not everyone agrees. If we want to have productive discussions, people don’t have to agree — but they should respect other people’s opinions. I’ve never used terms like “sheeple” for people who disagree with me. I’ve never implied that the only possible reason for such disagreement is that people can’t overcome their “programming”.

                    By contrast, I have seen those terms applied on this site to anyone expecting to vote for the Democratic nominee. Perhaps your sermon about understanding and accepting other people’s opinions should be directed to those posters.

                    You write that voting Green is not “designed to send some sort of message.” For some people, that’s precisely what it’s designed to do. You can find posts to that effect on this very site. That’s not your reason for voting Green, but perhaps you could try to understand and accept that other people do not feel the same as you do. Whether voting Green is an effective way to influence the Democratic Party is certainly an appropriate topic for this board.

        • #313825
          closeupready
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 1,680

          Most voters are just … voting.  Not being evil geniuses deploying a grand convoluted strategy to thwart …. whatever.  @jimlane

          If voters were actually that smart, then it would be the responsibility of the DNC leadership to figure that out, know how to respond successfully, and win elections.

          Instead, the fact that they lose more elections than they win, and that they continue to do so, indicates that they are not responding to the will of the voter.  Rather, they are responding to the wishes of … some other entity or factor.  It is this other entity which is rewarding – and thus, reinforcing – their weak  appeal.

          The opinions and personal views expressed herein are solely those of the author, and should never be taken seriously.

          • #313840
            Jim Lane
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 627

            @closeupready

            In this context, I don’t see any conspiracy theory, good or bad.  I certainly wasn’t saying that the Democratic nomination process is secretly controlled by a cabal that cares only about winning.  In fact, I don’t think it’s secretly controlled by a cabal of any motivation.  I agree with you that “Most voters are just … voting.”  It’s precisely because there are millions of people voting, for a variety of different reasons, that I wrote, “There are many factors that will affect a candidate’s chances of winning.”

        • #313868
          FloridaProg
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 344

          “The calculation above assumes that the Democrats get all the votes that were cast for the Greens, but, despite the leftward shift necessary for that gain, still retain all the votes they actually got. That’s not plausible.”

          I’m not sure where you got the impression it was from what I wrote. Naturally if a party shifts on the left-right ideology scale then they’ll gain some voters and lose others. That goes without saying. Now, the question could be explored of “If the Dems shifted in a way to capture the Green voters, would they gain more than they would lose?” That’s a legit question, and I would imagine they have explored that. But this question also butts up against the moneyed interest they currently serve. One possible answer could be “Yes, we would attract more voters than we would lose, however our corporate partners would abandon us.” I can’t discount that as being a reason for the obvious choice they’ve made not to pursue the voters they’re losing on the left. From what I’ve observed, that’s the exact choice they’ve made, though I’m not interested in getting into a tussle with anyone here over my viewpoint.

          My only point is why vote Green if the Dems got the message but don’t adjust? That’s all. But since they aren’t moving towards where I am, and I’m not going to shift to where they are, then the point of trying to send a message by voting Green is a waste of time IMO.

          • #313871
            djean111
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 5,015

            The Democratic Party is now as alien and revolting to me as the GOP.  Worse, really, because they pretend to be for the people.  So I am not sending a message, I just do not want to vote for the Vichy Dems.  I don’t care what they think.  They don’t care what I think.


            @floridaprog

            • #313886
              FloridaProg
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 344

              You’re not voting Green to send a message to the Dems. That’s actually voting a certain way for the right reason. Kudos!

              I suppose I’m just trying to figure out why some are still nostalgic about the Dem party at this point. I’ve seen enough people on here who — you can just tell by the things they post — still have some longing for the Dem party to be the vehicle by which progressive change will come. They’ve held on to that hope for so long that they can’t seem to fully let it go. There’s a part of me that gets it, but then there’s a part that says they need to be slapped hard into reality. Their hopes in the Dem party are not going to happen. That ship has sailed. I’m not even sure it was ever in port.

              Then again, maybe these people need to just keep longing and hoping. At least it will keep them occupied and away from any real work going on. There’s no reason for them to have a voice in any new type of progressive movement since their whole demeanor would be a liability.

              • #313893
                Jim Lane
                Participant
                • Total Posts: 627

                @floridaprog

                You write that some people

                still have some longing for the Dem party to be the vehicle by which progressive change will come. They’ve held on to that hope for so long that they can’t seem to fully let it go. There’s a part of me that gets it, but then there’s a part that says they need to be slapped hard into reality. Their hopes in the Dem party are not going to happen. That ship has sailed.

                My question is: Has the Green Party ship also sailed?  More generally, there are people who still have some longing for a minor party to be the vehicle by which progressive change will come. They’ve held on to that hope for so long that they can’t seem to fully let it go. There’s a part of me that gets it, but then there’s a part that says they need to be slapped hard into reality. Their hopes in the Green Party are not going to happen. That ship has sailed.

                Given that the Green Party is in its third decade of total futility, at what point do its adherents need to be slapped hard into reality?

                The Democratic Party has been the vehicle for some progressive change — not nearly enough, but more than the Green Party.

                Some people are excited about the Movement for a People’s Party.  The party the MPP envisions hasn’t even gotten on the ballot anywhere.  It makes the Green Party look like an electoral juggernaut by comparison.  How much time would you give the People’s Party before concluding that it, too, will not be the vehicle by which progressive change will come?

                • #313911
                  Betty Karlson
                  Participant
                  • Total Posts: 467

                  @jimlane

                   

                  1. If you vote your conscience, you never waste your vote. Not voting your conscience because other people prefer unconscionable candidates makes no sense to me.
                  2. In a way, the Green boat is this year’s best vessel available. We shall have to work with what we have. But Nick and Nina are starting up a People’s Party. May it shatter the status quo.
                  • #313933
                    Jim Lane
                    Participant
                    • Total Posts: 627

                    @bettykarlson

                    My conscience tells me to consider, as an important factor, the consequences of the different actions open to me.  That sometimes requires me to consider the likely actions of people who disagree with me.  How each of my choices will play out can depend in part on what those other people do.

                    • #314333
                      Betty Karlson
                      Participant
                      • Total Posts: 467

                      Well happily, there is a model for voting against the party establishment: the TEA Party. They went scorched earth on the GOP, and made the whole establishment cave and cave again.

                      Refusing to vote for them, primary challenges that left reputations in ruins, not towing the party line, holding all the elite’s wish list hostage in congress…

                      It worked.

                       

                      We also have the data in for voting for the lesser of two evils: data galore on the Democarts’ side, from 1984 to 2018.

                      It didn’t work.

                       

                      Let that weigh on your conscience. The actions of both the Democratioc elite and the GOP are not likely to change at all unless they are shown that we have both numbers and determination.

                      • #314350
                        Jim Lane
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 627

                        Among Americans who think the Republican Party is too far to the left (!), some went the minor-party route.  The Constitution Party (originally the the U.S. Taxpayers’ Party) can be described as paleoconservative.  There’s also the special case of the Libertarian Party.  It doesn’t fit perfectly on the standard left-right continuum, but could generally be described as thinking that the Republican Party was insufficiently hostile to government action for social welfare.

                        Both these minor parties have had virtually no influence on the Republican Party.

                        Other conservatives went with the Tea Party, which, despite its name, is not a separate political party.  Instead, as you point out, its involvement in electoral politics came through threatening or actually mounting primary challenges to members of the major party who were deemed to be too centrist.

                        The Tea Party’s approach of working within the Republican Party has been a great success.  It’s a big reason that the GOP, which was already a party of the right, has moved significantly further to the right.

                        The Tea Partiers have had to work hard, and persevere through disappointments.  Many of them were upset in 2008 when the Republicans nominated John McCain, who was perceived as less conservative than most of his rivals.  They considered him a RINO (Republican In Name Only), their equivalent of the “Vichy Dem” criticism popular on JPR.  They weren’t keen about Mitt Romney, either.  For the most part, however, they chose not to stomp out of the GOP in protest.  Instead, they recognized that they were in it for the long haul.  They took what they could get, and slowly, patiently, race by race, they achieved incremental change.  Those slow, incremental changes added up.  Today we have a Republican Party that has moved sharply away from the center, in the direction of its less centrist ideology.

                        Those of us who abhor the substance of the Tea Party’s program can nevertheless learn from the success of their tactics.

                      • #314353
                        Betty Karlson
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 467

                        “refusing to vote for them”

                        The reason the TEA Party had so much success in winning races later on, is they started by not voting at all, by demonstrating that without them, the GOP was destined for the elephant graveyard of history.

                         


                        @jimlane
                        2020 is as good a year as any to show that we won’t vote for a centrist anymore. If we can learn from the tactics of the TEA Party, let us start with step 1: NO VOTES FOR BIDEN.

                        Step 2: primary every man and woman who has ever endorsed Biden

                      • #314363
                        djean111
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 5,015

                        That’s why the not voting thing is ignored.  Personally, “working within the system” – that is so much bullshit, because the owners of the party do not care what the voters want or need.  They actually sneer at the very idea.  And they pull in money from the rich no matter what, because they “work across the aisle” no matter what party is ascendant.   That is a difference between the GOP and today’s Democratic Party, IMO.  So your excellent posts are educational, but when the objective of another poster is Vote for the Blue, they are falling on very rock-hard ground.


                        @bettykarlson

                      • #314364
                        Betty Karlson
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 467

                        @djean111

                        But I think of some impressionable soul just arrived on the site, or a casual reader perusing the thread without a user account, reading the leser-evil-vote-blue-anyway nonsense and seeing there is no rebuttal and then believing that there is something to it.

                        We might as well demonstrate that there is nothing to it. It’s not as if rebutting the nonsense takes a whole lot of time. I can do this in my sleep – and the occasional spelling mistake suggests that sometimes, I actually do it in my sleep.

                      • #314367
                        djean111
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 5,015

                        Had not thought about that.


                        @bettykarlson

                      • #314408
                        Jim Lane
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 627

                        @bettykarlson

                        You write:

                        The reason the TEA Party had so much success in winning races later on, is they started by not voting at all, by demonstrating that without them, the GOP was destined for the elephant graveyard of history.

                        No, the Tea Party has not followed the Naderite/Green strategy of withholding their votes in the general election and thus allowing the other major party to win. Let’s look at the record.

                        The right wing’s involvement in presidential elections predated its adoption of the Tea Party moniker. After Ross Perot had founded the Reform Party for his 1996 run, conservatives unhappy with the Republican Party were able to take over the Reform Party after an intra-party battle. In the 2000 election, Pat Buchanan started out as a candidate for the Republican nomination. When he decided he couldn’t win that, he left the GOP and led the right-wing faction within the Reform Party. He won the party’s nomination. Also on some states’ ballots was the Constitution Party candidate, Howard Phillips. Buchanan and Phillips were to the right of the Republican Party, just as Nader and the Greens were to the left of the Democratic Party.

                        Early in that cycle, I had hopes that Buchanan, who like Nader had high name recognition, could pull enough conservative votes to help Gore defeat Bush. That’s what would have happened if conservatives had adopted the strategy you ascribe to them, of refusing to vote for the Republican nominee so as to send a message to the GOP. Here’s what actually happened, in terms of percentages of the popular vote:

                        Nader, Green Party, 2.74%
                        Buchanan, Reform Party, 0.43%
                        Phillips, Constitution Party, 0.09%

                        Nader’s vote total exceeded the combined right-wing minor-party total by more than two million votes. IOW, progressives were far more willing to withhold their votes than conservatives were. The ultra-conservative voters who had wanted Buchanan or some other right-wing firebrand (like Alan Keyes or Steve Forbes) largely swallowed their disappointment and voted for the candidate who, of the two major-party nominees, was closer to their views.

                        When the Tea Party came into existence in 2009, this tendency continued. Unlike the Greens, the Tea Party people have not gone the minor-party route. The Constitution Party has consistently pulled in the range of 0.1% to 0.2% of the popular vote.

                        Instead of trying to pressure the GOP establishment by not voting for centrists in the general election, the Tea Party has concentrated on working within the Republican Party. As I stated, it has recorded some successes. Notably, it achieved the rare feat of successfully primarying powerful incumbents. Challengers backed by the Tea Party ousted Republican Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT), a three-term incumbent, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA).

                        The analogy on the left is AOC’s primary win against the Chair of the House Democratic Caucus. She rejected minor-party politics. Like the Tea Partiers on the right, she chose to work within an established major party. The result was that she achieved more in one campaign than the feckless Green Party has achieved in its entire history. (OK, cue the ritual complaints that AOC has sold out, is a DINO, etc. What she achieved was to move one Congressional seat significantly to the left. The Green Party has never come close to doing even that much.)

                        AOC followed your advice to “learn from the tactics of the TEA Party….” What she learned is the effectiveness of primaries, as opposed to stomping off in disdain because the established major party doesn’t instantaneously and completely transform itself in the way you want.

                      • #314433
                        Betty Karlson
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 467

                        @jimlane

                        The TEA Party is generally accepted to have formed from the ashes of Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign, well before 2009. It has even earlier roots, stretching back all the way to 2006/2007, but it really kicked off after a sort of populist candidate (Ron Paul) was thwarted by the Republican establishment in favour of a pro-war candidate who went on to lose in a landslide – because a lot of libertarian-leaning voters didn’t turn up. Why do you think Montana was a swing state in 2008?

                         

                        So when the party really kicked off in 2009, the GOP establishment had been put on notice.

                         

                        Does that scenario sound familiar?

                      • #314570
                        Jim Lane
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 627

                        @bettykarlson

                        The actual numbers show the following:

                        • Progressives have gone for the minor-party strategy more strongly than have conservatives.
                        • The conservative successes of the Tea Party have come through working within a major party rather than outside it.
                        • Progressives who also follow the major-party path (e.g., AOC) have accomplished more than those following the minor-party path (e.g., Stein).

                        You don’t refute any of that.

                        As I understand your rewriting of history, disgruntled conservatives supposedly refused to vote Republican in 2008, and their willingness to withhold their votes supposedly forced the GOP to move to the right. That simply didn’t happen.

                        First, I don’t see the evidence of a large conservative protest in 2008. The Constitution Party got only 0.15% of the vote. The only evidence you cite is Montana. It wasn’t a right-wing hotbed – in 2008, Romney won the caucuses there, and McCain won the nonbinding primary. I don’t know why it was close in the general election (McCain winning by only 2.26%), but I see no reason to believe it was because of angry conservatives. The combined votes of the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party came to only 0.31%.

                        Second, if withholding support from the “RINO” McCain was the conservative strategy, it failed. The GOP nominee in 2012 was Romney, who was generally considered to be one of the least conservative candidates in the field. He defeated more hard-core right-wingers like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann, as well as the libertarian Ron Paul. Most of the people at Free Republic felt about Romney the way most JPR members feel about Biden.

                        As a side note: You put a lot of emphasis on Ron Paul’s role. You’re correct that, before the Tea Party, some conservatives had backed Paul, just as, even earlier, some had backed Buchanan, but the Tea Party didn’t arise from either man’s presidential campaign. Ideologically, it owed more to the doctrinaire right-wingers (the paleoconservatives). Ron Paul, by contrast, had joined with Bernie in voting against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War Resolution. That illustrates the point I made, that the libertarians are a special case. They don’t always fit well into the standard left-right continuum.

                        In any event, you allege that “the GOP establishment had been put on notice” by the veterans of Paul’s 2008 campaign who didn’t turn up for the general election. That didn’t save Paul from getting clobbered in 2012. That year, he wound up with 8% of the delegates. On the theory that major-party nominees are picked by the party establishment, rather than by the voters, a nervous GOP establishment should have engineered his nomination. That didn’t happen. That’s partly because the establishment does not pick the nominee (as witness Trump in 2016), and partly because the conservatives largely do not withhold their support after they lose a nomination fight.

                      • #314625
                        Ohio Barbarian
                        Moderator
                        • Total Posts: 17,986

                        @jimlane Yet your whole rebuttal is based on third party voting percentages.

                        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

                        Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman

                      • #314677
                        Jim Lane
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 627

                        @ohiobarbarian

                        One would expect that, if there were such disgruntled conservatives, some would not vote at all, but some would vote for a minor party.  If their purpose is to send a message to the GOP establishment, as @bettykarlson contended, then they ought to have realized that not voting is a poor way to do it.  Scores of millions of people don’t vote, for very many reasons.  No one wanting to send the message “Be more conservative” could reasonably expect that one more nonvote would accomplish that.

                        Ideally, yes, we would have data about each and every nonvoter.  We don’t.  We have to fall back on the assumption that at least some disgruntled conservatives would vote for a minor party.  The small vote totals for Buchanan, Paul, and Phillips is evidence (not conclusive proof, but evidence) that there weren’t a lot of conservatives who decided to withhold their votes from Bush and McCain.

                        That is at least some information.  I don’t see anything cited by @bettykarlson that’s at all probative in the other direction.

                      • #314971
                        Betty Karlson
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 467

                        @ohiobarbarian


                        @jimlane

                        Now let us review that reply:

                        I am accused of not showing some kind of academically annotated and indexed information that is probative of non-voters’ intentions (never mind the Internet, right? That’s not probative. That is anecdotal) yet Jim’s entire rebuttal is based on an assumption.

                        I rest my case.

                      • #314991
                        Jim Lane
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 627

                        @bettykarlson

                        You write:

                        I am accused of not showing some kind of academically annotated and indexed information that is probative of non-voters’ intentions (never mind the Internet, right? That’s not probative. That is anecdotal)

                        You can’t answer the argument I actually made, so you just make up some total bullshit and dismiss that imaginary argument.

                        I didn’t criticize you for advancing evidence that wasn’t academically annotated.  I criticized you for not advancing any evidence at all.

                        You say “never mind the Internet”?  I didn’t see any links at all in your posts, let alone any links to evidence tending to support your allegations.

                        But if you want the Internet, fine.  All the vote numbers I cited are publicly available vote totals.  I pulled them off the relevant Wikipedia articles but if you want you can go to Wikipedia and follow the links in footnotes to the various official reports.

                        You want progressives to refuse to vote for Biden.  To support that argument, you make up the contention that the Tea Partiers refused to vote for “RINO” candidates and thus pressured the Republican Party establishment to pick strong conservatives.  That’s simply false.  As I pointed out, the right-wing Republicans despise Romney.  You can find conservative opinion on Conservapedia, and in their article on RINO — link here –> https://www.conservapedia.com/RINO — we find:

                        In Presidential primaries, however, RINOs are often heavily favored. In 2008 and 2012, RINOs John McCain and Mitt Romney were nominated, respectively….

                        So did the Republican Party establishment learn its lesson and nominate a staunch conservative in 2016?  No, the nominee was Trump, whom almost the entire party establishment opposed.  (Many of the staunch conservatives were enthusiastic about Trump, despite his record on such issues as gay rights, and I suspect that part of his appeal to them was precisely that he ticked off the staid Old Guard types who had supported McCain and Romney.)

                        As far as I can tell, you simply made up a story about a supposed RepExit (which didn’t happen) and how the resulting threat of withheld votes, be it through not voting or voting for a minor party, sent a message to the Republican Party establishment and secured establishment support for a movement conservative (which also didn’t happen).  The only basis for your rewriting of history is that, if it were true, it would support the position that you now take.  And I don’t need no stinkin’ academic indexing to figure that out.

                      • #315795
                        Betty Karlson
                        Participant
                        • Total Posts: 467

                        – it usually means that the opponent is running out of arguments, and tries to fill in the voids with expletives.

                         

                        Yes, let us talk about what happened in 2016. Trump is not a staunch conservative, but who says that the GOP base wanted a staunch conservative? That is an identitarian presumption.

                        Trump is a populist. A (far) right-wing populist, anti-establishment. The GOP base went with him not over some cultural issue, but because he represented their chance to take over the party. The Ron Paul folks didn’t all go to the polls for McCain, then the TEA Party had leverage to primary the GOP establishment, then a few years later their best chance of a populist in the White House managed to win – although in fairness, the Democrats managed to lose because they insisted on preventing their best chance of retaining the White House (Bernie and his multigenerational, multi-ethnic, multi-everything followers).

                         

                        I refer you to the article I wrote four years ago: if Brexit is suicide, the status quo is depression. It contains a passage on the bankruptcy of identitarian politics in 2016. Fours years later, my arguments still stand.

                         

                        Biden may win, but if he does, it will be because of Corona. He is like Romney: elitist, corporatist, out of touch, supposedly inevitable even when no-one in the base is exited about him… He certainly doesn’t deserve to win. And by the way: who says he will even be nominated? Last time I checked, no candidate had the necessary plurality of delegates yet. That includes the demented rapist you intend to vote for…

                • #314686
                  FloridaProg
                  Participant
                  • Total Posts: 344

                  And the reason is because I don’t view the topic in terms of applying some standard in an equal manner. That type of viewpoint isn’t even part of the equation to me. All I can do is give my opinion from what I’ve observed. I can say for certain that the Dem party is not the answer and that those who believe it eventually can be need to be slapped hard into the reality that it won’t happen and they should abandon the party. I can say for certain that if someone is simply voting for the Green party to send a message to the Dem party, it doesn’t work.

                  But as far as how the Green members should react, or if they should abandon ship, or whatever options they may have, to me that’s not where the problems lie, so I don’t view it in those terms, nor will I. The problem is those who continue to think in terms of “I hate A, I prefer B to oppose A, but I’ve been given C, which I also hate. But since I hate C less than A, I’ll vote C.” That’s where the simplemindedness of  it keeps the status quo in place. Because the Dem party leaders, and by extension the mind-numbed rank and file who will do as they’re told, hate B and they have no intention of allowing B to ever win. And the leadership knows it and they know there’s a sizable number who will simply go along. And they know this because it’s been working for them just fine. And as long as that takes place, they’re good with it, and they’ll keep doing it until it ceases to work. Maybe it’ll always work; it’s certainly worked for a long time already. Chances are it won’t always be as effective. No doubt they have some other plan to keep that same group in line should that time come.

                  So you say you don’t understand, well I’m there also, howbeit for different reasons. But I’ve expended this topic on this thread to the point of repetition, so I’m done.

          • #313892
            Jim Lane
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 627

            @floridaprog

            You write that “trying to send a message by voting Green is a waste of time IMO.” I’m with you 100% on that.

            Some people who are in the “send them a message” camp have pointed to the vote totals in 2000 and 2016, when the Green Party votes exceeded the Republican’s winning margin in enough states to have swung the election. They’re unrealistically assuming that the Democrats could have gotten those votes without losing any of the less progressive voters. I was criticizing those people. I didn’t mean to imply that you were one of them.

      • #314371
        Carolina
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 210

        the percentages have been low single digits.

        Despite being the alleged spoiler in 2000, Ralph Nader only got 2.74 % of the vote (https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm). However, never forget that in 1992, Independent Ross Perot got 18.9%; and as a result, Clinton — with only 43% of the vote — was treated as an illegitimate POTUS from day one.

        At the time, I supported Clinton. I had heard him speak at Wharton Business School (that should have been a hint of things to come) and he was so smart, articulate, engaging and charismatic. He was also a Democrat; and at that time, I was still a member of Team Blue. I didn’t pay attention to the percentages then, but recall thinking how poorly he was treated by the press, how the opposition was dead set against him, and how he never got the traditional 100 day honeymoon. Then, due to the relentless repuke led investigations, I was distracted from his awful legislation.

        Ok, so what does that historical snippet have to do with now. A large, double-digit percentage of votes for the Greens in November would de-legitimize  the loathsome Trump, Biden, or whichever Vichy Dem the party foists as a substitute for Dementia Man squeaks by with an electoral victory. Sadly, s/he will be able to do some awful things because they are all awful, but it sends a message and starts a true 3rd party movement that progressives can shape.

    • #313689
      bazukhov
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,913

      The one who has the best chance to beat Trump.

      Tell me, great captain, how do the angels sleep when the devil leaves his porch light on? Tom Waites

      • #313787
        Betty Karlson
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 467

        But hey, if you want to vote for Trump, I won’t vote-shame you. 🙂

        • #313831
          bazukhov
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 2,913

          That’s an interesting perspective you have.   Trump vs Trump.

          Will there be a runoff if it’s a tie?

          Tell me, great captain, how do the angels sleep when the devil leaves his porch light on? Tom Waites

          • #313833
            Ohio Barbarian
            Moderator
            • Total Posts: 17,986

            @bazukhov

            It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

            Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman

          • #313847
            Betty Karlson
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 467

            (former Republican, billionaire, sexual assault history) so it is only a matter of time before they run Trump (or someone to the right of him).

             

            Seriously, Biden is too demented and too burdened to win a one man race, so your best hopes are for Trump to self-destruct. Give him a few more votes and watch him implode – it’s not much of a strategy, but it’s better than the DNC’s “let’s hope that this time, focusing on Trump will work” campaign.

    • #313731
      tularetom
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 34

      Biden hasn’t, but that’s only because he hasn’t been in a position to screw things up yet.  Nevertheless I’m fully confident, based on past actions, that Joe would prove every bit as capable as Trump when it comes to turning the executive brach to doodoo.

      So, I’m now committing now only to not vote for either of those two shitbirds.  As the election approaches, I’ll continue to weigh my choices and decide.

      • #314359
        carrotguy
        Blocked
        • Total Posts: 508

        biden is the millenial’s not-republican reagan.   whatever helps them sleep at night.   whichever party apparatus opted for biden is NOT the vehicle for change.   their last winning candidate was the president who instituted the foundations for public policy that will make actual transformative change very hard to come by.   i guess i don’t fault him completely – books have been written about it (1984) and i suppose it was only a matter of time.   in the united states, vote blue no matter who is a march to the right.   i’m not sure how it could be interpreted otherwise

    • #313846
      Junker
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 211

      I have been feeling the Bern for two election cycles.  Not really into feeling the finger, so I will write in Bernie or Ralph Nader. If the deluded Gore voters would have voted for Ralph, this country would be in much better shape.

    • #314199
      Babel 17
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,034

      Lol, maybe we can write in Hillary Clinton’s name and then laugh if Clintonistas get blamed for Trump winning. But no, I take my vote more seriously than that, so I’ll just wait and see. I’m not even sure about the write in law in New York regarding the Presidency.

    • #314715
      SinMentiras SinVerguenza
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 55

      If one is wealthy (like a Milano or any number of rich and corrupt Whoopi S-holes), a Biden presidency is perfect as they rake it in and throw “THE CRUMBS OF CHARITY” at the plebes and plebettes.  Vote Blue no matter Who fully re-directs the corporate hose of establishment money and power from the Bible Billionaires to the Bezos Billionaires.

      The Bible Billionaires wish to amass the trillions to be grifted from Trump Inc. into their pockets and altars before Jesus returns. When will Jesus get here?  Answer: “Who cares … soon … grab the end of that oil lease … would you … my hands are full of schools that I’m pilfering … er … reforming”.

      The Bezos Billionaires and their lackeys have been engorging themselves mightily during the previous 8 years of Obama and have only been slowed a little since Trump took office.  They worship at the altar of Rand and wish to own everything on earth, the moon, and beyond.

      If you are young, you see the Bernie loss as temporary.  If you are an old codger (or codgerette) who has fought and faced many decades of the neoliberal shitstorm that passes for democracy in this country; the loss is deep and personal and perceived as permanent because there are not many more dances left Johnson.

      Being Black and Brown and/or disadvantaged in society gives this loss a different twist altogether.  The thin blue line will still act as the firing squad for far too many young black and latino brothers.  You see, there are legitimate Bernie Bros in this world.  But as a legitimate group, they are merely the victims of the Neo-Establishment.  So with Biden or Trump; their lot will be military or jail, subservience or ostracism.  Their lot will NOT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE with Biden or Trump.

      So with 4 more years of Trump, we will get a cementing of the wealth inequality.

      With 4 years of Biden, we will get a cementing of the wealth inequality.

      With 4 more years of Trump, the DSCC and DCCC will cement in place these fuck-toad deep state politicians (Emily Trains the Next Blue WAVE) that have crept out of rocks and crevices these last election cycles.

      With 4 years of Biden, we will get still more Deep State rock crawlers taking over a “centrist” and criminal DNC.  It can’t be denied that how the party has conducted the elections in the various states is criminal where the S-holes should be jailed for how they comported themselves.

      With 4 years of Trump, he will get to a point where his hubris and out of control thinking will enable him to start a gigantic Vietnam style quagmire somewhere if not THE FINAL QUAGMIRE.

      With 4 years of Biden, he will get to the point where his cognitive failure will cause him to call out Putin for a round of pushups (with nukes) because we know Putin is a lying, dog-faced pony soldier and besides “Russia … Russia …. Russia”.  If we are on pace to start shit with Iran, Venezuela, or take over the Yemen massacre then when Trump gives the scepter to Biden, he too will start shit with them.

      And lastly, because of the calamity of the corona crap, we are about to have quite the meteoric shit shower that will splat on people in unpredictably different ways so that the right winger today will turn into quite the socialist as he loses his cushion that so carefully softened the evil and mean bumps of a NEO-capitalist system.

      I’ll end with this.  For me, I will vote.  That’s all I promise.   Whether or not I leave the “Dear Leader” slot blank or green or succumb for the nth time to the lesser evil argument, I can’t say.  It is more than super difficult having had that choice all my life and as old as I am, I am more  furious than ever that we can’t have an honest election in this country.  What I can say is this:  Joe Biden and Company better give up something concrete to the millions of pissed off progressives that he needs to win in November.  After all, what we are witnessing with the Corona may be the result of the Quadrillions of dollars that Sting-Ray Joe helped funnel towards the gigantic MIC that threatens to engulf the world.  Joe (along with all the NEO’s and Neeras – and Bernie too) helped to  spawn this Corona monster with his altar boy politics, financing, and deference to the Priests of High Finance and Dogs of NEO wars.

      Perhaps someone should ask this senile pussy grabbing mofo codger if he doesn’t feel partly responsible for this pandemic with all the bio-weaponry R & D money he voted for in his life.  Money which was stolen from the mouths and health of our citizens.   After all, “He’s the Guy” ….  (insert platitude)      ……

      Fuck him Bernie … I’m not WITH HIM ….  He needs to show us something CONCRETEly better than what he has so far  …  or as Kulinski puts it – he should piss off!!!!

Viewing 28 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.