PHOENIX (AP) – The 2024 presidential election is drawing an unusually robust field of independent, third party and long shot candidates hoping to capitalize on Americans’ ambivalence and frustration over a likely rematch between Democrat Joe Biden and Republican Donald Trump.
Don’t vote for a third party. That’s just voting for Trump with extra steps.
I think a lot of people thinking about voting third party are going to need reasons TO vote for someone, not reasons to not vote for the other guy. Telling them “it’s just voting for Trump” isn’t going to convince them.
And no, I’m not planning on voting third party. But finger-wagging won’t convince anyone already looking elsewhere.
If a Trump presidency doesn’t scare the shit out of them at this point, then they were already looking for excuses to support him, and “I want someone to vote FOR” is just a stupid excuse.
Like, I want a gazillion dollars and a private island, but I also don’t smear shit on the walls of the public library when I wake up and don’t get those things. Anyone who does, just wanted to smear shit on the walls.
Yup. It is basically the same as how Romney and Cheney are “good republicans” because they want all the same shit trump does but want to pretend they are classier than that
I haven’t seen Dark Brandon in a while. Like, months.
I vote FOR Dark Brandon. I’ll give Biden my vote over Trump. Those are different things, even if the objective measure looks the same.
I’d like to vote for DB and get him.
.
To be fair to OP, I’ve seen “Dark Brandon” more as a meme to vex conservatives, used when Biden accomplishes a one of his policies, and particularly when fighting to get student loans forgiven.
This.
Dark Brandon gets policy wins, judges in seats, he moves things. He gets funding for Ukraine.
I haven’t seen as much of that.
Israel isn’t something I agree as much with him on, but that’s not what I was talking about.
It’s been a few days so this thread should largely be inert.
I’m not sure who you were replying to because it wasn’t me.
I said nothing about Israel. I said I’d give him my vote. Your tone was dismissive to someone who wrote what you wanted to read, but I did not say or imply.
Not interested in a flame war, only discussion. If you respond with hostility or more bad faith, you’ll get the last word - I’ll not reply.
.
I used a rhetorical device to easily distinguish what excites me about him being president versus what’s meh. It worked and works.
Most people know they aren’t going to see a DB meme for the Israel topic *that you introduced from… Somewhere? *
He’s chalked up wins and I know he’ll end up with L’s. But I prefer seeing him using his political capital on the economy, green energy, trust busting, courts… The virtuous things Roosevelts did.
You keep implying I said something I didn’t and your post history is argumentative. Smart, but too many elbows. This will be my last reply.
Anyone not terrified of a Republican and/or Trump presidency has a shitton of privilege and needs to fucking check it. Cishet, white and men are prominent demographics for “he won’t hurt me too badly” and by the time the redcaps come for those not in lockstep it’ll be far, far too late.
deleted by creator
So voting for the uniparty that picked the candidate for you is democracy?
In other words lots of people have an incredibly childish attitude about voting and are completely prepared to throw a little tantrum in the voting booth even if it means fascists get to take over the whole federal government. I’m becoming pretty convinced that people like that are just incapable of rational decision making.
It’s crazy how people view voting. In life we have so many situations where we look at realistic options and choose the best thing, or even the least bad thing, from those options.
But then with voting people feel like making their vote should be like wishing on a birthday cake. It’s totally irrational, as you say.
If we don’t accept that irrational people exist and do what we can to get their votes, we risk the return of Trump.
But it’s way more fun to shout at them.
One can’t cater to or court the irrational. We can however stop humoring them and giving them undeserved respect. That might lead more rational people to mistakenly consider them.
One can’t cater to or court the irrational.
Republicans keep doing it. They beat Clinton in 2016 by doing it.
Centrist Democrats would rather lose than debase themselves by moving one Planck length to the left.
And it’s coming back to bite them in the ass. Further, condoning and catering to those views only speeds up the rotting brain mush that is the current American political psyche. Making it easier for fascist strong men to take over. On undeliverable promises of candy mountains and soda pop swimming pools. As a socialist largely opposed to Democrats neoliberal economic plans. I can still support them, as our best current possible option. But they absolutely do need to promote themselves better.
But Republicans have cornered the market on those who enjoy being lied to at infinitem. And it is simply not a viable tactic for democrats to even try to steal that group from them.
lots of people have an incredibly childish attitude about voting and are completely prepared to throw a little tantrum in the voting booth even if it means fascists get to take over the whole federal government. I’m becoming pretty convinced that people like that are just incapable of rational decision making.
i would believe you were talking about people voting for republicans or people voting for democrats. everyone else is trying to avoid a further slide into fascism.
And no, I’m not planning on voting third party. But finger-wagging won’t convince anyone already looking elsewhere.
[finger-wagging intensifies]
Telling them “it’s just voting for Trump” isn’t going to convince them.
They also use that argument against people who don’t show up to vote – the very same people who might show up for a candidate they want to vote for.
In other words, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary, they might not vote for a two-party candidate anyway.
There are people who, despite the entirety of human history, fail to take into account that people aren’t always rational. In fact, they’re deeply offended by the suggestion and become hostile towards anyone who suggests that they should take this into account, even in situations in which the consequences for failing to do so are dire.
It’s gonna be republicans making a protest vote. Democrats are in lock step for once
Trump might be the biggest reason to vote against him, but Republicans have played all their cards and threatened the American people’s rights. Even if he is locked up, Biden would still win.
I hope your confidence is founded.
Republicans are all for third party candidates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
no, it’s not. it’s voting against trump by definition.
How about this… don’t take a guy who quietly supports genocide, whose been part of politics longer than I’ve been alive- in fact he’s been a senator for more than twice as long as I’ve been a voter- and make him the canidate.
Because, under your argument, that’s just giving voted to trump!!!
“Vote blue no matter who” is an argument that presupposes a good canidate is in office. Biden is not a good candidate; and the dems need to find somebody else to run him.
We saw the same problem with Hilary. Hilary was not a good canidate and in no way was actually capable of winning. You made the same arguments then as now.
You know Biden is going to lose votes. Why the fuck are you unwilling to consider someone else?
.
Hopefully enough others will vote anyway out of a sense of duty, but non-enthusiastic energy for a candidate will keep some people from going out to vote at all. That is actually a third default choice that takes no energy to do.
.
Right beside you, fellow jellyfish-eater. Right beside you.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. If you told me to swim through a pit of jellyfish to keep Trump away from the White House, I would swim through the fucking jellyfish.
Others may not, and Biden may lose without them.
.
Ok, just expect the same thing that worked for you to work for everyone.
I’ve made this point here in the past. It’s a solid point. Wish it didn’t lead to down votes.
If a person isn’t well off, has poor ballot situations and a kid to tend to… their enthusiasm matters when that next logistical hurdle appears on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Biden is a good candidate. He hasn’t been impeached yet, unlike his competitor during this same time in his term; he hasn’t started a coup on his own country, and the fact that he’s experienced at the job he’s applying to is actually a good thing (displayed by the passing of both the CHIPs act and the IRA despite not having complete control of congress). Hilary was actually a significantly better candidate than Trump(very obvious in hindsight for many), but Trump had the advantage of Russian support and the fact that it was uncertain how he would act as president. Once voters found out how Trump is as a president, they turned away from him in droves as evidenced by the fact that he’s the first president to lose reelection in 20 years, and Republicans have lost every election since Trump was voted in.
Biden ain’t perfect, but man he’s a huge upgrade compared to Trump.
Biden is a good candidate. He hasn’t been impeached yet
…the bar is in hell.
No,these are just some very simple, and objective comparisons that can be made because the alternative is someone literally below the bar that is in hell.
CHIPS ACT, Inflation Reduction Act, supporting unions are some more important things Biden has assisted with.
Way to ignore the rest of his fucking comment, douchebag.
Biden is a good candidate. He hasn’t been impeached yet, unlike his competitor during this same time in his term; he hasn’t started a coup on his own country, and the fact that he’s experienced at the job he’s applying to is actually a good thing (displayed by the passing of both the CHIPs act and the IRA despite not having complete control of congress). Hilary was actually a significantly better candidate than Trump(very obvious in hindsight for many), but Trump had the advantage of Russian support and the fact that it was uncertain how he would act as president. Once voters found out how Trump is as a president, they turned away from him in droves as evidenced by the fact that he’s the first president to lose reelection in 20 years, and Republicans have lost every election since Trump was voted in.
Biden ain’t perfect, but man he’s a huge upgrade compared to Trump.
lets break that down a bit here. your argument is in 3 parts:
- Biden is not Trump
- Biden is “experienced”
- and Biden managed to take care of business.
Point one applies to literally every one whose not trump; and even if go so far as to be ‘not-trump-like’, that would include a fair number of Republicans, too. It’s not an argument that should be seriously made when deciding who the Democratic candidate should be… because it’s pretty much a given.
Point two… that’s also an argument against. He’s been in the senate for longer than I’ve been alive. We need change. we don’t need the same washed up and tired ideas. Biden’s functional policies have only grudgingly changed. for example, if he wanted to legalize weed, he could have. He could have chosen to not open up Willow Project- like he had (indirectly) promised to not do. further, he’s only had what? 12 years experience in the excecutive branch? and 8 as second fiddle. his record there is pretty uninspiring, to be honest. You’re welcome to disagree.
point three- has Biden accomplished a lot? compared to trump? absolutely. Trump left this country in a shambles and Biden helped pick up the pieces. Helped- he was far from alone in that. and the CHIPS act is largely a no-brainer bill. same goes for the IRA and the infrastructure act. before trump came to office, all of them would have been hailed as modest bits of normalcy. Big bills? sure. Important? absolutely. but nothing worth bragging about.
It should be noted that most VBNW-type people are only pushing the first argument. Which is intellectually dishonest and a scare tactic. Virtually any one capable of being the democratic canidate is not trump, and is a far cry from trumpism. especially the actual progressives. we can talk about what Biden has done, and his policy decisions and where he’s propelled the country to. but from where I sit, most of his accomplishments are full of half measures.
Like, he kept the ship from listing more, and he’s bailing his hardest, but, the ship ain’t righting and it’s still leaking.
If we’re talking about candidate for president, then easily Biden is the best choice. Why would the DNC even think about not picking Biden as the candidate when Americans voted him in already, and he hasn’t shit the bed? Not only that, this is a literal repeat of the election Biden won, against the exact same opponent with the EXACT same platform and message. I should emphasize, Trump LOST his reelection something that hasn’t happened since HW Bush in '92 and yet Trump lost because he was so bad. So here we are a president running for reeelection in which there’s a history of presidents mainly winning their reelection campaigns. It seems like a no brainer, run Biden unless he messes up soon (since closer to election time, the calculus becomes harder to figure out).
In regards to my point 2, We tried something new with Trump and it was a train wreck. Having experience for a job is always a plus, when compared to someone that knows nothing/very little. I agree Biden isn’t exactly my cup of tea (voted for Bernie), but he’s not crap compared to other Democrats, and against Trump there’s not contest. But we’re passed deciding whether we need to change out Biden, that decision point was back during the primary.
Point three, Neither of those bills are modest and especially not with the current political atmosphere. Some R politicians are literally saying that Biden stole the election and has committed impeachable actions, they’ve been acting and voting with that in mind. The CHIPs act voted with overwhelming republican disapproval. So doesn’t seem like a no brainer decision for Republicans which makes it rather surprising that it passed in general. Same thing with the Inflation Reduction Act which is the biggest spending bill for the environment for US and world history. Republicans overwhelming voted against it in the House and Senate as well.
and he hasn’t shit the bed?
- WIllow Project (oil drilling project in alaska)
- Palestine
- student loan debt (well, there’s some progress on it, but its far from complete.); cost of tuition. 0
- Dreamers.
- Immigration reform. Customs detention facilities. dealing with the asylum crisis.
- Policing reform.
- codifying Roe v. Wade.
- Housing costs; and other debt.
- Core inflation has come down, but the kind of inflation people feel on a daily basis hasn’t (Food and energy paramount here.)
Seriously, compared to any ex-president other than trump, and at best he’s “Meh”.
The CHIPs act voted with overwhelming republican disapproval. So doesn’t seem like a no brainer decision for Republicans which makes it rather surprising that it passed in general. Same thing with the Inflation Reduction Act which is the biggest spending bill for the environment for US and world history. Republicans overwhelming voted against it in the House and Senate as well.
Yep. because they’re the party of shitting themselves and blaming democrats. the point being, though, that while Biden did a fair amount of heavy lifting there- he didn’t do all the heavy lifting. Those bills aren’t exclusively biden’s win.
Like, he kept the ship from listing more, and he’s bailing his hardest, but, the ship ain’t righting and it’s still leaking.
Half of the passengers are actively shooting holes into the ship. I don’t think there’s a human alive that could right it. There is no Ideal Candidate who can fix all these problems in one term - probably not even in two. So I don’t get why we’re holding Biden to this impossible standard where conservatives create problems faster than anyone can solve them, but then we hold Biden solely responsible for the both the cleanup and the progress we should have made in the meantime, but then we also won’t afford him the benefit of “helping.” In your words, “he was far from alone in that,” well why should he be?
He shouldn’t be alone, obviously.
The question isn’t whether or not some one is ideal. Or if they could right the ship- you’re right that’s basically impossible.
The question is… can some one do a better job? And I think the answer is yes. Now is not the time to play it safe. Hilary was the “safe” play and she lost. And she wasn’t responsible for supporting a genocidal state. (Well she might have done in biden’s shoes,)
Now is the time to come out swinging, because that’s the only way we’re going to get back to where we should be. Biden isn’t going to lead that charge because he’s as conservative as centrist republicans were 20 years ago, and under him… he’s kept us from getting worse (more or less,). But that’s it.
Why the fuck are you unwilling to consider someone else?
Is this your first election? Incumbency advantage and name recognition. Anyone who understands that and continues to make excuses to not vote for Biden is a Trump supporter. Either intentionally or through sheer privileged ignorance.
The candidate I plan on voting for wants to reduce the military budget by 90%. Please tell me how this fits in with Biden or Trump’s policy.
Not how party politics work. Go get a Congress person. Voting third party in the general is a vote for Trump.
Anyone who understands that and continues to make excuses to not vote for Biden is a Trump supporter. Either intentionally or through sheer privileged ignorance. Save your preaching for the full election next year. After which I will be angrily telling you I said so.
missing the point, and instead going straight to the fucking insults. POINT: Biden as a candidate sucks. nobody is saying Biden is actually their preferred candidate. he’s deeply unpopular and becoming increasingly so, and yet, you’re sitting here blaming people WARNING you about that… instead of maybe shopping around for another candidate- IN THE FREAKING PRIMARIES?
we’re winding up for another repeat of 2016, because people like you won’t get off their fucking high horse and actually listen to people. and you have the fucking gall to accuse ME of sheer privileged ignorance. Incidentally, I’ve had his exact same conversation with people, only about Hilary.
Oh and your point about incumbency… yeah, that’s increasingly becoming the millstone about his neck, Biden is far from the best, and he could be using what little positive influence he has now for supporting another candidate- LIKE HE FREAKING PROMISED LAST TIME.
Your choice is between President Biden, who has been a good President or the Antichrist. There isn’t anyone else running that is worth my time to look at. Your argument should wait until 2028 when Pete Buttigieg is the top candidate. Probably the most intelligent member of the Federal Government right there.
Appeal to fear is a logical fallacy and marketing gimmick.
We can and should do better. All I hear is “You’ll vote the way we tell you, and you’ll like it.”
To which my only response is “Okay, Boomer.”
The Consitution was written to support a two party system. You can change the game without a Consitutional Amendment.
lol if you think I’ve forgotten about the sewage-chugging fest that was the 45th presidency, you’re out of your fucking mind. I’m not thrilled with Biden’s age, but I am dramatically less fucking thrilled with the conservative’s current shitbag choice. Show me a 3rd party with eye-wateringly powerful support from Democrats, and I’ll certainly consider it. But until then, for as long as conservatives are mouth-frothingly determined to usher in fascism unheralded, I won’t be swayed.
Yup, a bunch of people want to push third party candidates.
They either ignore the fact that under FPtP (First Past the Post), a third party candidate is always a spoiler candidate, or they’ve been paid off by conservatives to weaken the chances of Democrats doing the bare minimum and holding on to power that they should have been actually using.
Which bring up the second evil of FPtP, as long as conservatives are batshit crazy and openly embracing fascism, all the Democrats have to do, it not be conservatives… And sadly, that’s a very high bar for them.
The fix to all of this is, of course, to ditch FPtP voting. My current favorite replacement is called STAR. It’s about the single best single winner voting system ever created. (another link)
For anyone else who finds voting systems fascinating, there’s an entire wiki devoted to just that. I’ll admit to having read most of it over the last few years. I might need better hobbies.
Republicans are pushing third party candidates HARD. If Biden doesn’t get 270 electoral votes the Republican House appoints the president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
I recall learning about STAR a while ago, and I agree that both that FPtP sucks ass, and STAR is vastly better. All we’d need to do is get it instituted to replace FPtP, which is the real hurdle.
I may be off here because this is the first I’m reading about STAR, but it seems worse than instant-runoff ranked-choice voting because of the “top two candidates based on first results are the final two candidates”. It seems like ranked-choice but broken to keep the States in a two party system.
For instance: Let’s say there are 4 parties: blue, red, green, and yellow. Let’s say the majority of people have red (27%) and blue (26%) as their top pick, so those are automatically #1 and #2. Green is a close third (25%). The remainder (21%) vote for yellow, then green, then red, then blue. STAR would say every other candidate is eliminated except Red and Blue, and then redistribute the other votes. Instant-runoff would say: eliminate yellow and redistribute based off their second choice. In this example, all those votes would switch to green and green would become first. Then blue would be eliminated, those votes redistributed, and then you’d have to see what would happen. Instant-runoff to me allows for the opportunity for a meeting in the middle - everyone potentially agreeing on their second choice; while STAR seems like it will just continue to encourage people to put their primary pick up top.
You actually have it backwards.
Ranked Choice (otherwise known as Instant Runnoff Voting) is the worse system by far.
It comes down to the mechanics of both.
See, IRV is just a bunch of small FPtP elections all on one ballot. This causes issues and extremely odd behaviors, that can result in the Condorcet winner, actually losing the election.
IRV also has spoiler effects and horrible counting procedure.
Did you know that to count an IRV election, you need to transport all ballots to a centralized location? It literally cannot be counted at the polling location due to the way the counting (and recounting) works.
Also, IRV is one of the only voting systems ever invented to fail the Monotonicity criterion, i.e. ranking a candidate lower can sometimes lead to them winning the election. The likelihood of this happening approaches 100% the more candidates you have on the ballot.
In Contrast, with STAR, You rate each candidate independently of the others on the ballot. You can have multiple candidates rated at the same level.
This independent rating removes the spoiler effect completely, because you’re never forced to vote A instead of B.
So, you’ve rated all your candidates on a scale of 0-5, then the counting happens. It can be done at the polling location. Each polling location reports the number of ballots cast, and the total scores of each candidate.
This gives you a lot of data about each polling location. Particularly, you can average out those scores. This lets you know how the total population feels about any given candidate, not just how their direct supporters feel.
Anyway, the total scores for the election are added up, and the top two candidates are then put into an automatic runoff.
This automatic runoff is done ballot by ballot, if A is rated higher on that ballot than B, the final vote goes to A. If they’re rated the same, then the final vote is tallied as “No Preference” and here’s the important part, the No Preference votes are also reported in the final count.
So in your example with four candidates, You have to ask more. Do Red voters also like Green? Do Blue voters like Yellow? That actually matters in the final count.
It’s not just “my top pick didn’t win, so now it’s down to my less favorite” (Although that does happen as well).
The best way to look at the results of a STAR election is to average out the scores. So, the candidates with a 3.8 and a 4.1 end up in the automatic runoff, while the candidates who got 2.5 and a 3.6 are dropped from the election.
Then each ballot is checked, and if the candidate with a 4.1 does better on that ballot, they get the vote.
The actual averages will likely be different. Districts that lean heavily one direction or the other might see a candidate with a very high average, districts that are more competitive will see winning averages in the 2s and 3s.
This would also change the strategy around getting campaigning. Less negativity and mud slinging, more focus on issues and driving engagement.
You can’t win on just being “Not the other guy”.
Big thank you for writing all that out. There’s a lot of dynamics here I am not knowledgeable about, so I appreciate you providing links as well. I’ll have to read more on this before getting back to you. After your explanation, I have a much better understanding of the intended value of STAR. My gut is still saying that STAR will not allow 3rd parties into a polarized political environment, but I have no data to back that up. I just feel that people will vote 0 for the candidate they least want, 5 for the one they want, and 3 for the one they’re ambivalent about and that will devolve STAR to a two-round ranked choice that favors the two biggest political parties. Again, that’s definitely possibly me just not fully understanding the system. I’ll have to read more, crunch numbers, and see what numbers others have crunched and get back to you. Definitely very interesting and I love the concept of rating politicians independent of each other.
The main reason why STAR and other Cardinal voting systems can help grow third parties, is they don’t punish the voter for supporting them.
That 3 rating that you give someone, You can give a bunch of them and not change the 5 rating that you also gave.
One of the most common attacks against a voting system is called Cloning. You take a somewhat popular candidate and run someone who has almost exactly the same platform. Both then suffer from splitting the vote between the two.
STAR and other Cardinal systems are immune to this attack. There’s no vote splitting, because the (initial) votes are completely independent of each other.
Things can get a bit odd if two clone candidates make it to the final two, but even then, they theoretically have the same platform, and the voting public should be mostly happy with either one.
But that’s where the tallied “No Preference” votes come in, to tell the winner just how little they’re preferred over their closest rival.
Or you ditch direct presidential elections altogether, vote for congress with a proportional vote and let them decide who’s gonna be president. That way you’ll force the (now more than 2) parties to form coalitions and cooperate.
I’m not thrilled with Biden’s age
I don’t get this when his opponent is less than 4 years younger than him.
Show me a 3rd party with eye-wateringly powerful support from Democrats
How large is this eye-watering powerful support among Democrats? 50 percent? 80 percent? 100 percent? Who will in the election in those cases?
During almost any other election, I’d be all sorts of in favor of 3rd party candidates. But I’m also willing to acknowledge the reality of the situation, and the choices are this:
- Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
- Donald J. Trump.
A Third Party CandidateDonald J. TrumpStay HomeDonald J. TrumpA Write-in CandidateDonald J. Trump
That’s it. Those are your options. Third party candidates have exactly zero chance in our political system in today’s hyper-partisan environment. If you are voting for anybody other than Biden, or opting not to vote at all, you’re essentially giving your vote to Trump. All of these people refusing to put support behind Biden because he’s too old, or because of Israel, or whatever, refuse to accept that the alternative is exponentially worse for them.
It’s Biden or Trump. There is no choice C. And in the immortal words of Rush, If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
All of these people refusing to put support behind Biden because he’s too old, or because of Israel, or whatever, refuse to accept that the alternative is exponentially worse for them.
Ok. So you’ve pointed out the reality of the situation. How do we proceed? How do we get them back? “Trump is worse than Biden, moron!!!” hasn’t done the trick. If we need their votes, how do we get their votes?
If we don’t need their votes, we don’t get to retroactively need their votes if we need someone to blame for a loss, either.
If Trump wins, you stop investing your money, pull it completely out of the bank, do not buy anything at all beyond basic needs. You want the economy to implode and your investments are safe at home. Beyond that you can’t do much else.
If we need their votes, how do we get their votes?
In my opinion, the Democrats need to work on broadly popular legislation, like marijuana legalization. Try to push it through, and if it fails, which it probably would in the house, they need to make a stink over it, and then use that for campaign ads, with the promise that if they win all 3 branches next election, they will make it happen. Then they actually need to do that, rather than waffling like they have in the past.
Never claimed to have any of the answers to that.
I have a few ideas. There’s been a pattern in the Biden administration. I call it “lose big, win small, celebrate huge.”
Example: BBB. We lost big there. Over the course of months, BBB was systematically gutted and then killed. Americans got to watch as things Biden ran on, things that could have improved their lives in tangible ways, the reasons many of them voted for Biden in the first place, get removed, one by one, until the bill was eventually killed, at the behest of a member of Biden’s own party.
This was followed up with a comparatively modest win: The Inflation Reduction Act, which has indirect limited benefits to individuals, like Medicare being able to negotiate prices on a laughably tiny selection of prescription drugs. It’s something, yes, but we voted for childcare and family leave.
Then Biden’s supporters completely ignore the big loss, and instead celebrate the Inflation Reduction Act as though it was a bigger win than passing BBB, with all sorts of puffery about how it’s the least pathetic attempt to address the climate emergency so far.
I can provide other examples, but this is the most glaring one.
Now, compare this to how Biden has handled student loans. Biden started with half measures and his supporters acted like forgiving fraudulent loans for select borrowers was huge, even though it was mandated by existing law. Then Biden actually listened to progressives and tried to forgive student loans. Actual, tangible benefit to voters. That was killed by the courts. Crucially, it was not killed by Biden’s own party. Unlike childcare and family leave, Biden didn’t immediately give up forever. He instead did what he could to forgive what he could. He had a contingency plan and kept going. His supporters could point to the failure, admit it failed, blame those responsible, and show in real terms how Biden wasn’t gonna let that be the last word on the subject.
There’s other examples of this as well, but as before, this is the most glaring.
We need to keep trying to do what voters voted for, not acting like they won the showcase showdown when they’re going home with the consolation prize.
And for the love of god, we can’t keep acting like “not trump” is a sufficient argument to get all the voters we need to win. It might be, but the consequences of failure are so dire that that mustn’t be our only message. That and we need the administration to step up between now and the election. The administration needs a win between now and then.
And before anyone is like “well, you’re not getting one so vote for Biden anyway,” I’m already voting for Biden. I’m saying what I think is needed to convince enough people to vote for Biden so that we can be confident about beating Trump.
Yeah the choice you’re misrepresenting is its own choice. The choice to not participate, or to protest the incumbent. Unless you tick the box next to trump you’re not voting for trump. If Biden wants support he has to earn it like everyone else. Blame all the idiots voting for trump, blame the DNC for shilling trump into the Whitehouse in 2016, or blame the two party system for creating this scenario sure, but blaming the people on the fringe trying to vote their conscious is just reinforcing the system that got us in this mess.
Option 1 - eat pizza. Option 2 - eat burritos. Option 3 - eat burgers. Option 4 - eat shit.
There are 5 people in your family and 2 of them are die hard shit eaters and 1 die hard burger eater. If you vote for a burrito, pizza, or don’t vote you are eating shit.
Except the burger is 50% ground shit. You were forced to est shit your whole life. Your best friend was sent far away by shit enforcement to eat shit somewhere else, and your neighbors are eating shit out of garbage can and lighting shit on fire to stay warm. The only time anyone seems to question why we are covered in shit is when the shit eaters win the vote, otherwise they are completely ignoring the shit eating party and are content to blame anyone who is eyeing the ecoli burrito for the fact we are eating shit.
What they are ignoring is that if the orange blob is able to do his worst, their very lives may be at stake.
Third parties should sit it out until trump is convicted and behind bars. If the third party candidates are serious about the country, they’d recognize the danger that orange moron poses and do just that.
People do realize that being behind bars does nothing to stop someone from serving in an elected office, right?
True but it would definitely hinder his ability to hold his stupid rallies and what have you.
It’s always funny to me when these articles claim dems are worried about this No Labels group. It’s kinda asinine. That’s just not the kinda thing that appeals to dems that much. Makes me almost certain it’s just someone writing that kinda wants dems to be worried.
We, honestly, kinda like labels. They’re terribly convenient. Like, when you run into a Jewish-hating, militaristic, strong ethno-state type individual, it’s just really nice if there can just be this one word that can be used to describe that person. Because, y’know, “Jewish-hating militaristic ethno-state individual” is just a pain in the ass to use.
Now, certain types really don’t like labels. They like to whine about identity politics for instance. I think they will like this party.
Do they mean weary, or do they mean wary?
Weary means worn down (it’s literally the “wear” as in “wear and tear” with a y on the end to make an adjective), usually signifying tiredness or apathy.
Wary means overly aware (it’s literally the “ware” as in “aware” with a y on the end to make an adjective*), usually signifying nervousness or apprehension.
Given the context, they could mean either. Or both.
* Though for orthographic reasons, the e is dropped. I see you, fellow pedants.
Democrats need to appeal to people who are considering leaving for third parties before they lose them.
This is a controversial statement.
Simply blame the voters for not feeling oblogated enough to pick your party until you win the elections of course. Taking responsibility for their own choices just cuts too much into our donor base.
Oh, FFS.
Technically correct. They will find the gap in the elevator shaft and vanish forever.
Yeah, no one is voting-in a 3rd party. That’s just not ever going to be a thing, sorry. And if through some miracle, they somehow did get elected, what the fuck are they going to do? Not a fucking thing. In spite of Trump’s best efforts, presidents are not dictators. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are going to work with a president who isn’t part of their little clubs. They probably couldn’t get approval for a new brand of toilet paper in the white house bathrooms, let alone do anything meaningful.
People want fine-tuned success when we’re still at broad-stroke level of change required.
This go-around, focus on
- all people are people
- everyone gets a vote
- armed demonstrations get Armed Response
- lies get lawsuits
- prisoners get at least Geneva Convention-level treatment
Later, we can work on the other things we need. You know, allowing for Texit if they build their walls, eminent-domaining prisons back for cruelty reasons, taxing the wealthy, all that. But now, let’s just get the absolute basics in.
I kind of think the 3rd party vote for president is a general election really depends on the state you vote in. If your state is a stronghold for a party and has a candidate that has no chance in losing, I think it makes sense to vote 3rd party if that aligns with your politics. But id voting in a contested battleground state, you have to be more strategic about your vote and be willing to compromise or vote for damage control to prevent the other candidate from winning. I think ideally participating in democracy is an ends in itself regardless of whether your candidate wins or not. All participants in an election should be able to look at results and get a feel for what the voice of the people is, and that does mean knowing what the minority voted for and in what numbers.
Many library-goers are worried about ice on the sidewalk to the front entrance due to the extremely cold temperature. A guy pouring his lukewarm coffee on the ground hopes he can help.
deleted by creator
Im not supporting this political system anymore. Im voting for whoever is promising ranked choice voting, overturning citizens united, outlawing lobbying, and outlawing all elected officials from investing.
Primaries? Sure. In the general if you do that you are essentially voting for Trump and/or fascism. Third parties are spoilers 100% of the time until they can actually win. And none of them can right now.
When are the Democrat primaries next year?
Gee you know what would really help with that fucked up situation? Ranked choice voting.
Yeah no shit. The chance to get that from Republicans is somewhere below -1, close to hell probably.
Republicans or democrats. But yall will defend them and the two party system to the death
Well then join a union and start organizing. That is an even better way to influence politics.
Alright since voting doesnt matter im gonna go ahead and vote for who i want
Anything you’re upset about is your fault because you’re not active enough.
Outlawing lobbying? So you want to make it a crime to visit your elected representatives in their office? Is that the kind of world you fantasize about?
Also, how the absolute fuck are you gonna get ranked choice voting enacted by the President?? Did you just arrive from the moon?
Youre thinking of the historical definition of lobbying, when citizens would wait in lobbies of legislatures to make their case to a legislator. Thats no longer what lobbying means in the US. Its actually a legally distinguished title, lobbyists are a paid position, generally lawyers or former legislators, representing large organizations, and facilitating giving politicians money or gifts to influence their votes. You can write to your congressman, you can call one of their secretaries voicemails, you can attend any town halls they might hold, but youre not a lobbyist and you cannot go have a personal meeting with your congressman like a lobbyist can.
Im voting on these issues for all elections, not just president. But presidential support is pretty important for any legislation.
deleted by creator
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 starts regulating when a person exceeds 20% of their time spent in that capacity. If you spend less than 20% of your time lobbying, you’re not recognized as a lobbyist per federal law. Jon Stewart was, for example, an unpaid lobbyist for 9/11 first responders.
Its actually a legally distinguished title, lobbyists are a paid position, generally lawyers or former legislators, representing large organizations, and facilitating giving politicians money or gifts to influence their votes.
Wrong. Lobbyists are people who spend more than 20% of their time in that capacity, per the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Anyone under that threshold is still lobbying, but is not a lobbyist. Nonprofits also have lobbyists, such as Human Rights Watch, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Greenpeace, or the Waterkeeper Alliance. The Cherokee Tribe has a lobbyist. So does the Nebraska League of Municipalities and the Chicago Teachers Union. Not all of them are mustache-twirling supervillains. I’m sure you think it’s nice and neat to write a law that makes “bad” lobbying illegal but keeps “good” lobbying legal, but I can assure you there’s more lobbying happening every minute of every day than you actually realize, and a lot of it is good lobbying.
youre not a lobbyist and you cannot go have a personal meeting with your congressman like a lobbyist can.
Bullshit:
- https://www.tillis.senate.gov/meetings
- https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact/scheduling-requests
- https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/meeting-request
- https://www.cruz.senate.gov/contact/meeting-requests
- https://www.manchin.senate.gov/contact-joe/scheduling-requests
- https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/contact/scheduling-request
- https://schiff.house.gov/schedule-a-meeting
Theyre non-profit, but they still spend money. The Southern Poverty Law Center i know does monetary lobbying, contributing to political campaigns. With good intentions sure, but id say theyre being forced to use a corrupt system to try and compete with the mustache twirling supervillains. Im defining lobbying as monetary value contributions to elected officials or candidates, thats the specifics of what i want outlawed. Actual legislation would be even more specific in scope.
All of these meeting links include organization representation. Some of them even say you might only get to meet with a staffer. See if you can get a one on one meeting with your rep.
If the “corrupt” system goes away, the implicit coordination with PACs doesn’t. You will quite literally only be punishing the good guys. You should be far more specific that what you want to outlaw is quid pro quo lobbying, not the whole concept of lobbying itself.
Also I pointed out that you are factually incorrect on being able to meet with a Congressional representative, your goalpost shift notwithstanding.
Lobbying does not exist in its historical definition anymore. Even in non-profit examples, it’s still monetary influence rather than just spoken. That’s what people are talking about when they say lobbying, if you see a political call to action of writing your congressman, tell me if they describe it as lobbying your congressman.
I aint moving goalposts, I claim you cannot have a personal meeting with your congressman. If you are a representative of some large organization, maybe.
Wrong and wrong. I know and work with several registered lobbyists, as well as people who do occasional environmental lobbying. To say you’re completely and utterly misinformed (on both points) would be an understatement.
Ya don’t say!
