Straight Dope Message Board

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

See post #101. Those positions aren't necessarily Dem only, but they are reasonably moderate.

OK, thank you for that, I was mistaken about your intent and I apologize for it.

FWIW I'm not a fan of 2nd amendment absolutism, I am sympathetic to people who had losses to gun violence, but think that anti-gun absolutism is too politically costly and starves other progressive initiatives that could have a much larger net positive benefit for society (for example healthcare, electoral reform, etc). 251

[drad dog]

This thread expresses the assymetrical quality of the system we have. It is up to dems to earn the right to have our permission to save us from a mad president. Whereas all cons need to do is suppress turnout, and keep faith with firearms. And this message is coming from an undecided totally objective potential voter too.

Republicans don't even need to obey the rule of law. Why did dems get the job of cleaning up after this? And why do they have to submit a perfect resume to be qualified?

When the opposition party is breaking the law and contemptuous of it, (see McGahn decision) the question posed in the OP becomes absurd and not a little provocative. 252

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

What? It was an example, meant to illustrate how the math works. How third party votes affect elections isn't really a debatable point: the math is the math. If you think there's a mathematical principle demonstrated by your example, please elaborate, but otherwise your analogy isn't analogous to my analogy

I disagree. My analogy is also meant to illustrate how the math works. If 65 million left wingers parachute into the country, AOC is our next President. I don’t see how you can argue with this.

Absolutely, which is why I keep saying that you need to include a comparison. With the correct comparison (to which candidate the person would've voted for had they stuck to voting for a possibly-winning candidate), you can figure out who was helped and who was harmed by their decision instead to go third-party.

But you are making the mistake of assuming that non-voters have a binary choice: Clinton or Trump. In reality, many Americans who feel estranged from the political system might vote for Gary Johnson, Mickey Mouse, or might not cast a vote for President at all. It isn’t correct to say that those individuals - who will never have cast a vote for Clinton - are responsible for Trump winning the election. They are really just totally removed from the process.

Now, let’s say in 2016 turnout was 20 million higher than it was. I have zero doubt that would have turned the tide for Clinton. But for those 20 million who didn’t vote, that doesn’t mean that they all implicitly voted for Trump. Some of the 20 million would have voted for Trump, some would not have wasted their vote, and a good share would have voted for Clinton. But nobody can equate an individual nonvoter’s behavior to a vote for Trump for failing to vote for Clinton.

Let me change the analogy: you’re counting cards at blackjack and come to an extremely favorable count. You should bet heavily because the next many cards will tend to be in your favor. But that doesn’t mean that the count allows you to predict what the next card out of the shoe will be - it could be the ten that you expect, but could be a low number, and it could be that yellow plastic card that dealers use to know when to reshuffle. In reality, Oak is that next card — even though you know that a preponderance of the remaining cards will break in your favor. 253

[drad dog]

Everybody on here is that next very special card.

But the elections strategies of any party are supposed to be about the aggregate of opinion and influence and not special cases. The data is getting more and more accurate so that the strategies involve discouraging voters and disenfranchising them too. Other behaviors than just voters voting for their guy are being sought.

If there is no meaning at all for a 3rd party vote, to a major party candidate, then what is a "spoiler"? 254

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by drad dog

Everybody on here is that next very special card.

But the elections strategies of any party are supposed to be about the aggregate of opinion and influence and not special cases. The data is getting more and more accurate so that the strategies involve discouraging voters and disenfranchising them too. Other behaviors than just voters voting for their guy are being sought.

If there is no meaning at all for a 3rd party vote, to a major party candidate, then what is a "spoiler"?

The problem here is not the general proposition that more people should vote. Of course they should. And I believe that would also help defeat this terrible hate spiral of the Republican Party.

But the OP has been criticized multiple times as implicitly voting for Trump. That’s an unfair and inaccurate attack. 255

[drad dog]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

The problem here is not the general proposition that more people should vote. Of course they should. And I believe that would also help defeat this terrible hate spiral of the Republican Party.

But the OP has been criticized multiple times as implicitly voting for Trump. That’s an unfair and inaccurate attack.

It was in response to a request though, to ask why one should vote dem in 2020, after 3 years of tirnp madness, from a firearms essentialist. The OP is putting us through our paces. 256

[Barack Obama]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

My criteria include, but are not limited to:

1) Generally considered moderate on most issues.
2) No support for any form of gun ban, whether limited to "assault weapons" or not.
3) No support for any form of gun registration or licensing .
4) Support for legalization of marijuana is a plus, but I can live without it.

Unfortunately, I think criteria 2 & 3 eliminate the entire field, or at least the ones that have a real chance to be the nominee.

Sander's is more moderate on some issues like SS expansion and M4A than democrats and republicans whos position are so far right they push sanders into the middle yet treat his proposals as radical leftist positions. It's not radical, or leftist, to advocate for Fire departments to be publicly controlled. Same applies to healthcare.

Sanders wasn't as tough on guns as many of the centrist liberals are in the DNC. He wants common sense gun control, cracking down on boyfriend loophole, and passing background checks on peer to peer sells. His position has admittedly shifted and he's a bit tougher on them now but his positions on guns aren't idiotic soundbites like Beto's "We're gonna take ur ARs". Like most of his proposals, theyre much more nuanced than that.

IIRC Sanders advocated against gun licenses in the past because they would disproportionately effect the poor and minorities. Better not to bring this up during the election though, it wont come off positive unless u explain the nuance behind the position.

Sanders has already said he will write an executive order that will federally legalize marijuana. He also wants to decriminalize all recreational drugs, and drop charges against drug offenders.


Contrast this to biden, who thinks weed is still a gateway drug, and refuses to federally legalize it, while likely supporting many right winged proposals and policies that will be thrown around if he were president. 257

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

Sander's is more moderate on some issues like SS expansion and M4A than democrats and republicans whos position are so far right they push sanders into the middle yet treat his proposals as radical leftist positions. .

And maybe, Trump isn’t actually far right, maybe he’s in the middle and literally everyone else in the world is soooooooo far left!! 258

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Hands on the trolley, man. Hands on the trolley.

Out of 1000 voters, there are 475 who like the flaming dumpster fire, and 525 who loathe him.

Problem is, out of those 525, there are 100 who also hate the condescending server-wiper.

If all 100 of those server-wiper-haters make a trolley decision, they'll see it's much worse to have a dumpster fire than to have a server wiper, and we'll get the server-wiper in office, 525-475.

If all 100 of those server-wiper-haters ignore their trolley decision, they'll instead refuse to vote for a candidate they hate, and instead they'll vote third party, and we'll get the dumpster fire in office, 475-425.

The analysis of who's helped by a third party vote depends on who the voter thinks is worse of the two candidates with a chance. Third-party voters who would've voted for Trump over Clinton helped Clinton when they voted third-party, and the reverse is true.

A third party vote helps your least-liked candidate exactly and mathematically 1/2 as much as a vote for that hated candidate would.

Yet another reason why we need to eliminate the zero-sum two-party system. Get rid of this "lesser evil" shit. 259

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Why must you appeal to me? Pretty sure I've explained that several times now, but for the umpteenth time, you must appeal to me if you want my vote. It's that simple.

Then, in that case, you've failed at civics and I think you're kind of a jerk for that. You don't understand how voting and civic engagement works in this country, and you're unwilling to do the bare fucking minimum to prevent the single worst president in modern history from getting a second term.

Originally Posted by Oakminster

You, and pretty much all of the other lefties in this thread, damn sure act like you're entitled to my vote. I do not see voting the way you do, and I'm probably not going to see it that way.

Yeah. You don't see voting the way we do. And you're wrong. And that's not really okay after so many people have explained it to you, given how dire the stakes are. 260

[septimus]

[I] Two old women are standing next to a railroad track while a train approaches.
One starts to walk to the track and will surely be crushed by the train if you fail to act.

Which do you do?
(A) Pull the woman back to safety.
(B) Push the second woman so she gets crushed also.
(C) Just go home, or vote for Gary Nutjob.

Notes for teacher: This parable should help the pupil understand that while 1 < 2, it is also the case that 0 < 1. When pupils grasp this lesson, move on to 0 < ½ < 1. Try lessons II and III if pupiuls are still having difficulties.

[II] Now the old woman is drowning. You have a very small life preserver. Which do you do?
(A) Throw the life preserver to the drowning woman.
(B) Tear it in half and throw her half a preserver.

(III) On a happier day you eat out at a restaurant. Unfortunately there are only two items on the menu.
(A) You order the dog-shit garnished with cow-snot.
(B) You order the hamburger with catsup.
(C) You complain that veal piccata is not on the menu; tell the waiter to just flip a coin; you don't care whether you get the dog-shit or the hamburger. 261

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Then, in that case, you've failed at civics and I think you're kind of a jerk for that. You don't understand how voting and civic engagement works in this country, and you're unwilling to do the bare fucking minimum to prevent the single worst president in modern history from getting a second term.

Yeah. You don't see voting the way we do. And you're wrong. And that's not really okay after so many people have explained it to you, given how dire the stakes are.

'Don't be a jerk' includes not calling people jerks, BPC. I'd think you'd know better than that.

Warning issued. Don't do it again. 262

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by octopus

Please don’t misrepresent my point of view. I don’t use socialism as a scare word. No more than others on this forum use fascism, with absolutely no pushback, as a scare word.

I didn't use it as a "scare word". I meant it literally. There is a long list of actions, behaviors and rhetoric coming from this administration and its Republican supporters that are straight out of the Nazi playbooks (not to mention, you know, actual neo-Nazis supporting it), and a broader trend of running roughshod over democratic norms and the rule of law in order to promote an authoritarian executive model.

I am aware that there are those who will handwave away such characterizations but nonetheless, I contend that the evidence is there. 263

[manson1972]

Originally Posted by septimus

[I] Two old women are standing next to a railroad track while a train approaches.
One starts to walk to the track and will surely be crushed by the train if you fail to act.

Which do you do?
(A) Pull the woman back to safety.
(B) Push the second woman so she gets crushed also.
(C) Just go home, or vote for Gary Nutjob.

Notes for teacher: This parable should help the pupil understand that while 1 < 2, it is also the case that 0 < 1. When pupils grasp this lesson, move on to 0 < ½ < 1. Try lessons II and III if pupiuls are still having difficulties.

[II] Now the old woman is drowning. You have a very small life preserver. Which do you do?
(A) Throw the life preserver to the drowning woman.
(B) Tear it in half and throw her half a preserver.

What are the women's views on gun registration? I'd need to know that before deciding to help them or not. 264

[drad dog]

Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
"You, and pretty much all of the other lefties in this thread, damn sure act like you're entitled to my vote. I do not see voting the way you do, and I'm probably not going to see it that way."

Isn't this the whole thread right here? 265

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by septimus

[I]

(III) On a happier day you eat out at a restaurant. Unfortunately there are only two items on the menu.
(A) You order the dog-shit garnished with cow-snot.
(B) You order the hamburger with catsup.
(C) You complain that veal piccata is not on the menu; tell the waiter to just flip a coin; you don't care whether you get the dog-shit or the hamburger.

Or I walk out of that restaurant, and hit the Cajun place down the street for some gumbo and jambalaya.

If nobody ever votes third party, then there will never be a viable alternative to the Blues and Reds. 266

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Or I walk out of that restaurant, and hit the Cajun place down the street for some gumbo and jambalaya.

If nobody ever votes third party, then there will never be a viable alternative to the Blues and Reds.

I will go out on a limb here and say that there will never ever be a viable Democratic candidate that will meet your specific demands. There are no where near enough voters with your unique preferences to make that candidate viable in an election.

You can participate in our democracy and try to help move the country in the right direction, or you can refuse. That is certainly your choice. However, you are not entitled to force either of the parties to acquiesce to your demands though. No citizen has that right. 267

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

I will go out on a limb here and say that there will never ever be a viable Democratic candidate that will meet your specific demands. There are no where near enough voters with your unique preferences to make that candidate viable in an election.

You can participate in our democracy and try to help move the country in the right direction, or you can refuse. That is certainly your choice. However, you are not entitled to force either of the parties to acquiesce to your demands though. No citizen has that right.

And yet, there are acceptable Dems. I voted for two of them in the recent local elections. Both were pro gun. One is a veteran. The other had a commercial with him sighting in a deer rifle, and another where he wore his pistol on screen. Both lost to simpering Trump sycophants, but they ran, and had my support. 268

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

And yet, there are acceptable Dems. I voted for two of them in the recent local elections. Both were pro gun. One is a veteran. The other had a commercial with him sighting in a deer rifle, and another where he wore his pistol on screen. Both lost to simpering Trump sycophants, but they ran, and had my support.

Local. Sure.

Nationally? No way in hell. Sorry. 269

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

If nobody ever votes third party, then there will never be a viable alternative to the Blues and Reds.

The Green Party has collected millions of votes in presidential elections. How has that worked out for them?

Lots of people vote third party. It's just that there are structural hurdles in the way of that actually mattering. That Cajun place down the road? In this metaphor, it went out of business long ago, or maybe it will take your order but never deliver your food, but you're sure not getting crawfish because they, like third parties in the USA, do not deliver. 270

[Oredigger77]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

I will go out on a limb here and say that there will never ever be a viable Democratic candidate that will meet your specific demands. There are no where near enough voters with your unique preferences to make that candidate viable in an election.

So you don't think that there are tens of thousands of people similar to Oak that would have voted for Clinton if she had believably changed her opinion on gun control? That's all it would have taken particularly in the upper midwest where there are more people who vote based on guns.

The Dems could probably crush the Repubs if they did run a candidate who was a strong second amendment supporter. 271

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Oredigger77

So you don't think that there are tens of thousands of people similar to Oak that would have voted for Clinton if she had believably changed her opinion on gun control? That's all it would have taken particularly in the upper midwest where there are more people who vote based on guns.

The Dems could probably crush the Repubs if they did run a candidate who was a strong second amendment supporter.

And how many Bernie style progressives and gun control advocates would then have voted for Jill Stein or whoever else. The Democratic party is a coalition. We can't just sacrifice all of those voters who are in favor of gun control, which is more popular than the extreme stance of 2nd amendment absolutism by the way, to chase a few thousand voters. That's how we suicide ourselves in an election. 272

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Oredigger77

So you don't think that there are tens of thousands of people similar to Oak that would have voted for Clinton if she had believably changed her opinion on gun control? That's all it would have taken particularly in the upper midwest where there are more people who vote based on guns.

The Dems could probably crush the Repubs if they did run a candidate who was a strong second amendment supporter.

Conversely, Republicans could probably get a lot more moderate votes if they ran a pro-choice candidate. 273

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

..

If nobody ever votes third party, then there will never be a viable alternative to the Blues and Reds.

After watching the disasters in GB and Israel, I dont think a multi part system has any real benefits.

and a third party only sucks voters of either the Dems or the GOP, making that party a sure loser. 274

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

And how many Bernie style progressives and gun control advocates would then have voted for Jill Stein or whoever else. The Democratic party is a coalition. We can't just sacrifice all of those voters who are in favor of gun control, which is more popular than the extreme stance of 2nd amendment absolutism by the way, to chase a few thousand voters. That's how we suicide ourselves in an election.

Altho yes, "gun control, which is more popular than the extreme stance of 2nd amendment absolutism" it's only moderate gun control, including such things are Red Flag laws, better background checks etc. In general, the public is pretty evenly split over gun control.

A smart dem candidate would take a moderate position on gun control,not the radicalism of Booker, Harris , or Beto. Even Biden has some pretty radical ideas:
https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. This means every gun company in the USA will be sued endlessly by survivors. Do we hold Ford "accountable" when someone uses a Ford to drive into a crowd of people? Did we hold whoever made the planes in 9/11 "accountable?

2.Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. I dont mind laws that require future buyers to register or even ban future sales. But I think requiring people to bought a weapon totally legally, then requiring new laws to continue to just own that weapon are a bad idea. And CA has show they dont reduce violent crime.

3. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. This means if you get SocSec disability for mental issues, you cant own a gun. Look, we already have laws that if you adjudged mentally ill you cant own a gun, but the rules for SocSec disability are much looser than that. PTSD, anxiety, depression, etc are all "disabilities' but they dont mean you are too "crazy" to own a gun. This was a bad law.

4. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, These laws are fine if they meet the ACLUs standard for Due process, but many dont. CA's dont, for example. Due process is a MUST.

5.Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. Biden will enact legislation to give states and local governments grants to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun. This will simply allow some states to put up requirements for getting a license which are onerous and nearly impossible, such as the requirement for getting a CCW in LA County.

6. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes: this means locked in a gun safe, etc, so they are useless for home defense. SCOTUS has already said this is Unconstitutional. Mind you i support requiring this for households with young kids, say 12 and under?

7.Require firearms owners to report if their weapon is lost or stolen. How about if you dont know that has occurred? Some dude vacation cabin is broken into and his shotgun is stolen, and used in a crime. The victim then goes to jail.

And this list is from one of the most moderate democrats. A man who I like for the job. Others are far more radical. So, I get what the OP is saying. There's no reason why a dem candidate couldnt take the most popular gun control measures and the ones SCOTUS said were Ok, and make that his position. 275

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Conversely, Republicans could probably get a lot more moderate votes if they ran a pro-choice candidate.

Arnie won Governator in a state which is heavily dem by doing just that.

Of course the GOP didnt learn from this and kept nominating new Gov candidates who were somewhat to the right of David Duke and Gov Maddox.

There are a few Pro-choice Republicans currently. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska for one. If the GOP ran her, I'd be tempted. 276

[Oredigger77]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

And how many Bernie style progressives and gun control advocates would then have voted for Jill Stein or whoever else. The Democratic party is a coalition. We can't just sacrifice all of those voters who are in favor of gun control, which is more popular than the extreme stance of 2nd amendment absolutism by the way, to chase a few thousand voters. That's how we suicide ourselves in an election.

What? I thought you said that dems who weren't happy just hold their nose and vote for the world to be a better place. I guess a Dem candidate has to earn far left votes by being against leaving guns alone.

I'm not sure how you could suicide yourself in an election more then 2016.

I totally agree its crazy for Repubs to be prolife. They could run on the same platform but be pro choice and get 10% more votes 277

[Airbeck]

You have to make a coalition to win an election. Allowing a small minority of potential voters to force you into adapting only their preferences, which are not popular, is the opposite of that.

Nobody gets 100% of what they want. Never have, never will. Waiting for that to happen before participating is abdicating your responsibility as a citizen. 278

[Oredigger77]

Right so if the less gets 99% of what they want but no change on guns they should be happy with that.

Obviously, lack of change from the current position on guns in the most popular position since as has been said in this thread even if the most extreme Dem is elected nothing will change with regards to guns so why lose voters for an issue you won't accomplish anything on. 279

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I disagree. My analogy is also meant to illustrate how the math works. If 65 million left wingers parachute into the country, AOC is our next President. I don’t see how you can argue with this.

Um, okay. Of course you're right. Nobody seems to be arguing otherwise. People are arguing that choosing third party instead of choosing the lesser of two plausible evils doesn't change the calculus. I'm glad you made your parachuting point, though, in case it turns out someone here isn't understanding basic addition.

But you are making the mistake of assuming that non-voters have a binary choice: Clinton or Trump. In reality, many Americans who feel estranged from the political system might vote for Gary Johnson, Mickey Mouse, or might not cast a vote for President at all. It isn’t correct to say that those individuals - who will never have cast a vote for Clinton - are responsible for Trump winning the election. They are really just totally removed from the process.

No, no, no, no, no. I'm not assuming that. I'm explicitly building that into what I'm saying. Of course I know that they don't have a binary choice for their own decision. They don't have any binary choice at all. They do, however, have a very limited choice, and that limited choice is how to affect the election's outcome.

For the purpose of affecting the world, the choice isn't, Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Mickey Mouse, Constitution Party, Stay Home. It's Democrat, Republican, ANYTHING ELSE.

Since I find the question of a person's personal decision uninteresting, it's only the question of how a person affects the world that I care about.

Let me change the analogy: you’re counting cards at blackjack and come to an extremely favorable count. You should bet heavily because the next many cards will tend to be in your favor. But that doesn’t mean that the count allows you to predict what the next card out of the shoe will be - it could be the ten that you expect, but could be a low number, and it could be that yellow plastic card that dealers use to know when to reshuffle. In reality, Oak is that next card — even though you know that a preponderance of the remaining cards will break in your favor.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following the analogy. How is Oak the next card? Are you saying I need to win him somehow?

Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I

Yet another reason why we need to eliminate the zero-sum two-party system. Get rid of this "lesser evil" shit.

Absolutely. I hate the lesser evil shit. Get rid of it through effective means. And 364 days of the year, I support your getting rid of it. I've proposed a method here and elsewhere that I think is viable, based on building a ground-up social/political movement. God, I'm not a fan of the Democratic party at all. I hate voting for the lesser of two evils.

But on that 365th day--on election day--put a clothespin on your nose and push the damn trolley. 280

[Airbeck]

The choice isn't no change on guns, or all guns are confiscated. Moderate common sense gun control is the popular position. The Democrats have to start out to the left on that or there is no room to negotiate back to the moderate position once the sausage making starts. There is also a primary to win prior to the general election.

We are never going to have both major Presidential candidates as pro gun 2nd amendment absolutists. There is zero chance of this. Just like there is zero chance of gun confiscation.

Why can't the 2nd amendment absolutists who are otherwise moderates vote for pro gun congressional and local representation and accept the candidate that gives them most of what they want for President? This is not a perfect world. Waiting for it to be before taking an action seems like an excuse for those who just don't really want to take that action, but also don't want to take any responsibility. 281

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Um, okay. Of course you're right. Nobody seems to be arguing otherwise. People are arguing that choosing third party instead of choosing the lesser of two plausible evils doesn't change the calculus.

People are literally arguing that Oak throwing his vote away does change the calculus, and he is helping Trump win the election.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following the analogy. How is Oak the next card? Are you saying I need to win him somehow?

Because one cannot attribute group behavior to each member of the group. The criticism of Oak is doing just that.

I wish he wouldn't throw his vote away, and instead make the choice of voting for whomever I think is best. But he seems pretty strongly inclined against doing that OR voting for Trump, which makes his vote irrelevant. Not helpful to Trump, but irrelevant.

Bring me someone who is on the fence on voting for Jill Stein or the Democratic nominee, or Gary Johnson or the Democratic nominee -- there's someone whose vote is in play and does make a difference. 282

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Why can't the 2nd amendment absolutists who are otherwise moderates vote for pro gun congressional and local representation and accept the candidate that gives them most of what they want for President?

That's Trump style pretzel logic. I should vote for a candidate that straight up tells me he supports a gun ban, on the theory that the current makeup of Congress will always stay the same, so the candidate can't really do what he says he wants to do? That makes no sense. We have elections on a regular basis. Control of one or both houses of Congress could change in any given election. If Team Blue takes the White House and both sides of Congress, then I'd fully expect the candidate to do exactly what he told me he was going to do...ban "assault weapons" and/or impose registration. 283

[drad dog]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

People are literally arguing that Oak throwing his vote away does change the calculus, and he is helping Trump win the election.

Because one cannot attribute group behavior to each member of the group. The criticism of Oak is doing just that.

I wish he wouldn't throw his vote away, and instead make the choice of voting for whomever I think is best. But he seems pretty strongly inclined against doing that OR voting for Trump, which makes his vote irrelevant. Not helpful to Trump, but irrelevant.

Bring me someone who is on the fence on voting for Jill Stein or the Democratic nominee, or Gary Johnson or the Democratic nominee -- there's someone whose vote is in play and does make a difference.

What is it exactly that makes it irrelevant?

So on election day he is irrelevant that morning, and on the way to the polls too, but in the booth he chooses dt. Is he still irrelevant? If he chooses the D is he irrelevant? I thought he was asking here for a candidate that he could be relevant in voting for, (a D), and avoid voting for dt. Sounds relevant to me.

Let's say that in the booth he reflects on this thread, decides that we haven't sold him and votes for the R. Is he relevant or irrelevant? 284

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

That's Trump style pretzel logic. I should vote for a candidate that straight up tells me he supports a gun ban, on the theory that the current makeup of Congress will always stay the same, so the candidate can't really do what he says he wants to do? That makes no sense. We have elections on a regular basis. Control of one or both houses of Congress could change in any given election. If Team Blue takes the White House and both sides of Congress, then I'd fully expect the candidate to do exactly what he told me he was going to do...ban "assault weapons" and/or impose registration.

Look, you can do whatever you want with your vote. That is your choice, and your right. You can vote for Baby Yoda if you want. What you *cannot* do is choose who the two major parties nominate for President via the primary system. You do not have that control. I do not have that control. Nobody does. You can vote in the Democratic primary in your state if you wish. That is the sum total of the control you have over who is on the ballot in November. The candidates on the ballot come November will be chosen by the primary voters in each party. Nobody is forcing any candidate on the ballot, it is a democratic process.

When you get to the polls in November you will have a choice in front of you. What you choose to do is up to you. Blaming everyone else for forcing your hand is bullshit though. Sorry. We are all in exactly the same situation as you with exactly the same amount of control. You are not special. None of us are. We are all exactly one vote. Yours does not count more than anyone else's. Choose what you will but know that it is *your choice*. Everyone else will have the same choice and we all need to take responsibility for ourselves and the choices we make. That's pretty much all I've been trying to say in this thread. 285

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

When you get to the polls in November you will have a choice in front of you. What you choose to do is up to you. Blaming everyone else for forcing your hand is bullshit though. Sorry. We are all in exactly the same situation as you with exactly the same amount of control. You are not special. None of us are. We are all exactly one vote. Yours does not count more than anyone else's. Choose what you will but know that it is *your choice*. Everyone else will have the same choice and we all need to take responsibility for ourselves and the choices we make. That's pretty much all I've been trying to say in this thread.

So I don't get to express any opinion whatsoever on what sort of candidate I'd like to see? Sorry, that doesn't work for me. 286

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

So I don't get to express any opinion whatsoever on what sort of candidate I'd like to see? Sorry, that doesn't work for me.

Sure you do. When did I say anything about opinions? I don't recall using the word opinion at all. You are the one who is trying to get a major political party which represents roughly half of the population to capitulate to your personal demands or else. I'm pointing out the folly in that thinking. You can have and express any opinion you like, but opinions don't change anything. Actions do.

You seem to have this need to feel like someone is taking something from you, why is that? We all have the exact same choices in front of us. You and me are the same when it comes to our ability to affect the election and the nomination process. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not trying to limit you in any way. Pointing out the limits that we all face is not about you personally 287

[Oredigger77]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Look, you can do whatever you want with your vote. That is your choice, and your right. You can vote for Baby Yoda if you want. What you *cannot* do is choose who the two major parties nominate for President via the primary system. You do not have that control. I do not have that control. Nobody does. You can vote in the Democratic primary in your state if you wish. That is the sum total of the control you have over who is on the ballot in November. The candidates on the ballot come November will be chosen by the primary voters in each party. Nobody is forcing any candidate on the ballot, it is a democratic process.

Discussions like this one are a way to effect the dem nominee. Lots of people voting in the primaries consider electability as the single most important feature in the person they are voting for (basically LHOD's argument) by letting those people know there are contingents of Republican adjacent voters who are very persuadable to voting for the Dems if they just drop the gun thing can sway who people view as electable.

We've had a ton of threads about how the left needs to ignore the middle and move hard left to excite the base. This thread is reminding voters that moving to the right will gain votes especially if done in certain ways. Even if it doesn't effect this election maybe in 4 years the new crop of dems will hear enough of people on the right willing to vote left that we can get a centrist candidate to even run. 288

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

You are the one who is trying to get a major political party which represents roughly half of the population to capitulate to your personal demands or else.

Um, no. I'm not trying anything like that. I started a thread on a message board. I did not contact the Democratic National Committee or whatever they call it with any sort of demands. If I had, they'd have maybe laughed before hanging up. The thread started with a simple request for information as to whether any Dem candidate for POTUS holds positions important to me. People then wanted to talk about other stuff, so we did. Some of those people were apparently perplexed by my position on the matter. So be it. 289

[puzzlegal]

I apologize for only having browsed the thread. Hopefully, I have something new to say anyway.

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze

I would caution you not to let perfect be the enemy of the good.

This.

Also

Originally Posted by Oakminster

...If nobody ever votes third party, then there will never be a viable alternative to the Blues and Reds.

For similar game-theoretical reasons to why we have only two sexes (across an enormous diversity of creatures) we will only have two parties as long as our current election system holds. We have had shifts from a failed party to a new party a couple of times, but it's still two parties with a lot of the same dynamics that you don't like.

If you hate the two party system:
* Push for ranked choice, or some other substantive change in the election system
* Try to get your preferred style of candidate elected to local offices, where there are fewer voters and it's easier to effect significant change, and where personality and connection may matter more than party
* In the meantime, vote for the less offensive major party candidate for major offices, where minor parties stand no chance.

If you want to influence the D primary, several of the D candidates aren't all that extreme on gun control, or in general. For instance, Amy Klobuchar's site says"

Guns: Gun violence prevention policies are long overdue. Amy supports a package of gun violence policies including instituting universal background checks by closing the gun show loophole and banning bump stocks, high capacity ammunition feeding devices and assault weapons. She is also the author of a proposal that would close what is commonly referred to as the ‘boyfriend loophole’ by preventing people who have abused dating partners from buying or owning firearms. Read more about Amy’s gun violence policies here.

Yes, she wants to ban a few things. But honestly, that's not going to happen, because it's low on her list of priorities, there are people like you who care a lot, we have this pesky constitutional amendment, and she's going to end up settling for:

close what is commonly referred to as the ‘boyfriend loophole’ by preventing people who have abused dating partners from buying or owning firearms.

which is immensely popular and will give her credibility with gun-control crowd while she focuses on things she cares more about. 290

[drad dog]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Um, no. I'm not trying anything like that. I started a thread on a message board. I did not contact the Democratic National Committee or whatever they call it with any sort of demands. If I had, they'd have maybe laughed before hanging up. The thread started with a simple request for information as to whether any Dem candidate for POTUS holds positions important to me. People then wanted to talk about other stuff, so we did. Some of those people were apparently perplexed by my position on the matter. So be it.

You're an anonymous poster making a thread on what's important to "me"(you.) You're going to get a variety of responses. 291

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

People are literally arguing that Oak throwing his vote away does change the calculus, and he is helping Trump win the election.

Between this....

Originally Posted by Oredigger77

Lots of people voting in the primaries consider electability as the single most important feature in the person they are voting for (basically LHOD's argument)

...and this, I think I'm communicating with complete incompetence in this thread. Ravenman's statement is orthogonal to what I'm trying to say, and Oredigger's paraphrase of my argument is 100% not what I'm saying at all. But if after all my posts that's what folks think comprise good responses to what I'm saying, I gotta take responsibility for that. I'm gonna bow out for now. 292

[septimus]

Rightly or wrongly, Guns matter to a lot of Americans. Beto O'Rourke came out against guns ... and disappeared from the stage. If a D came out as a gun-lover would this increase or decrease his support? I think we have evidence right here in this thread the the D's masochistic insistence on gun control costs votes and may give us four more years of the Orange Ogre.

ETA: Read what puzzlegal wrote in #290. ("If you want to influence the D primary, several of the D candidates aren't all that extreme on gun control, or in general. For instance, Amy Klobuchar's site says...")_

Originally Posted by Oakminster

And yet, there are acceptable Dems. I voted for two of them in the recent local elections. Both were pro gun. One is a veteran. The other had a commercial with him sighting in a deer rifle, and another where he wore his pistol on screen. Both lost to simpering Trump sycophants, but they ran, and had my support.

In local elections, the key issues for you seem to be Guns, Guns, Guns! In elections for the highest office in the land, your key issues seem to be Guns, Guns, Guns!

I wonder what your key criteria are for state-wide elections? How many guesses do I get? 293

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by septimus

I wonder what your key criteria are for state-wide elections? How many guesses do I get?

The "local elections" I mentioned were state wide. There were no anti gun candidates in the top state races. Both of the candidates I supported were denounced as radical liberals comparable to AOC, Pelosi, Bernie, et al by the Trump sycophants. They aren't, of course, but truth doesn't seem to matter much in politics these days. 294

[Barack Obama]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

And maybe, Trump isn’t actually far right, maybe he’s in the middle and literally everyone else in the world is soooooooo far left!!

I know you're just making a bullshit satirical response, but seriously having a position of universal healthcare isn't some far left idea. If we went ahead and said, universal healthcare + the government covering ALL grey areas, cosmetics, etc... then that'd be an actual far left position.

This idea that Bernie is radical couldn't be further from the truth. The line has been drawn so far to the right that the media can portray his policies as far left radical ideas. This is an attack to dismiss the merit of such proposals, and does nothing to solve the problems we're facing in this country. It would be nice if people like you wouldn't downplay such things and make blatantly untrue assertions. 295

[Chisquirrel]

If it comes down to literally anyone versus "Take their guns first, worry about due process second", what the hell does it matter?

If you believe O'Rourke is only one election cycle away from breaking down your door and taking everything that even remotely LOOKS like a gun, I would suggest you view Trump in the same manner.

If your firearms are what you judge candidates by, you're hosed in 2020. Better luck next election. 296

[puzzlegal]

Trump ran promising better universal healthcare than the flawed Obama plan. He didn't deliver on that promise, but he made it

Candidate trump wasn't all that far right. His "radicalism" was more about being a racist who likes to grab pussy than about his views on the major political arguments. 297

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Why must you appeal to me? Pretty sure I've explained that several times now, but for the umpteenth time, you must appeal to me if you want my vote. It's that simple.

Fine. I’ll appeal to you.

PLEASE vote to prevent the America-hating fuckstick’s re-election (on account of the facts that (1) a third-party candidate will not be winning the election, and (2) a vote that is given to a third-party candidate deprives the Democratic Party candidate of a that vote, this means that in order to vote to prevent the re-election of the America-hating fuckstick, your vote next November must be cast for the candidate that the Democratic Party nominates).

There. You’ve been appealed to. Don’t go moving the goalposts, now. 298

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Fine. I’ll appeal to you.

PLEASE vote to prevent the America-hating fuckstick’s re-election (on account of the facts that (1) a third-party candidate will not be winning the election, and (2) a vote that is given to a third-party candidate deprives the Democratic Party candidate of a that vote, this means that in order to vote to prevent the re-election of the America-hating fuckstick, your vote next November must be cast for the candidate that the Democratic Party nominates).

There. You’ve been appealed to. Don’t go moving the goalposts, now.

Sigh. It's not a personal appeal I'm looking for, it's a candidate that appeals to me due to the candidate's positions on issues I consider important. 299