Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-02-2020, 02:39 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
It's even worse than that. I haven't started fully evaluating the Democratic field, because I don't get to vote in their primaries. Nor do I want to, since registering (D) effectively means I give up my right to vote in every single election on the ballot.
Huh?

Why on earth would registering D mean you give up your right to vote in any, let alone every, election on the ballot?

Registering D doesn't mean you have to vote D. You continue to have your right to vote for anyone of any party in every single election on the ballot.

All you're doing by not registering in a party, if you're in a state in which that matters, is giving up your right to vote in any primary at all.


-- I used to be a swing voter, years ago. I'm still a swing voter, on the very local level: county clerk, highway superintendent, town board. (Often these offices are unopposed anyway, around here; and sometimes the same candidate is running on both the R and D lines, as well as others. NY is weird, you can do that here.) I'm not currently a swing voter for any office beyond county level; or at least, the D's would have to run somebody like an avowed white supremacist to make me one, which isn't currently likely to happen. But in a clearcut race I'll often vote for the D candidate on another line (see NY is weird: the votes that any one candidate gets on, say, the D, Working Families, and Green lines; or on the R and Conservative lines; or sometimes on stranger and even apparently contradictory combinations of lines, are all added together and all count. So in NY you can vote third party and have it count in practice -- as long as your third party vote is for a candidate also running as D or R.)
  #52  
Old 01-02-2020, 03:02 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oredigger77 View Post
I know dems in Wyoming that don't bother to go to the polls since they are just going to lose. I know republicans in California who gave up voting years ago because they don't get to choose who their Congressman is.
My rural California region is solidly (R) which I ain't. (See all the red counties on a Calif. map.) I don't abstain from voting just because I know my neighbors will re-elect (R) legislators. My vote isn't wasted. Which is worse: 1) voting for what you want and not getting it, or 2) voting for what you DON'T want but getting it? Which is the wasted vote?

California will NOT give its delegates to an (R) presidential candidate this year. (Note that Calif. was a red state till (R) governator Arnie was through with us.) Most states award all their delegates to whichever ticket wins even a small plurality - and yes, this disenfranchises the rest. Which is why the rigged EC must go, replaced by a simple nationwide plurality of non-suppressed voters. But that won't happen, absent some major catastrophe. Small and red states have too much to lose; and candidates would have to work harder, campaigning everywhere, not only in swing states. Can't have that.
  #53  
Old 01-02-2020, 03:34 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
The mainstream media, being part of the same establishment as the Uniparty, has been bombarding the public with anti-Trump propaganda 24/7 for years now, brainwashing anyone who gets all of their news from the mainstream media to be anti-Trump.
Are we agreed on the following points?

a) There is no such thing as time travel.
b) Donald Trump did not come into existence in 2015.
c) No one gave two craps about Donald's politics previous to 2015.
d) If they had, he was registered as a Democrat and giving money to Hillary Clinton so the mass media should have been amiable to him.
e) And even if d is not true, the legal system certainly wouldn't have cared.

Do you think that there are any methods in existence for looking at the world pre-2015?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-02-2020 at 03:35 PM.
  #54  
Old 01-02-2020, 05:09 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,564
We do not have any true "swing voters" on the Dope, in the sense of being indicative of swing voters generally in any way, shape, or form.

True 'swing voters' are largely people who don't follow politics, and barely follow the news. Because they're not paying much attention, they're hard to reach, and their decisions of who to vote for will likely be made on sketchy grounds.

Dopers aren't like that. If you're a Doper and you're genuinely undecided, chances are you know way more about the candidates and the issues, and you've thought way more about them, than 100 typical 'swing voters' put together.
  #55  
Old 01-02-2020, 06:08 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
All you're doing by not registering in a party, if you're in a state in which that matters, is giving up your right to vote in any primary at all.
Yes, and where I live the primary is the election. I've mentioned this before but in every single election I have ever participated in, every single candidate that wins our county, state, and even electoral votes is Republican.

With two exceptions: the supervisor of elections used to be a Democrat (no more). And then Nikki Fried won her statewide election by a hair, so we see her face on the gas pumps. But for everything county level and below, only the Republicans have won since...

Well, my wonderful supervisor of elections has removed the records of elections predating 2018. But I looked previously and my county has voted solid red for every single partisan election for something like, twenty years straight (supervisor of elections excepted, until 2016).

~Max
  #56  
Old 01-02-2020, 06:23 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
If you're a Doper and you're genuinely undecided, chances are you know way more about the candidates and the issues, and you've thought way more about them, than 100 typical 'swing voters' put together.
I'm a "swinger" on the not-(R) side, having little preference. I'm not inclined toward some but I have till California primary day to finalize my as-yet-undecided vote. I've not bothered to absorb details of the 14 survivors and their issues. More will be gone soon.
  #57  
Old 01-02-2020, 06:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
...

California will NOT give its delegates to an (R) presidential candidate this year. (Note that Calif. was a red state till (R) governator Arnie was through with us.) Most states award all their delegates to whichever ticket wins even a small plurality - and yes, this disenfranchises the rest. ....
No, CA voted for Dems presidents solidly since 1992, Arnie was elected 2003. Arnie was the last GOP Governor, but he wasnt very "red", being socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. We need more like him, and less like the present president.
  #58  
Old 01-02-2020, 06:43 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
.... ....The mainstream media, being part of the same establishment as the Uniparty, has been bombarding the public with anti-Trump propaganda 24/7 for years now, brainwashing anyone who gets all of their news from the mainstream media to be anti-Trump. Posters I debate on this board will often attack the sources I cite rather than the content of those citations, even if it is a verifiable fact like "a Ukranian court declared Ukranian interference in the 2016 US election", and express that they refuse to even consider the content independent of any bias it might have. I have been saying they thus have "news blinders" on. And I suggest they remove those blinders.
Well, FOX is part of the Mainstream media, and it has been 99% pro trump since he was Nominated.

And I suppose you could say that a ""a Ukranian (sic) court declared Ukranian interference in the 2016 US election" since: "A court in Ukraine has ruled that officials in the country violated the law by revealing, during the 2016 presidential election in the United States, details of suspected illegal payments to Paul Manafort.

In 2016, while Mr. Manafort was chairman of the Trump campaign, anti-corruption prosecutors in Ukraine disclosed that a pro-Russian political party had earmarked payments for Mr. Manafort from an illegal slush fund. Mr. Manafort resigned from the campaign a week later.

The court’s ruling that what the prosecutors did was illegal comes as the Ukrainian government, which is deeply reliant on the United States for financial and military aid, has sought to distance itself from matters related to the special counsel’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential race.
"

In other words the "meddling" was disclosing that the trump campaign was getting illegal bribes from Russian supporters in the Ukraine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/w...-manafort.html

That's not anywhere near the same as the Russian's wide social media attacks on Hillary and their attempts to fix the elections by hacking into voting machines- which as far as we know, were unsuccessful.

There are other allegations:
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...hree-questions
Mr. Trump has also repeatedly claimed – including in an interview Friday morning on “Fox and Friends” – that a Democratic National Committee server is being hidden in Ukraine. “They have the server, right, from the DNC,” Mr. Trump said.Independent experts say that is unequivocally a conspiracy theory. According to Mr. Trump’s own former national security adviser Thomas Bossert, it has been “totally debunked.” Extensive evidence gathered by U.S. intelligence has shown that Russia was the key actor in social media meddling and the hacking of Democratic servers in the 2016 campaign.

And there is Alexandra Chalupa who is a Ukrainian-American lawyer who has served as a paid consultant and sometime-employee of the DNC. Note that "...-American: part. She reportedly had something to do with the Ukraine disclosing the illegal bribes to the trump campaign. However, she was born in the USA of Ukrainian parents.
  #59  
Old 01-02-2020, 06:47 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I'm not sure what the principle behind that is if you'll vote for Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden voted pro-Iraq-war, for example, so it's not like we're looking at one or two obscure Democrats who would never be a contender for president.
Pretty much, they all did, and Biden said he was personally promised by the Shrub that America would invade, that it was just a threat. He was lied to, as was the rest of Congress.
  #60  
Old 01-02-2020, 08:36 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I voted for the Libertarian candidate in 2016, because if that party had gotten 5% or more of the vote they would automatically qualify for major party status and get on the ballot without needing petitions and so forth. So, in the interest of diversity, I voted Libertarian. My vote therefore, in some sense, counted more than if I had voted for Hillary or Trump, because one vote is marginally more significant as part of 5% than as part of 100%.

The Libertarians didn't get 5%, Hillary won my state, and Trump is President. But I didn't waste my vote in any sense, IMO.

One person's vote doesn't count any more or less no matter who or what you vote for.

Regards,
Shodan
IIRC, you typically vote Republican, but did not like Trump. You also were not crazy about Hillary. You hoped beyond hope for a world were neither would win.

But you made a tactical choice that because Hillary would win your state anyways (and if she didn't, that wasn't something that would cause you to cry into your beer), you could vote for something that you felt had a positive purpose. Nothing wrong with that.

When I said "wasted vote" I was talking about a scenario where we have Smith, Jones, and Carter. Carter is only polling at 3% while Smith and Jones are neck and neck at 45-44. You hate Jones, are lukewarm on Smith, but absolutely love Carter.

In that scenario, it makes much better sense to vote Smith instead of Carter to keep Jones out. If you vote for Carter anyways, you cannot blame Jones voters when you knew the rules upfront.
  #61  
Old 01-02-2020, 09:58 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Yes, and where I live the primary is the election. I've mentioned this before but in every single election I have ever participated in, every single candidate that wins our county, state, and even electoral votes is Republican.
Ah. In that case, registering as Republican, whatever one's own beliefs, could make sense.

My county's red; but not quite that red. And the congressional district is red -- but nowhere near that red, and with some very blue pockets. A sufficiently good D candidate has a chance.
  #62  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:18 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Pretty much, they all did, and Biden said he was personally promised by the Shrub that America would invade, that it was just a threat. He was lied to, as was the rest of Congress.
I agree that a lot of Democrats supported the war in Iraq, but I'm unclear why one would use a war that had broad bipartisan support as a reason to not vote for one of the two parties that supported it. Bush denies Biden's claim of a personal promise not to go to war, and I don't think that anyone naive enough to think that if they vote to authorize a war, that there's no way there could be a war belongs anywhere near the presidency.

Excessive naivety doesn't seem to be the case with Biden though, he just seems to be rewriting his history (standard politician lying) since he said things like:
"There is also a chance Saddam will once again miscalculate, that he will misjudge our resolve, and in that event we must be prepared to use force with others if we can, and alone if we must," "Let everyone here be absolutely clear: I supported the resolution to go to war. I am NOT opposed to war to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. I am NOT opposed to war to remove Saddam from those weapons if it comes to that." - All quotes of Joe Biden from
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/polit...tan/index.html
  #63  
Old 01-04-2020, 03:44 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, CA voted for Dems presidents solidly since 1992, Arnie was elected 2003. Arnie was the last GOP Governor, but he wasnt very "red", being socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. We need more like him, and less like the present president.
California elections in my lifetime. Note: California has produced (R) presidents, no (D)s. Table headers link to cites.

Presidents
R (3) 1952-60
D (1) 1964
R (6) 1968-88
D (7) 1992-2016
R's won 9 elections, D's won 8

Governors
R (2) 1950-54
D (2) 1958-62
R (2) 1966-70
D (2) 1974-78
R (4) 1982-94
D (2) 1996-2002
R (2) 2003(s)-2006
D (3) 2010-18
R's won 10 elections (including the 2003 recall special), D's won 9

I can't quickly find a historical table of partisan majorities of California's congressional delegation or state legislative houses so I don't when the representation flipped over and back. The greater Los Angeles suburbs of my youth were solid (R).

Okay, the state flipped from (R) to (D) circa 1992 so I can't blame Arnie. He just finalized it. This L.A. Times report suggests the impetus:
Quote:
California’s Latino and Asian populations boomed in the 1990s and the growing segment of voters were turned off by the Republican Party’s hard-line stance on immigration. After the party closely tied itself to Proposition 187, a controversial California ballot measure that denied public services to people in the country illegally, Republicans struggled to win back the state's immigrant population.
GOP identified itself as the party of hate. If they hate you, vote for someone else.
  #64  
Old 01-04-2020, 01:26 PM
eenerms is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Finally...Wisc...!
Posts: 3,009
I fit the profile. Still a never Trumper though, but the way the Dems are acting (or Not Acting) on things that are for Citizens is making it difficult.
  #65  
Old 01-04-2020, 03:20 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
Historical major parties:
* Democratic-Republican
* Federalist
* National Republican
* Whig
* Progressive Party (Bull Moose)

There is no law saying that the current parties have to stay in place.
Dalej42's essential point was correct. The Progressive Party hardly counts: it elected a total of one U.S. Senator. The 2 or 3 Progressive Party Governors were elected as D or R and switched Party in office.

The Whig Party wasn't much more than the National Republicans renamed. The other parties you mention were formed in reaction to one-party rule.

So, is there an issue as strong as slavery to produce a 3rd-party takeover for only the second time in U.S. history? I don't see it: There are lots of Republicans who would like to reject corruption and Trumpism, but they know their voter base is Trumpist.
  #66  
Old 01-06-2020, 01:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I agree that a lot of Democrats supported the war in Iraq, but I'm unclear why one would use a war that had broad bipartisan support as a reason to not vote for one of the two parties that supported it. Bush denies Biden's claim of a personal promise not to go to war, and I don't think that anyone naive enough to think that if they vote to authorize a war, that there's no way there could be a war belongs anywhere near the presidency.

Excessive naivety doesn't seem to be the case with Biden though, he just seems to be rewriting his history (standard politician lying) since he said things like:
"There is also a chance Saddam will once again miscalculate, that he will misjudge our resolve, and in that event we must be prepared to use force with others if we can, and alone if we must," "Let everyone here be absolutely clear: I supported the resolution to go to war. I am NOT opposed to war to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. I am NOT opposed to war to remove Saddam from those weapons if it comes to that." - All quotes of Joe Biden from
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/polit...tan/index.html
" I am NOT opposed to war to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. " There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Thereby in effect, he was opposed to the war. He did ask that the UN team be given their chance to find the weapons.

But it is s interesting purity test there. In effect it's a meme send out by Sanders. Because only one person fails that test, and only two candidates even had a chance of taking it. Who know how Mayor pete would have voted IF : He was even old enuf to be in the Senate, or if he actually held a national office at any time.

So, you have been suckered by the bernies bros into a setting up a very odd pruity test.
  #67  
Old 01-06-2020, 02:50 PM
Boozahol Squid, P.I. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,753
I suppose I count as a swing voter, although it's not quite as cut and dry as "it's a complete toss-up between Trump and anyone who comes out of the Democratic primary." I have a general history of voting for Republicans for national office, with occasional dips into voting for Libertarians in 2004 and 2016. My vote isn't really a toss-up now so much as it will be decided by the Democratic primary: if Sanders somehow wins it, I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump. If Elizabeth Warren wins the Democratic primary, it's probable that I'll wind up voting for the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate. If it's anyone else, I'll vote for them over Trump.
I despise Trump and the way he's conducted himself in office, but I am unconvinced that he'll do more damage in four more years than someone who has never seen a communist dictatorship he didn't love like Bernie. Warren has campaigned so far like a copycat of his, yet I somehow doubt she'd govern that way, but I'm still a bit wary of her. I don't think that any of the other Democratic candidates, no matter what they've said so far in the primaries, would govern any further left than Obama did, and I was fine with his Presidency.
  #68  
Old 01-06-2020, 02:56 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boozahol Squid, P.I. View Post
I despise Trump and the way he's conducted himself in office, but I am unconvinced that he'll do more damage in four more years than someone who has never seen a communist dictatorship he didn't love like Bernie.
It's my understanding that Bernie wants Canadian/Northern European style socialism rather than Cuban/Venezuelan style (the latter of which is far more authoritarian and kleptocratic). If you could be swayed that Canada was the goal rather than Cuba, would you still prefer Trump to Bernie?
  #69  
Old 01-06-2020, 03:15 PM
Red Wiggler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,121
Yeah, that's a pretty unfortunate characterization of what American "leftists" like Bernie are aiming for. I think the country has lots of voters with those kinds of misperceptions.
  #70  
Old 01-06-2020, 03:33 PM
zimaane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: washington, dc
Posts: 1,140
Given a choice between a standard Republican and a standard Democrat, I'll weigh the positions, experience and attitudes of the two candidates and choose the better one to vote for.

But I despise Trump's temperament with the mocking and ridiculous tweets. Depending on the polls, I'll either vote (D) or a third party as a protest.
  #71  
Old 01-06-2020, 03:44 PM
Boozahol Squid, P.I. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's my understanding that Bernie wants Canadian/Northern European style socialism rather than Cuban/Venezuelan style (the latter of which is far more authoritarian and kleptocratic). If you could be swayed that Canada was the goal rather than Cuba, would you still prefer Trump to Bernie?
I think Canada is the goal for the entirety of the Democratic Party, and it's not a goal I find particularly appealing. If I thought Bernie was just another rank-and-file Democrat, yeah, I'd vote for him over Trump, but I don't think his rhetoric is... rhetorical.

Say what you want about Bernie, but he doesn't pull any punches. He's the guy who stands at a podium and says "Of course we're going to tax the shit out of you: we're going to give you everything you need!" It's refreshing honesty, but it also means that when he sees the bills that will be required to pay for all of his promises, he'll have no problem with... taxing the shit out of us. I feel like most of the other Democratic candidates, no matter how much they might talk about some of their more fanciful ideas, would balk (or at least moderate) at the requisite entire-society tax increases that would be needed.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017