4-8 years of President Trump is, for many people, a much better result than an infinite string of Democrats who don’t actually represent them. And the whole “this time is KEY” argument gets brought out at every election. It’s not like Democrats said ‘oh, yeah, vote your conscience, at least he’s not Trump’ back in 2000 or 2004 - at the time it was also painted as a desperate struggle where all “adults” must vote for Gore or Kerry. It’s a bit hard to swallow the claim though, when the Democrats in 2016 ran someone who actually voted in favor of the worst policy decision of the Bush years.
I can’t ‘refute’ the logic because there is no logic to the position that all adults must vote for whoever the Democrats put forward. It’s just a childlike assertion that people who don’t do what you want are acting childishly, devoid of logic or reason.
This is simply factually untrue. In presidential elections, approximately 1/3 of the electorate does not vote for either major party candidate. You can claim that they don’t exist, but you’re just engaging in the childlike behavior of putting your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes.
Odd how the people wanting to call what they want the ‘adult’ choice engage in so much immature behavior.
I think this misses the idea that a person can be willing to endure short term setbacks for longer term gains. Whether that is what will happen is an open question. I think it’s true that if one party suffers resounding defeats repeatedly, they will eventually change their message/platform.
If you won’t lower yourself to voting for the lesser evil, then you’re supporting the *greater *evil. Yes, you need to be held accountable for that decision. It’s part of adulting.
Here’s a hint, OP: *All *candidates are human. That’s all you ever have available to choose from or ever will, humans.
That may be true, but what would the message be that would convince people who have elected Republican governors and legislatures to switch how they vote. I think we can agree that HRC ran a failed campaign – moderates and hardliners can agree on that.
But the fact that she ran a bad campaign in no way addresses the question of what mainstream voters want. Bernie’s supporters seem to be of the opinion that since HRC lost to a buffoon that it’s absolute proof that the Democratic party needs a radical shift to the left, which may or may not be true at all.
In any case, I kinda wish we’d stop talking about HRC - she’s history. We need to start figuring out how we can make Democrats and progressive ideals more appealing to mainstream voters.
And in less popular elections the turnout rate is lower. And that’s how you end up with a congressional obstructionism. Sitting out elections has consequences.
That’s what they’re doing. They want to “vote” for None of the Above, but without the apparent realization that they’re going to get one anyway, or with apathy/resignation. That’s pitiable, but it’s still the thinking.
If you read my OP, I did vote for her in the fall election. But I didn’t enjoy it. She represents everything wrong with the current Democratic Party for me.
Yes, one-third of the electorate is not voting. They might think that’s a “none of the above” vote, but there’s no such thing.
There are only votes for Candidate A and Candidate B. 20 million people might fail to vote but if A gets 2 votes and B gets 1 vote then A wins. Period. None-of-the-above doesn’t exist.
If people think that they’re better off with 4-8 years of Trump as president and Republicans in Congress as opposed to a Hillary Clinton administration, then they’re simply straight-up morons.
[ol]
[li]Clinton is elected, but is feckless and unable to move the country in the direction she wants. 2020 a Republican is elected and the cycle meanders with no significant changes back and forth for 20 years.[/li]
[li]Trump is elected, is super terrible, and the backlash causes the country to move against the Republican party across all fronts. Democrats are able to gain control of the Congress, and the presidency for 20 years with a mandate and able to effectively enact their agenda.[/li][/ol]
Which is better? The 2nd scenario also has rainbows every day.
Yeah. The danger of trump is unmeasured as yet. We won’t know until it’s too late. I love the auto destruction of an incoherent republican party, but this was one scenario we didn’t need.
Four years of vandalism will take a lot more than four years to fix, too, and will expose the next Dem to widely-believed sentiment that the damage is her/his fault. Remember how so many Pubs were still criticizing Obama, eight years on, for not recovering fast enough from the economic disaster they had caused?
It’s like democratic control of the presidency from 1933 to 1953 never happened. And democratic control of congress from 1955 to 1993 never happened either.
At least where I live, voting at the “old address” would be illegal.
Think about it. If one moves from Ward 1 to Ward 3, or from Smith County to Lake County, or from the 5th Congressional district to the 7th, why would I be able to (legally) vote for aldermen, County Board members, or Congressmen that no longer represent my current geographic location?
Not everywhere though. Here are the rules in PA, for example. Or in TX. Unless I am reading it wrong, you can vote at your old address, as long as at the same time you inform them of your new address.
This has been up for a while. Sorry you didn’t find it during the campaign, but it is in pretty much the first place most folks under age sixty would think to look.