I’m an anarchist. There is no politician anywhere who shares my views. I vote based on who I think (not who claims) will be the one who will infringe on the fewest freedoms and kill the fewest people.
Contrary to most people, the economy is irrelevant to who I vote for. Outside of siphoning off the top via taxes, politicians have minimal effect on the economy. It’s far more important, in my mind, that people have the freedom to react to a changing economy as they see fit. This is what makes me hate Trumpists and blue collar Republicans. They seem to imagine it will just take a wag of the president’s finger to “bring all the jobs back home” from China or wherever they went. And that’s just fairy tale talk.
Yeah, outcome. I vote “strategically.” I have respect for Bernie Sanders supporters…up to the point where, today, they’re writing in his name on ballots. That costs them my respect; at this point, they’re just being foolish.
That’s an interesting point. “Best outcome” doesn’t necessarily mean the lesser of 2 evils is elected. A Democrat voting “none of the above” might think that if his protest vote is part of a movement that causes Trump to get elected, but also causes positive changes in the Democratic party, that might be “best outcome” in the voter’s view.
Until now, I had trouble verbalizing why I was considering not voting for Hillary, despite being a reliable Democrat. It’s not that I hate Hillary in particular, but I do hate the scandal which thrust her into the nomination and forced the DNC chair to resign in disgrace. If I thought that Hillary getting trounced in the election would be a wake up call to my party, and made them remember that we’re supposed to be the fucking good guys, I’d probably vote for Trump. Or at least, I would understand why someone would.
I know your point wasn’t the same as mine exactly, it just helped me sort out an issue I grasped emotionally but not intellectually. Thanks!
I respectfully disagree. A protest vote is still influential. Sure, Bernie won’t get elected, but if the Democrats realize they lost the election because of corruption in the primary process, maybe things will change. In that case, the “art of the possible” isn’t about winning this particular election, it’s about steering your own bus back onto the road.
Values, which I do think would produce a better outcome.
This year, however, I am voting for Hillary Clinton, with whom I massively disagree with. I was not planning to vote for her in 99 out of 100 circumstances, but Donald Trump being the Republican candidate is pretty much the 1 out of 100 circumstance that will get me to vote for her. She will produce a better outcome.
He’s the worst candidate of a major party in all 240 years of our nation.
It doesn’t actually work. You can’t make a party veer more toward your choice of extreme positions by causing them to lose elections. Losing elections forces them more toward the center.
(And I don’t believe there was any “corruption” in the primary process. Bernie lost, fair and square. The rules even gave him some advantages he wouldn’t have had in a straight-up vote.)
Well, really, not so much. They constitute a wing of the party, but they’ve done more to split it than to move it, as a whole entity, the way they want. All this kind of thing can do is hurt a party, not change it fundamentally. That has to come from a large-base consensus, not from outliers.