If you don’t vote for the lesser evil, you support the greater one. Why would you?
Voting is a means to effectuate policy you approve of, not to reward people for having opinions you agree with.
Frankly, I’m ready to just tell the Sanders dead-enders (the delusional die-hards, not the reality-connected people who will vote for Hillary in favor of Trump in the general) to go ahead and leave the party and go vote for Jill WasteofTime. I’m really getting tired of all the whining demanding that their delicate asses be kissed or they’ll leave.
The DNC has allocated seats on the three convention committees to Sanders. He gets 5, Hillary gets 6 and DWS (as the DNC chair) gets 4. This is apparently not good enough for the dead-enders, because HRC and DWS may as well be the same person, apparently. They want their losing candidate to basically get a majority of the seats.
I’m done with them. Completely done.
This is incorrect. The original claim was that Sanders’s position is
I’m saying there’s zero evidence to support that opinion, and at least some to suggest that he’s not (assuming that the word “illegal” doesn’t turn it into a semantic truism). The burden is not on me to show that such evidence cannot exist; the burden is on Ibn Warraq et al to show any evidence that he holds that opinion. So far, the only thing that’s been offered in support of the idea that he wants to cut off the flow of poor Latinos into the US is that he doesn’t support completely open borders.
I think, for me and for others, it’s a mix of not wanting to throw in the towel before the California primary and the anger stage of grief.
I genuinely think HRC is a terrible leader for the Democrats, and putting her in charge for eight years could be very, very bad for the party. Not that Bernie is amazing at party politics, but he is sort of a leader of the young left now. (And at least Bernie has the common sense to get on board with labor on the living wage!)
But if Robert Reich says voting for Hillary is the smart move now, yeah, OK, I respect his opinion enough to lean toward taking his advice–eventually. I am gonna rant about her some more, though.
(And if a more likable third-party challenger gets in and makes a run, I’ll drop Hillary like a hot potato.)
I’d also note that supporting Clinton in this election does not obligate anyone to support her for reelection. If a credible alternative presents itself then she can be primaried. and I’ll certainly be hoping for a decent Republican to knock her off.
By disregarding the existence of anything but extremes, it is an example of exactly what “excluding the middle” means.
Hillary is malleable, and adept at scanning walls for handwriting. If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
that’s right Bernie fans, I don’t get why Bernie is putting a person onto the platform committee (Cornel West) who called the party’s leader/POTUS a “n**erized President,” a “war criminal” and a “global George Zimmerman.”
see: Cornel West on Obama: "The First Black President Has Become The First Niggerized Black President" | Video | RealClearPolitics
Cornel West: 'Obama Is A Global George Zimmerman' (VIDEO) | HuffPost Voices
Cornel West: Obama a 'war criminal' - POLITICO
Do you have any actual individuals in mind for either role?
That is not the only rason d’etre for voting, though. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a perfectly valid reason to vote for someone. If Germans had a choice between Adolph Hitler and the lesser of two evils, would you vote for a third party candidate knowing that Adolph Hitler were about to become the legitimately-elected Chancellor of Germany? I’m not saying that Trump is Hitler, but then again, most people in 1933 didn’t think Hitler was, well, Hitler either. Even so, there were probably a lot of people whose eyes were wide open and were very well aware of the dangers he posed even then. So voting for your ideal candidate is one reason voting exists, but it’s far from the only reason, and voting to oppose someone who is clearly wrong, even if candidate B is partially ‘wrong’, is a perfectly valid form of democratic participation.
I can understand the concerns over Hillary Clinton’s past voting and stated positions. There are legitimate objections to those that I won’t try to look past. If nothing else, though, vote against Donald Trump for the simple fact that he has absolutely the wrong character for the job and he comes in with almost no experience whatsoever. This is not like Barack Obama who came in with at least a little bit of experience as a Senator and was also very clearly committed to hiring competent and capable advisers and administrators. At this point, we have absolutely no idea whatsoever who Trump intends to bring on board and how power would flow through various channels in Washington once he gets elected. It truly would be the political abyss with Donald Trump. And abysses are probably best avoided when we’re talking about presiding over a $3-5 trillion federal budget, an economy that generates $15-20 in total economic production, arguably the world’s most complex bureaucracy with highly complex relationships with other state and local governments. Do you want another “Brownie” heading FEMA when the next major hurricane or natural disaster occurs? Or is the fact that someone takes money from Wall Street just too damn important to consider the day-to-day realities of executive administration?
However, Sanders’ supporters appear to be so bitter about losing to Clinton that they compare Clinton as no different from Trump–which is complete lunacy–so they can justify not voting for Clinton. Many have identified Clinton as the enemy because she is the one who (so far) has defeated Sanders and so they want anyone but Clinton to be president.
It’s interesting to look at it from the other direction. For example, here is Dennis Prager, a conservative radio guy, on why he has to choose Trump over Clinton. To me, this list makes perfect sense for both conservatives and liberals to look at and say “Is that what I want?”
I don’t read that list and think “That’s what I want” or “that’s in line with my beliefs.” And I don’t look at it and think “he’s wrong about what Clinton would want to do.” He might be wrong about what Trump wants to do, but these are unremarkable conservative positions. They are the goals many conservatives and Republicans would have for voting for Trump. Now, they might not be right that they’ll get all of them, but it’s more likely under Trump than under Clinton.
And I don’t share those goals.
Better question: if the election was between Trump and Hitler, would you vote for the lesser of two evils? Or would you rightly say “this is bullshit, there are other options” and vote for literally anyone else? Third party, write-in, anything to avoid giving your stamp of approval to Trump (or Hitler)?
Hillary ain’t Hitler, but neither is Trump. They’re both bad, though, and I cannot consent to either as my president. I’ll vote for someone else if for no other reason than to alleviate my conscience. How many Nixon voters were kicking themselves the rest of their lives for that mistake? How many W. Bush voters?
Voting for the lesser of two evils is why we have evil politicians. It’s why our government has the problems that it does. I can’t justify continuing that pattern just because Trump said a bunch of racist things and supports violence like every other member of his party and most Democrats. Frankly, he doesn’t scare me any more than any other Republican candidate, and not nearly as much as Cruz did. And Hillary has said racist things and advocates violence too.
So you can’t just scare me into voting for your candidate. Hillary and her supporters are going to need a better campaign strategy than that. And after a year of campaigning, I haven’t seen one.
In Germany you might have had justification in voting for a 3rd party rather than Hitler or Trump, since their system wasn’t first past the post, but proportional. IIRC, the NAZI party didn’t win a majority, they merely were able to form a coalition that COULD decide on chancellor. In the US, however, where it’s an either/or scenario, clearly you’d be remiss in your duty (unless you like the NAZI party and Hitler) to not hold your nose and vote for Trump, as the alternative is that the country is ruled by Hitler, using your made up scenario there. Trump is clearly the lesser of two evils in this case and since one of those evils would be the president, and your 3rd party vote would be a waste, it’s better to vote for the person who would be least bad.
And the same goes for Sanders supporters who are all pissed off because their loon isn’t going to make the cut. It’s hard for me to fathom liberals or even left winger types not seeing this, and considering throwing their vote away, especially in swing states because they are having a tantrum that their guy won’t be in the circus. :eek:
Yes, I would swallow my own vanity and do my best to defeat the genocidal maniac who killed millions of people. How is this even a serious question?
In the heat of a primary season, you have to draw big distinctions between your candidate and the other candidates and it’s often based on very little. So Sanders is out there saying “this isn’t just important, this is the only thing that matters.” In order to support him, you might be more inclined to start to elevate those things to the status of the only thing that matters. And if you chose Sanders over Clinton, and only one thing matters, well, she must not measure up on the one thing that matters.
But I think the Times article I posted above is also interesting. Essentially it argues that many Sanders voters are not more lefty and ideological than Clinton voters. They are coming to the ideology as a result of choosing Sanders, rather than the other way around.
In any case, expecting people to be entirely rational when they are angry and grieving is a losing strategy.
Of course; that’s what “lesser of two evils” means; “I did what I could to stop a great evil” is something you proudly tell your grandchildren.
Indeed. And to take a less earth shattering but still serious example, you Vote for the crook. It’s important.
I look at that list and think “well those are all the reasons I’d vote for goddamn fucking John Edwards over a Republican right now if I had to” Because I like Obamacare, and want a more liberal court, and I question the safety of fracking, and I think the residents of DC should have representation…