Nitpick: mathematically speaking, a vote for a third-party candidate instead of the Democratic candidate is equivalent to half a vote for the Republican candidate.
Consider 99 people, 50 of whom vote for Clinton and 49 of whom vote for Trump. If Trump can switch a single Clinton vote to his side, he now has 50 to Clinton’s 49, and he wins. If he can convince 2 voters to vote for Sanders, or Stein, or nobody, instead of voting for Clinton, he now wins 49-48.
I actively oppose party loyalty. I think it’s a terrible idea, a true granfalloon. But I do support behaving in the way that maximizes good. Prior to election day and after election day, that means working to build third parties. On election day, if third parties don’t have a real chance of victory, it means voting for the candidate with an actual chance of victory who’s least bad.
“Identity resentment is an aspect of that, in that the effects of globalization, offshoring and automation harm the prospects of working Americans of all ethnicities, but to whites in particular it forms the disappointment of the white privilege and entitlement they grew up to expect.”
BrainGlutton, that’s as succinct an explanation as I’ve come across yet – thanks. I’ll pass this on in my conversations with folks over the coming months.
I agree that some of his ideas are whacky but that’s like three steps removed from the narrative that people seem to be trying to create. Sanders is somehow supposed to be unsympathetic to minorities because most of his supporters are white.
There are only two possible winners of the general election. Doing something other than voting for your preferred (or less odious, whatever) candidate from among those two increases the chances of the other winning. I don’t see what’s so hard to grasp about that.
Then it’s a good thing it isn’t what I’m doing. You seem not to understand that loyalty to country, wanting it to be a better place, and wanting concrete things done that can make it a better place, not only exists but is a higher goal than loyalty to a mere institution. Believe it or not, I deplore that too. Believe it or not, though, the institution is a large part of the mechanism by which those real things can really get done. You can rail against it if it makes you feel self-righteous, or you can make it work for you.
Believe it or not, *hate *it or not, that’s the real world. That’s how it works. You can help *make *it work, or you can oppose it. Those are your options. At this point, you are, in fact, opposing progress toward the very goals you claim to support.
Just so we’re clear, I do not think that Sanders is “unsympathetic to minorities” (and I haven’t said that either). If you want people who are unsympathetic to minorities, take a gander at Donald Trump, or a large portion of the politicians in today’s Republican Party, or pretty much anybody who assumes that Trayvon Martin “must have” attacked George Zimmerman. And so on. Sanders is quite far removed from that category.
I think Sanders thinks of himself as deeply sympathetic to minorities, and I think in a lot of ways that’s a fair description: I think he wants to help everyone who is hurting in our society, and that includes many people who are members of racial minorities. But Sanders doesn’t seem to grasp the specific issues that African Americans face due to racism. He hasn’t had to; his experiences in elective office have all been in a lily-white state, so there was no one to push him to look at things in another way. That has led to heavy support from whites in this primary season, and tepid support at best from minorities–which again means fewer voices to push him in another direction. And so on.
But this isn’t lack of sympathy. It’s cluelessness: lack of understanding and lack of experience. That’s a very different animal.
Hey, I think your vote doesn’t matter in the least. You keep going through whatever this is your going through over voting for one person versus another. Your aware of all the issues. You seem to only care about one of them. The economy that you long for will never exist again so do yourself a favor and learn how to live in this one. Personally, I am glad Americans are competing as fairly as possible with people from all over the world and free trade is great policy.
Vote for Hillary, vote for Trump, vote for some third party candidate, or don’t vote for the President at all. Who cares. You live in Missouri. It’s probably not going to matter in the outcome of this election. And no matter who wins, you are going to lose. The world has moved on from protectionism and the steady union job - hoping some politician will bring you back to the good 'ole days isn’t going to change that fact.
This is where I think that Sanders’ supporters are so bitter about losing that they can’t stand to see the person who beat Sanders win the presidency. I’m hopeful that after the sting subsides some will change their minds.
And foolsguinea, note how solicitous so many Republicans are of your troubles, offering all sorts of suggestions for how you can avoid voting for a Democratic candidate. Consider why so many Republicans might be so helpful in this case.
Recently I had an ex-coworker who wanted to cancel her membership in our teacher association (NC doesn’t allow public sector unions), for cost reasons. I was having trouble figuring out the process, so I Googled, and discovered the most helpful resource for her needs was produced by a local rightwing thinktank that’s worked to undermine public education at every turn. Gee, what could possibly be their motive for offering such a helpful resource to teachers? Hmm, hmm.
Problem is, a vote for Clinton is a vote for no change. Perhaps Sanders voters aren’t interested in just perpetuating the system and even strengthening it.
I happen to think that if Clinton was elected that she’d probably end up being pretty popular. Her record as an officeholder suggests that once she’s not campaigning her popularity increases substantially. So if we assume a successful Presidency, we also assume that the system as it currently is is strengthened by her Presidency. For voters who are just generally liberal and like the system and just think it should be a little more just, that’s fine. For people who think it’s wholly corrupt and needs a major overhaul, Clinton is worse than Trump. Trump will at least shake things up, probably be very unpopular in the process, and will set the stage to elect someone more to Sanders’ fans liking in 2020. Clinton pretty much puts a ceiling on progressive change and further entrenches minority voters in their preference for non-radical, middle of the road Democrats.