How much "blame" does voter enthusiasm carry for an election's results?

Politics & Elections
1

Reading some of the other threads reminded me of this topic.

I’ve seen ardent progressives urge Sanders supporters to vote and work enthusiastically for whoever gets the Democratic nomination, on the feeling that health care for millions of people, the civil rights of entire groups, the warming of an entire planet, and a Supreme Court who’ll shape all of that are too important to leave in the hands of someone who’s actively and openly opposed to all three of the first things.

Some of the other side, of course, counter that if the candidate wants enthusiasm and work, they’ll have to earn it, and if they don’t, that’s on them, no matter what the results are.

Extending it to all sides of politics, what do you think?

2

What do I think about what? Blame for what? Electing an idiot? I am entirely missing the oint of your OP.

3

For the damage should the “wrong” candidate win.

Can you point any fingers whatsoever at Nader voters for the Iraq war? Some actually do feel at least a little responsibility. Should Sanders enthusiasts ignore calls for them to support Clinton should she be the nominee because “you don’t want millions of people to lose health insurance, do you?” with the argument “that’s not on me if that happens”?

4

In the United States, at least, I think voter enthusiasm is more important than anything else. With only 35-45% of the potential voters actually casting a ballot, it’s easier to win an election by increasing turnout than by convincing people you’re the better candidate. Think about it - a 51% majority of actual voters, is only 20% of potential voters. If you could motivate just 10% of the 60% who normally don’t vote, you’d win in a landslide with almost 60% of the votes cast.

On preview, I think maybe I misread the OP… but I’m not really any more sure what’s being asked. If Sanders loses the nomination, why would his supporters not cast their final vote for the next best candidate (presumably Hillary for them)?

5

That would depend on why you like Sanders. If it’s strictly a “He’s honest, not a typical politican” thing, then if he loses, Clinton is the last person you’d be likely to vote for. If it’s an ideological thing, then you probably go to Clinton. if it’s an ideological thing and you think Clinton is Republican lite, then you don’t vote.

6

I’ve always wondered about this, especially with regard to the 1994 and 2010 midterm elections. It’s hard to believe that in just two years that so many people changed their minds to have such different results between 1992 and 19994 as well as between 2008 and 2010. If we assume that lower turnout is the cause of the Democrats loosing in 1994 and 2010, maybe the voters who came out the two years prior but not for those elections are to blame for the gridlock we ended up with. Imagine a slightly different senate in 2008 with just these few plausible changes. Tom Daschle keeps his seat in South Dakota in 2004. Harold Ford beats Bill Frist in Tennessee in 2006. Ted Kennedy doesn’t get cancer when he did. Now the Democrats have a filibuster proof Senate majority of 62 to 38. If those small changes can’t be blamed on lack of voter enthusiasm from Democratic voters in midterm elections, I’m not sure what else it could be blamed on. And if Obama had that majority in 2008, he could have passed his agenda instead of dealing with the gridlock we’ve had the last 7 years.

7

Part of it though is simply independents controlling the balance of power. Independents went 2-1 for Democrats in 2006, then 2-1 for Republicans in 2010. While it’s true that most independents actually vote either D or R most of the time, when independent swing, they swing big and Congress changes over.

8

You could also read that as independents being disillusioned members of either party who simply come back into the fold when enthusiasm is high.

9

Yet again: Independents are not the same thing as swing voters.

10

This. I get the feeling that a significant number, maybe even a majority, of independents are former moderate Republicans who are increasingly uncomfortable with a party dominated by Tea Partiers and evangelicals.

11

So the takeaway is that everybody is obligated to vote for one of two parties because voting for a third party is useless since not enough people vote for third parties and it is best to get the nearest fit than the ones you maybe dislike a little more.

So a vegetarian should vote for the Amalgamated Butchers League rather than the Unity Association of Slaughterers since the former sometimes talk meditatively of how sympathetic they are to vegetarianism. And stress their inclusiveness.
Really, Americans have a full smorgasbord of political variety for governance: either Mensheviks or Bolsheviks.
*
When in that House M.P.'s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot Of dull M. P.'s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves,
is what No man can face with equanimity.

Let’s rejoice with loud Fal la–Fal la la!
That Nature always does contrive–Fal lal la!
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal Or else a little Conservative! Fal lal la!*

12

See below. My edit attempt reposted the whole rely. Sorry.

13

I have never in my life cast a lesser-of-two-evils vote and I don’t intend to start now.

Earn my vote or you don’t get it.

The American two-party system is broken and if we keep playing the game the oligarchs running both parties want us to play, we’re fucked no matter which of their chosen candidates wins. That’s one of the huge reasons for the massive support Bernie Sanders is building: People don’t care that he’s being forced to run on the Democratic ticket, they still see him as the Independent he is. He’s not running as just another Democrat whose policies are so close to his opponents’ that all it comes down to is charisma or one or two minor differences. His positions are massively far apart from Clinton’s. He isn’t calling his campaign a Revolution for nothing. He’s no one’s pawn and neither will his supporters be.

Good luck to America if he loses the nomination. I will take no more responsibility for what happens after that than I do for that criminal Ronald Reagan because I voted for John Anderson, which is absolutely none.

14

As a Democrat, I just don’t buy this. This feels like one of those situations where the perfect is the enemy of the good. I think if the Democratic party had full control of the Senate, the House, and the presidency, they would be much less beholden to the oligarchy than the Republican party is, and we would see genuine reform. I believe the only reason we haven’t had this is because the last time the Democrats had full control of government was back in the LBJ days, which was a different era. Now if Sanders is still in it when the primary gets to Texas I will vote for him, but in a general election between Clinton and Bush, I’ll be voting for Clinton.

15

But suppose they are the oligarchy ?

16

You should always vote for one of the two major parties, unless you feel that both parties are neglecting your priorities to such a significant degree that warning them about their neglect is more important than having a voice in the election. If you’re willing to throw your vote away over your priorities, then the implication is that you’re also willing to vote for either party, if they adopt your priorities, which then provides an incentive for at least one of the two major parties to do so.

Now, what is foolish is to not vote at all, or to vote for joke candidates like Mickey Mouse or whatever. The former sends the message that the parties shouldn’t even bother trying for your votes, and the latter fails to communicate what you want the parties to change. The smart way to vote third-party, if you insist on doing so, is to pick a third party and candidate with a very narrow focus on a single issue, so that the major parties will know exactly how many votes they stand to gain by adopting that single issue.

17

If Bernie Sanders is nominated, will Clinton supporters stay home? Will they vote for…Trump, I’m guessing? Will they feel guilty if that means the Democrats lose to the Republicans?

Actually, there are some answers to that, aren’t there?

It was rumored in 2004 that the Clintons refused to campaign for John Kerry because Hillary was planning to run in 2008. Well, that obviously worked out brilliantly for all involved. Presumably if Clintonistas hadn’t stayed home, John Kerry would have won the Presidency. Do any of them feel any guilt over this, at all?

The Clinton fan club–never mind the “mainstream,” what does that even mean anymore?–the Clinton fan club say it’s their way or the highway, and it is for the ideological left to capitulate.

Well, no. The Democrats need the Left. Running as the “more moderate right-wing party” is cute, but they need the Left. They used and abused the anti-war movement and the “Impeach Bush” vote, and then did nothing, nothing for those voters when they got power. And in 2010? They had nothing; they lost everything. And they won’t get it back for a long time, because the Democrats can’t be trusted.

The Democrats need the Left. The Left can’t trust, can’t even hardly use, most of the Democrats. Whether you’re #BlackLiveMatter, the anti-war movement, Occupy, the Green movement, or even the LBG chunk of QUILTBAG, the Democrats need you to win, but can barely be trusted to serve your interests when they do.

Being taken for granted is getting nothing. No, worse, getting AFDC turned into TANF, or suffering mass incarceration, or killer cops in your neighborhood, or an assassin in the Oval Office.

So? So. They can nominate progressives to win, and only progressives can win. The “New Democrats” can burn.

18

^ What she said. X2.

19

It was “rumored”? and that’s all it takes huh?

20

Yup. I guess he gets his “inside info” from a source like the one that’s been giving Starving all his info on The Wonderfulness of the Donald. No cites needed for the faithful!

The President nominates Supreme Court justices. That, alone, is enough to make it worthwhile to vote for the Democratic nominee. As a Texan I’m assured my “vote won’t count.” But I’ll vote anyway so* I* will be counted in maps like this one. Besides, there are local races.

Why “punish” the whole country by sitting out the election or casting a novelty vote–just because your fave was not nominated? How did Bush work out for you? Not just the Nader votes of 2000, but the ones who sat it out because Gore didn’t make your nipples tingle…