Pffft. :rolleyes:
Let me ask you this: do you think what Claire McCaskill did was wrong, or too risky?
You mean Rubio, right? Or maybe you meant Cruz? Last I checked, all three support waterboarding. Trump admits to going further but I have no reason to think that a guy like Cruz who says that waterboarding isn’t torture isn’t willing to expand his grey areas as needed.
So, this is an argument to vote for Donald Trump?
To extend your own analogy, the upcoming tribal election is for who gets the right to finalize, or nix, the promiscuity language in Deuteronomy 22:21. There are two nasty candidates who. respectively, want to kill and shun allegedly loose women. On the kinder and gentler side, you’ve got one hopeful who just wants to give sin-no-more lectures, and another who sees no need for any community action. One from each side, harsh and tolerant, gets into the runoff. So you want me to vote for the pro-stoning guy on the grounds that a liberal will then surely win the runoff? What if the stoning guy wins the runoff, and you get Deuteronomy 22:21 the way it is today?
By voting for who I actually want, the problem is solved.
I am going to vote for Sanders in the primary, because his beliefs most closely resemble mine. I am going to vote for Hillary in the general, because I don’t want a Republican President.
If for some reason it has to be a Republican, then shit, Trump might be worth the gamble considering the other options.
The trouble with this line of reasoning is that both sides don’t have completely unacceptable people running, only Republicans. If any of this years’ three Democrats became president, the country would be in competent hands. Let’s face it, Republicans are down to three finalists, any of which would be a disaster if elected. Picking the easiest disaster to avoid is an acceptable strategy.
Last time, I voted for Santorum in the Michigan primary just to extend the middle digit to Mittens. My reward for that was to get Republican literature in the mail. We don’t have party registration on the voter rolls, but they find out what ballot you chose in the primary. So this year, tempting as it is to vote for Trump, I’ll be staying on my own side and voting for Hillary.
I say there will be enough beer to pass around after the Republican disaster of electing a guy that used fear to get elected. And what? Do you really think the popcorn will not be consumed also by Democrats that will see how infective at best or a disaster at worst a Trump presidency will be? (Of course if it is a disaster more drinks will be consumed and less pop corn as it will be less fun)
http://www.joesixpack.net/columnArchives/2008/040408.htm
Al Smith gets a case of beer from Anheuser Busch
Al Smith who did lose the previous election to Hoover got a case of beer after the Republicans suffered a big loss not only because of the depression, but because of their dogmatic prohibition of alcoholic drinks.
And so I can say that I can see fear uncertainty and disinformation could win the day for guys like Trump and the current shameless republican party, but they are setting themselves up for an even larger defeat because I can see them winning only by pumping up the fear and hate up to 11. But at least the American democracy has shown how it can change course after a bad choice.
Yes. In fact, he has already had this effect, even without actually achieving the nomination, yet. All votes cast for Trump are effectively an endorsement of this.
Even if you can work out some rationale in which it makes strategic sense to you, to vote for someone terrible that you ultimately want to lose… in general and in this case, it’s just wrong. It hurts the country.
And that’s without factoring in the possibility that your strategic calculation is off, and you are helping him actually win.
Two problems with your premise (clever though it is):
(1) I don’t believe the difference between Trump and Rubio is akin to the difference between killing and shunning. If Jon Huntsman had a legit shot at the GOP nomination, I might still cross over, but go the other way and pick him on the theory that I could live with him as president. Rubio and Trump are both terrible; Rubio just hides it under a more acceptable looking facade, just as was the case with the other two candidates running against Akin.
(2) Nothing in your scenario does the heavy lifting I did in providing strong evidence that Trump is unelectable. If I believed that there was more than enough anti-stoning sentiment in the village electorate that the pro-stoning guy had no chance of winning, but the shunning guy did, then yeah: maybe it would indeed be a better utilitarian move to protect women from shunning by making it a choice between stoning on one side and either gentle chiding or no action on the other.
This reminds me of that Eddie Murphy routine on Jesse Jackson, where he says something like imagine if there’s enough drunk white guys who get drunk and say, let’s go vote for Jesse Jackson while snickering. Next day they see the paper, “He fucking WON??!!?” 
I’ve never voted in a primary. Especially not in a fake way for the GOP. I’d certainly write Mickey Mouse on the ballot this year, but in no good way I’d vote for Trump.
What you’re voting for is ratings for the debates and a possibility of Trump winning. I don’t see how that’s remotely possible-- can’t spell, a business charlatan with NO political experience whatsoever, but putting all aside, you have to be careful what you wish for. What if the orange monkey decided six months into his presidency he resigns because he doesn’t like it. He’s pissed he can’t fire senators or make laws he THOUGHT he was allowed to. We may have a President Christie or a president Cruz for 3 1/2 years.
The con man doesn’t need more ego buildup with phony votes. He’s got that covered, believe me.
I’m a Republican, & I’m voting for Bernie!
Well, “Radical Republican,” like US Grant. Or maybe a little left of T. Roosevelt–“Bull Moose”?
Crap, I’m just a Green/socialdem mélange, a generic progressive, voting for Bernie. Never mind, carry on.
The guys at RedState have been sitting on the window ledge for awhile now.
I can’t believe that this is what the GOP primary has turned into. “He spelled a word wrong on Twitter!” “I bet he peed his pants!” “He sweats so much!”
There’s no room for saying that Trump is much worse than the rest of these chucklefucks. Which is very much to the Republican Party’s shame.
Another point: I want the Democrats to win each election. I don’t want them to win all elections. In the long run, it’s best for the country to have two sane, functional parties, each of which wins sometimes. One essential step on the path for this to happen is for the Republicans to nominate sane, functional candidates. It might as well start now.
Yes, thank you.
When I voted in the 2000 Republican primary, it was because that’s where the action was. Gore was clearly going to be the Democratic nominee. So the best I could do to help the process and the country, at that stage, was to cast a vote for the best Republican I could find, not the worst, though I liked Gore and expected to vote for him.
“Strategic” voting for terrible candidates you want to lose is bullshit wankery, at best. It’s far worse than a “wasted” vote for a good candidate you know can’t win.
The evidence isn’t that strong. Polling this early before November doesn’t mean much, but your evidence doesn’t either. Another San Bernardino attack, or a Hillary health scare, and Trump’s chances bump to positive.
Having said that, I’m asking myself, is that my real objection to your Operation Chaos? That it could backfire? Isn’t it wrong to be that manipulative even if it would work? I’m going to say – all the above. Operation Chaos was wrong, it didn’t work before, and it won’t work again. And elections are too unpredictable for it to ever have a good chance of working. And that’s fortunate.
If Trump gets the nomination I wouldn’t be surprised if he started to drop a lot of his extreme views in order to get elected, because he wouldn’t stand to lose anything. The people who support him now will still support him. They don’t really care what he says–it’s just his way of saying it that they like. He’s the ultimate con artist, and they’re too stupid to realize he’s conning them–sneering at them in contempt after he logs off of twitter every night.
Once in the general, I imagine his strategy will be to focus his con on the people who are too ignorant to know whether it’s the policies of the Democrats or the Republicans which serve them better. (I.e., the so-called “independents.”) He’ll dumb it down enough for them to get just enough votes to give him the election. He’ll also probably use a lot of carefully disguised but deliberately sexist language, which could get him a lot of votes from men (and even women) who can’t even perceive their own underlying chauvinistic sentiments.
He doesn’t have to follow the same rules as Clinton, so why shouldn’t he take advantage of that? I can see him winning this way.
This is actually what they would do if they were smart, and maybe they are, for all I know. I hope not.
Likewise, I have a truly remarkable proof that you’re wrong, but the reply box is too small to contain it.
How about what Claire McCaskill pulled? Did you read the details I linked to? That was some cold-blooded ninja shit right there. Worked like a charm. Most fun she had in a long time, and two million bucks very well spent.
Seriously, your math makes *no *sense. Let’s see if anyone else wants to vouch for its validity. Anyone?