• Convention bump: Hillary takes the lead after DNC
    90 replies, posted
The way I view it is voting for Hillary would only bring on more of the same, which isn't ideal but it isn't absolutely horrible. A Trump victory would just fuck everything up. You've got to have something seriously wrong with you if you genuinely believe from the bottom of your heart that Trump would be a better option.
Kind of fascinating how you can actually [I]see[/I] this polling bump in action if you go to sites like reddit or even here on Facepunch. Places that were formerly very pro-Sanders and anti-Clinton have transformed into anti-Trump machines since the DNC. The front page of /r/politics is now pretty much entirely anti-Trump stuff, and /r/SandersForPresident has shut down.
I wish that cody was unbanned until after the general election.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50819564]It seems like despite all the booing and stuff, the Convention succeeded in converting Sanders supporters into Clinton supporters - the proportion of Sanders supporters who say they will vote for Clinton has [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-opens-point-lead-trump-national-poll/story?id=41053374]soared to 91%[/url] after the convention. If Clinton is still leading comfortably a couple of weeks from now, this election will basically be a done deal[/QUOTE] There are still the debates man, it's [i]still[/i] too early to make judgments on who will win.
[QUOTE=wystan;50819911]There are still the debates man, it's [i]still[/i] too early to make judgments on who will win.[/QUOTE] have you not been paying attention, Trump has already trying to do anything he can to not even show up at least one time in debates.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50820052]have you not been paying attention, Trump has already trying to do anything he can to not even show up at least one time in debates.[/QUOTE] Calling it now, Trump's going to host his own "debates", without Clinton present. Somehow.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50820060]Calling it now, Trump's going to host his own "debates", without Clinton present. Somehow.[/QUOTE] Probably still resort to namecalling, too
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50820052]have you not been paying attention, Trump has already trying to do anything he can to not even show up at least one time in debates.[/QUOTE] You're an absolute fool if you think Trump is going to skip these debates.
[QUOTE=wystan;50820280]You're an absolute fool if you think Trump is going to skip these debates.[/QUOTE] He'll skip it maybe not in person, but in essence, by repeating the same insanity he always does, promising to "make things better" with no plans of how, and throwing schoolyard insults at his opponents.
[QUOTE=wystan;50820280]You're an absolute fool if you think Trump is going to skip these debates.[/QUOTE] I'm not all that sure on how much we can trust your opinion of someone being a fool when you support trump and torture. Yes I went there and I'm gonna keep going there. And even if he shows up with his a-game, the only thing he can do is spout nonsense since once he starts talking policy he will instantly fail cause almost all his policies are shit.
Can't we just all agree that you should vote Third Party?
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;50821901]Can't we just all agree that you should vote Third Party?[/QUOTE] No, you SHOULD vote for Clinton if you dont wanna fuck the US. But WANTING to vote third party is all good.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;50821909]No, you SHOULD vote for Clinton if you dont wanna fuck the US.[/QUOTE] It is in my honest opinion that this view is what got America into this situation in the first place, I would prefer to have a good explanation of why this is instead of people saying things like "Third-Party has no chance" or "It'll fuck with the votes and the worst candidate gets the most instead".
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;50821901]Can't we just all agree that you should vote Third Party?[/QUOTE] Unlike Iceland and how its parliament is elected, that's not a viable option in the US electoral system.
[QUOTE=sb27;50821928]Unlike Iceland and how its parliament is elected, that's not a viable option in the US electoral system.[/QUOTE] While I agree it's not 'Viable' I also consider it the best option in the face of having to choose between Hillary and Trump. The next election will only get even worse if you don't make an attempt at showing that people are sick of both parties.
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;50821923]It is in my honest opinion that this view is what got America into this situation in the first place, I would prefer to have a good explanation of why this is instead of people saying things like "Third-Party has no chance" or "It'll fuck with the votes and the worst candidate gets the most instead".[/QUOTE] Well you answered your own question Assume a simplified scenario where perhaps the right-leaning voters are united behind the Republican candidate, but the division amongst the left-leaning voters remains. Many sincerely support Clinton, others sincerely support Stein, and others would still write-in Sanders. Assume that 45% of the electorate are right-leaning, and 55% of the electorate are left-leaning. But among the left-leaning voters, 1 of every 5 of them will either vote for Stein or Sanders instead of Clinton. So when the election happens, disregarding the electoral college for the sake of simplicity, you get: - Trump: 45% - Clinton: 44% - Stein/Sanders: 11% Trump wins the election despite left-leaning voters being a majority of the electorate, and voting for someone else. If Stein wasn't standing for the election, and if the Bernie bros weren't so stubborn, then the left-leaning candidate, Clinton, would have won. Voting for a third party is effectively voting to allow someone who does not represent you at all to beat a candidate who could at least represent you in a compromise kind of way.
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;50821938]While I agree it's not 'Viable' I also consider it the best option in the face of having to choose between Hillary and Trump. The next election will only get even worse if you don't make an attempt at showing that people are sick of both parties.[/QUOTE] But doing that still gives either of them four years of presidency now
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;50821923]It is in my honest opinion that this view is what got America into this situation in the first place, I would prefer to have a good explanation of why this is instead of people saying things like "Third-Party has no chance" or "It'll fuck with the votes and the worst candidate gets the most instead".[/QUOTE] Those ARE good explanations. Theyre not satisfying but they are the natural result of the FPTP system. So for now you literally have to play by the rules if you don't want to literally fuck the country. The time for voting third party is after they have a realistic chance, or the electoral system in the US is fundamentally changed. Until that point you ARE basically voting for trump if you dont vote for Clinton.
[QUOTE=sb27;50821939]-giving a explanation I honestly asked you [B]NOT[/B] to give-[/QUOTE] Oh for crying out loud, I may be going batshit insane here but at this point this argument is what I feel is nothing but scaremongering. The possibility exists, I admit. But there is also the fact that it's a mere possibility, along with the fact that it could potentially set a precedent for the next election. Let's not forget that during Obama's presidency there were quite a few moments of his promises being stalled and fucked with, who is to say that won't happen to Trump or Hillary? I also admit that these arguments are very freaking shaky, but at the same time I do feel like it's necessary yet risky move.
The thing you have to realize about U.S. elections, is that the person who gets elected is the candidate with more votes than any other candidate, which does [b]not[/b] mean they have the most support from everyone. Say you have nine candidates with radically different views from each other. Eight of them get 11% of the votes while the last gets 12% of the votes. You now have 88% of the population not being represented. That last candidate only represents 12% of the people. That's what wrong with the system. Repeat this cycle and it naturally converges into only two parties having a reasonable chance at winning, because representing 51% of the people is better than 12%.
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;50821977]Oh for crying out loud, I may be going batshit insane here but at this point this argument is what I feel is nothing but scaremongering. The possibility exists, I admit. But there is also the fact that it's a mere possibility, along with the fact that it could potentially set a precedent for the next election. Let's not forget that during Obama's presidency there were quite a few moments of his promises being stalled and fucked with, who is to say that won't happen to Trump or Hillary? I also admit that these arguments are very freaking shaky, but at the same time I do feel like it's necessary yet risky move.[/QUOTE] That argument is the whole reason why Americans shouldn't vote third party. It's not scaremongering, it's how the FPTP system naturally works and proven by decades if not centuries of empirical evidence. You're spoilt in Iceland because you have party-list proportional elections. I'm spoilt here in Australia because we have instant-runoff vote and single transferable vote elections. Americans don't have that luxury of voting third party. Tactical voting isn't a problem in either of our voting systems, but it is in America, as it is in the UK and Canada. And what you're proposing isn't going to happen. If say Stein takes away half of the left-leaning votes from Clinton, guaranteeing a landslide election for Trump, what will happen in the next election, [I]after four years of a potentially harmful Trump presidency[/I], is that you are going to be seeing the most-harsh scare campaigning that the Democrats have ever pulled off, asking for people to not vote for the Greens so that the left-leaning electorate will actually have a chance at the Presidency. [I]This kind of thing has actually happened[/I]. In the 2000 Presidential election, where the Green candidate Ralph Nader was perceived to have split the left-leaning vote and lead to Dubya being elected, 2.8 million people voted for Nader. In the 2004 election following that, only 400,000 people voted for Nader. So what precedent was set for the next election (from 2000 to 2004)? [I]Don't vote third party.[/I]
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;50821977]Oh for crying out loud, I may be going batshit insane here but at this point this argument is what I feel is nothing but scaremongering. The possibility exists, I admit. But there is also the fact that it's a mere possibility, along with the fact that it could potentially set a precedent for the next election. Let's not forget that during Obama's presidency there were quite a few moments of his promises being stalled and fucked with, who is to say that won't happen to Trump or Hillary? I also admit that these arguments are very freaking shaky, but at the same time I do feel like it's [B]necessary yet risky move[/B].[/QUOTE] and the word 'risk' is the problem here there are things that we can't risk for the possibility of getting something good lets put it like this: risk from a democrat side: - conservative judges being stacked by the republicans who will decide america's future - lgbtq rights being trampled on after years of hard work & advancement - harsher immigration and deportation policies - affordable healthcare or anything that resembles universal healthcare being taken away - banning or discrimination of muslims, a religion over billion people - tanking the economy with protectionism - lowering our standings with allies & letting putin roll over europe risk from a republican side - liberal judges being stacked by democrats - their social conservative values no longer imposed on anyone - more immigrants coming in - economy being tanked with democrat policies - clinton is bad - muslims are bad see? a lot of people can't afford the risk, thats why bernie sanders didn't run third party or endorse jill stein. it'd be effectively the end of his progressive movement if his voters en-masse went to a third party
[QUOTE=sb27;50822016][I]This kind of thing has actually happened[/I]. In the 2000 Presidential election, where the Green candidate Ralph Nader was perceived to have split the left-leaning vote and lead to Dubya being elected, 2.8 million people voted for Nader. In the 2004 election following that, only 400,000 people voted for Nader. So what precedent was set for the next election (from 2000 to 2004)? [I]Don't vote third party.[/I][/QUOTE] I can't really argue against this and have to concede defeat at this point, the only way to deny this would be to actually make a big third party vote turnout in two elections in a row and there isn't exactly viable. I suppose this whole topic is getting me a bit too hotheaded to think straight, I'll stay out of the topic of this election in general from now on.
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;50822080]I can't really argue against this and have to concede defeat at this point, the only way to deny this would be to actually make a big third party vote turnout in two elections in a row and there isn't exactly viable. I suppose this whole topic is getting me a bit too hotheaded to think straight, I'll stay out of the topic of this election in general from now on.[/QUOTE] The only way I see third parties winning is if both parties have a simultaneous split, which isn't exactly the case this election. Namely because the Republicans that are against Trump are voting for Hillary instead of third party.
[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;50822080]I can't really argue against this and have to concede defeat at this point, the only way to deny this would be to actually make a big third party vote turnout in two elections in a row and there isn't exactly viable. I suppose this whole topic is getting me a bit too hotheaded to think straight, I'll stay out of the topic of this election in general from now on.[/QUOTE] Don't perceive my use of italics or how I write in-general to be rude. I come across as an asshole, and well I actually am an asshole (ask my co-workers), but I try my best to be as informative as possible, so that often means writing posts with a million statements aimed at your face. Don't stay out of the topic, it's best to continue to involve yourself so that you can continue to learn the kinds of things like what you learned just then.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;50822024]and the word 'risk' is the problem here there are things that we can't risk for the possibility of getting something good lets put it like this: risk from a democrat side: - conservative judges being stacked by the republicans who will decide america's future - lgbtq rights being trampled on after years of hard work & advancement - harsher immigration and deportation policies - affordable healthcare or anything that resembles universal healthcare being taken away - banning or discrimination of muslims, a religion over billion people - tanking the economy with protectionism - lowering our standings with allies & letting putin roll over europe risk from a republican side - liberal judges being stacked by democrats - their social conservative values no longer imposed on anyone - more immigrants coming in - economy being tanked with democrat policies - clinton is bad - muslims are bad see? a lot of people can't afford the risk, thats why bernie sanders didn't run third party or endorse jill stein. it'd be effectively the end of his progressive movement if his voters en-masse went to a third party[/QUOTE] Your list of "risk from a republican side" shows that you have no clue how republicans think, and is laughably incorrect at worst, and strawmanning at best. - Liberal judges being stacked by democrats who will "re-interpret" the law to fit whatever agenda they want, effectively nullifying the legislative branch. - 2nd Amendment rights being trampled on after years of hard work and advancement. - Relaxing of immigration enforcement leading to less secure borders and placing more burden on states closer to the border. - Farther fucking up the healthcare system by not even trying to fix what's wrong with Obamacare. - Government continuing to not accept that radical Islamic terrorists are a threat, or even acknowledge that it happens. - Tanking the economy by agreeing to policies and deals that destroy medium skill jobs that aren't service/minimum wage, or high skilled college required jobs. - Continuing allowing allies to not uphold their obligations to their own defense or NATO because we can "pick up the slack". And I'll give you a few bonus ones: - Continuing refusal to compromise or even acknowledge half of the country's positions. - Continuing attempts to brute force things through that half of the country doesn't want. - Continuing "tax and spend" policies which do nothing but take money from the middle class that they could be using either in the economy or to secure their future/retirement. I don't support Donald Trump, and I view myself as more independent than republican (mainly due to social policies like LGBTQ rights), but at least I understand and acknowledge what their issues are and where they are coming from. If you're going to argue someone's points for them, at least understand them first.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50822199]- Continuing refusal to compromise or even acknowledge half of the country's positions. - Continuing attempts to brute force things through that half of the country doesn't want. - Continuing "tax and spend" policies which do nothing but take money from the middle class that they could be using either in the economy or to secure their future/retirement.[/QUOTE] Those are all things you can say exactly the same for Republicans
According to 538, Clinton is now getting close to 90% chance of winning if Americans go to the polls today, leading by 7% in popular votes (with 70% chance of winning this November).
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50822199]Your list of "risk from a republican side" shows that you have no clue how republicans think, and is laughably incorrect at worst, and strawmanning at best. - Liberal judges being stacked by democrats who will "re-interpret" the law to fit whatever agenda they want, effectively nullifying the legislative branch. - 2nd Amendment rights being trampled on after years of hard work and advancement. - Relaxing of immigration enforcement leading to less secure borders and placing more burden on states closer to the border. - Farther fucking up the healthcare system by not even trying to fix what's wrong with Obamacare. - Government continuing to not accept that radical Islamic terrorists are a threat, or even acknowledge that it happens. - Tanking the economy by agreeing to policies and deals that destroy medium skill jobs that aren't service/minimum wage, or high skilled college required jobs. - Continuing allowing allies to not uphold their obligations to their own defense or NATO because we can "pick up the slack". And I'll give you a few bonus ones: - Continuing refusal to compromise or even acknowledge half of the country's positions. - Continuing attempts to brute force things through that half of the country doesn't want. - Continuing "tax and spend" policies which do nothing but take money from the middle class that they could be using either in the economy or to secure their future/retirement. I don't support Donald Trump, and I view myself as more independent than republican (mainly due to social policies like LGBTQ rights), but at least I understand and acknowledge what their issues are and where they are coming from. If you're going to argue someone's points for them, at least understand them first.[/QUOTE] You criticize him for strawmanning, then you post an inane wall of out of touch ravings that looks taken directly from an Alex Jones broadcast?
[QUOTE=gman003-main;50820060]Calling it now, Trump's going to host his own "debates", without Clinton present. Somehow.[/QUOTE] He changes his mind so often that he could stand behind a podium for an hour and debate with himself.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.