Democrat Enthusiasm Gap - Turnout Down Significantly Across Primary States - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49867636]Doesn't make any sense. Imagine you can press 1 of 3 buttons. Button 1 says it will give you $1,000,000 but in reality it doesn't work. Button 2 will give you $100. Button 3 will cause a boxing glove to come out of the wall and hit you in the face. Does it make sense to press button 1 just because "geeze, I'd sure love to have $1,000,000!!!"?[/QUOTE] wtf kind of analogy is this.

[QUOTE=catbarf;49867028]He's already promised policy contrary to the GOP and the Republicans in Congress have already openly stated that they won't work with him. I don't think the Republicans will have control of anything if he wins.[/QUOTE] If trump wins, he'll have 4 years in office. He will appoint a new supreme court justice in that timeframe. That's not speculation, its something that will happen in a trump presidency. And when it does, I can bet you he won't be appointing a liberal lion. On top of that, consider the wave of discontent he's riding and the implications it has for 2018 and local elections across the country.

[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49867334]fuck off with this tactical voting mindset people that spout this shit that you're spouting are the reason we're stuck in this abhorrently broken two party system in the first place [B][I]vote for who you agree with[/I][/B][/QUOTE] 3rd party voting serves only to know that you are upset with your party and that you are so unhappy you're willing to let your ideological opposite win to sink the message in.

[QUOTE=Jiyoon;49867857]3rd party voting serves only to know that you are upset with your party and that you are so unhappy you're willing to let your ideological opposite win to sink the message in.[/QUOTE] tactical voting serves only to show that you care more about making sure people don't get someone you don't like than about electing someone that properly represents you you know, like [I]how representative democracy is supposed to function[/I] [editline]4th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49867636]Doesn't make any sense. Imagine you can press 1 of 3 buttons. Button 1 says it will give you $1,000,000 but in reality it doesn't work.* [B]*unless a sufficient fraction of people pick button 1, in which case it starts working[/B][/QUOTE] there you go the only reason it doesn't work is because people say it doesn't work

[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49867967]tactical voting serves only to show that you care more about making sure people don't get someone you don't like than about electing someone that properly represents you you know, like [I]how representative democracy is supposed to function[/I] [editline]4th March 2016[/editline] there you go the only reason it doesn't work is because people say it doesn't work[/QUOTE] Which is why I support everyone voting for Bernie in the primary elections. I thought that went without saying. But the guy I quoted originally said he would waste his vote by writing in Bernie in the general or voting for Jill Stein.

[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49867967]tactical voting serves only to show that you care more about making sure people don't get someone you don't like than about electing someone that properly represents you you know, like [I]how representative democracy is supposed to function[/I][/QUOTE] The person who best represents me is myself... welp, guess I should write in my own name every election.

[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49868689]Which is why I support everyone voting for Bernie in the primary elections. I thought that went without saying. But the guy I quoted originally said he would waste his vote by writing in Bernie in the general or voting for Jill Stein.[/QUOTE] I see it this way, Bernie is the only candidate running that represents what i want from a politician. And if the DNC are going to elect someone who is not only not my ideal candidate, but in fact his polar opposite, then they've refused to represent me as an American and I will exercise my right to vote for a candidate who I feel represents me better. And quite frankly, as a moderate, I have zero loyalty to the Democratic party and all they've shown me thus far is that they talk big about being for civil rights, and then utterly fail to properly implement anything that isn't a minor victory for groups I'm not even a part of, whilst they hand control over to big business and continue growing our ridiculously inefficient and inadequate government, and as far as I can tell there's a growing authoritarian movement in the left, that is absolutely opposed to everything I believe in. This isn't about giving the Republican party the election, it's about refusing to submit to the snakes at the DNC, if they can't field a candidate who represents me, they lose my vote, it's that simple. You can not guilt me into voting for Hillary, and I'm sure many other voters feel the same way. This isn't a sport, I'm not "on your team, or on their team". We all have our own interests and I'm tired of people trying to guilt everyone else in voting against those interests and principles. I don't care if I " waste " my vote by not voting for your candidate, they don't represent me, the DNC is forcing us into a lose-lose situation, they don't deserve loyalty from anyone.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49867318]Well then that would mean those Sanders supporters clearly don't give two shits about anything Sanders represents, if they could easily support Trump and not the candidate who has a majority of the same values.[/QUOTE] Trump and Sanders do have similarities though. Both have non-interventionist foreign policies, both are against the current trade-deals, both take issue with the H1B program. As I understand it, all the other candidates are in stark contrast on these issues. Cruz mentioned putting a moratorium on the H1B program to look for abuse, but I believe he is in favor of expanding it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49868788]The person who best represents me is myself... welp, guess I should write in my own name every election.[/QUOTE] This. Blindly denying reality and stubbornly adhering to a set of overly simplistic moral principles will get you nothing. I mean, if you don't care that you're essentially handing control of the government over to fucking crazy people, then sure, go ahead. But if you actually care about what course of action is better for the nation in the long term, maybe you should be a bit more flexible. A possible good solution is better than an impossible perfect one.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;49868833][b]I don't care if I " waste " my vote[/b] by not voting for your candidate, they don't represent me, the DNC is forcing us into a lose-lose situation, they don't deserve loyalty from anyone.[/QUOTE] Great. All you needed to say. Hillary isn't "my candidate" by the way, which is why I'm voting for Bernie and desperately hoping he can pull out a win for the Democratic nomination.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49867269]I love this mentality. It's why Bernie is having such a hard time against the establishment. Keep being the perfect little pawn they know you will always be regardless if they listen to you or not.[/QUOTE] How is strategically voting for someone who aligns with atleast some or your interests over someone who either aligns with less or will outright damage the country make you [B]more [/B]of a pawn than the folks who just vote Democrat/Republican every year and don't know shit about policy. Who even are they a pawn of, considering they obviously don't like either party? If you want to stick to your guns and be more principled than other voters, fine, it's your democratic right. But don't call other people pawns for making a choice you disagree with. You are just as bad as the "Don't throw your vote away" people with rhetoric like that. I don't agree with most of the Republican candidates at all and I think the current frontrunner would do long term damage to the interests of the United States if he manages to push through almost any element of his tax or foreign policy, so am I going to vote Clinton if it comes to that? Despite never being a registered Democrat? Despite never voting for a Democrat in a general election? You're goddamned right I will.

What still is bugging me is the fact that everyone is so caught up with the Republican nomination of Donald Trump, that they start projecting things like "Dems will definitely lose!" Or stuff like that, because Republican turnout is high. It's high for exactly the opposite reason the Democratic nomination turnout is low. People don't want Trump and feel ostracized by him so vote against him. There's a reason he doesn't have more than 50% majority in any of the nominations he has. Republicans don't want him to be their representative. Comparably, voter turnout for Dems at its low is better than repubs at their high, in most cases. A law professor I had at uni said that the country is remarkably more Democratic than Republican, some 60-40% split in favor of Dems. They just don't vote as much as Republicans, in part because of Republican voter suppression.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49870386]What still is bugging me is the fact that everyone is so caught up with the Republican nomination of Donald Trump, that they start projecting things like "Dems will definitely lose!" Or stuff like that, because Republican turnout is high. It's high for exactly the opposite reason the Democratic nomination turnout is low. People don't want Trump and feel ostracized by him so vote against him. There's a reason he doesn't have more than 50% majority in any of the nominations he has. Republicans don't want him to be their representative. [/QUOTE] Maybe he doesn't have a majority because there's still 3 other people in the race? Right now he's polling around 43% nationwide, the assumption out of the 57% of other people, he won't pick up 8% if it became a two-candidate race seems pretty unlikely. [URL]http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary[/URL]

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;49870386]What still is bugging me is the fact that everyone is so caught up with the Republican nomination of Donald Trump, that they start projecting things like "Dems will definitely lose!" Or stuff like that, because Republican turnout is high. It's high for exactly the opposite reason the Democratic nomination turnout is low. People don't want Trump and feel ostracized by him so vote against him. There's a reason he doesn't have more than 50% majority in any of the nominations he has. Republicans don't want him to be their representative. Comparably, voter turnout for Dems at its low is better than repubs at their high, in most cases. A law professor I had at uni said that the country is remarkably more Democratic than Republican, some 60-40% split in favor of Dems. They just don't vote as much as Republicans, in part because of Republican voter suppression.[/QUOTE] Of course, but Dem voters never show up, as I'm sure you know. On top of this, it's unclear how much Trump Hate will affect Hillary Hate in the general election.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;49870413]Maybe he doesn't have a majority because there's still 3 other people in the race? Right now he's polling around 43% nationwide, the assumption out of the 57% of other people, he won't pick up 8% if it became a two-candidate race seems pretty unlikely. [URL]http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary[/URL][/QUOTE] He doesn't have majority and a lot of moderate Republicans are against him for his stances. More turnout because more hate him. Besides that, that's still only 51% support from the Republican party, which is only ~24% nationally. I know more Republicans that hate Trump than love him, and that's apparently true from what we've seen in voter turnout. [editline]5th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49870459]Of course, but Dem voters never show up, as I'm sure you know. On top of this, it's unclear how much Trump Hate will affect Hillary Hate in the general election.[/QUOTE] Dems usually feel safe in their party winning, so they don't turnout, but when there's an actual risk involved, irc Romney vs Obama, or McCain vs Obama, we see huge dem turnout.

[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49870459]Of course, but Dem voters never show up, as I'm sure you know. On top of this, it's unclear how much Trump Hate will affect Hillary Hate in the general election.[/QUOTE] Alot of Hilary hate and alot of Trump hate. Only time will tell. Unless Bernie wins.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49869258]How is strategically voting for someone who aligns with atleast some or your interests over someone who either aligns with less or will outright damage the country make you [B]more [/B]of a pawn than the folks who just vote Democrat/Republican every year and don't know shit about policy. Who even are they a pawn of, considering they obviously don't like either party? If you want to stick to your guns and be more principled than other voters, fine, it's your democratic right. But don't call other people pawns for making a choice you disagree with. You are just as bad as the "Don't throw your vote away" people with rhetoric like that. I don't agree with most of the Republican candidates at all and I think the current frontrunner would do long term damage to the interests of the United States if he manages to push through almost any element of his tax or foreign policy, so am I going to vote Clinton if it comes to that? Despite never being a registered Democrat? Despite never voting for a Democrat in a general election? You're goddamned right I will.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about at all. Voting based on who aligns with more of your views is fine. I was more talking about the mentality that tells people to vote for a candidate they despise just because they aren't the other guy. That's just being a mindless pawn in my opinion. You don't have to like it, but that's why it's my opinion.