The General US Politics Thread

I mean, if everyone who thought like you- "It's Georgia so it doesn't matter" - actually voted, it would probably start to matter very quickly.

Exactly.

I outlined it a few posts back.

, I agree with that, actually. Then convince them that it'll matter.

Edited by TroperOnAStickV2 on Jul 19th 2018 at 1:12:04 PM

If I lived in a more likely blue state, yes. As it is they have to make at least a slight effort (which does seem to be underway already, thankfully).

My question was if it even matters who the Democrats run. Your answer seems to say "if I were in a Blue state, yes it would matter". That would imply that, in a Red state, it wouldn't matter who the Dem candidate is, but you then go on to say what sounds like "I need more convincing to vote for a Dem in my Red state".

Either I'm misunderstanding something or you're trying to have it both ways.

For clarity's sake, my own point is that we've reached a junction where the worst Democrat is potentially preferable to the best Republican.

Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 19th 2018 at 11:19:05 AM

If I lived in a swing state, I wouldn't hesitate to vote Democrat, if I lived in a blue state, I'd need less persuasion to vote Democrat than I do living in a red state.

Edited by TroperOnAStickV2 on Jul 19th 2018 at 1:21:07 PM

If your vote matters as little as you seem to think it does, then why not vote Democrat? In what may seem an odd source of wisdom (Jesse Ventura) the only vote truly wasted is the one never cast.

If what you do doesn't matter, then your may as well do whatever you want.

Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 19th 2018 at 11:20:55 AM

On the alt right I think the same as it was with anti religion it's about power. They see feminism and a push for equality and want the power to push back.

If my vote matters that little, why wouldn't I hunt through third parties to find one that skews more exactly to my views. Maybe I wouldn't and I'd end up voting blue anyway.

Edited by TroperOnAStickV2 on Jul 19th 2018 at 1:23:24 PM

Enough of a turnout for the person who supposedly never had a chance can turn into something. That's why those special elections where Democrats did better than expected were so important even if they didn't win.

Being honest, and in spite of what I said earlier about wasted votes, trying to find a platform or candidate that "skews more exactly to your views" sounds like the whole Unicorn Brigade issue we've discussed in the past, and letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 19th 2018 at 11:27:47 AM

I think you guys are making this a bit too personal.

It's kind of hard to avoid getting personal considering it's about a personal decision and mindset someone decided to share on a forum.

True but your responses have limits with the bounds of reason. You guys are starting to cross line a bit and veering less into discussion and more into browbeating.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Jul 19th 2018 at 12:35:06 PM

Honestly, I find the "People who don't vote Democrat because they aren't Leftist enough are traitors to the Left" to be a awful viewpoint. It's one I've encountered in the real world and is eyerolling. I voted for Hillary but that was because Trump was a monster.

"Good enough" is a terrible sentiment that I have no belief any voter should indulge. If they don't represent your views DO NOT vote for them. The Democrats veering to center led to some horrific treatment for minorities.

The only way your views will be treated is if they appeal to you. Also note this attitude is how the Democrats started taking gay rights seriously. Previously, they were just expected to be given gay votes because "at least we aren't the Republicans."

Mind you, this is the sentiment which means we should have more choice in the primaries but the DNC machine has made that a harder thing to influence.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 19th 2018 at 10:39:04 AM

If they represent your views MORE than the other candidate, then you should vote for them.

The only way you could really justify doing otherwise would be if you truly believed both are equally bad.

And, again, there's no skeleton, real or imagined, in any Democrats' closet that would make a second Trump term look like a good idea.

Democracy is based around a system of shifting needs. If you just vote for the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil. Bill Clinton is the father of Mandatory Sentencing for example.

While the Green Party is a disaster, votes for them are a sign of what people want in their candidates.

The onerous is not on the voter but the candidate to be someone who inspires.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Jul 19th 2018 at 10:44:08 AM

voting is not consumer choice. It is literally life or death. Democrats went to the center because the country had moved to the right after 20 years of GOP domination interspliced with one single Democratic administration.

And the idea of 'representing your views'....where does this begin or end? What if they represent some of your views? What is the makeup of the state? Where's the appropriate cut off and threshold?

You know how LGBT activists got Democrats to take them seriously? They voted for them. They fought in primaries. They pushed the issue. Voters make politicians care, not the other way around.

Also, define 'DNC machine making it hard to influence the primaries' since I think we've heard this one before. We're not going to hear about superdelegates, are we?

The fact is? When leftists claim to care about the issues, but refuse to do anything about them, and condemn people lower on the social and economic ladder to Republican rule (which again, is literally life and death for a lot of people( then I doubt their progressive credentials.

Hundreds of people are dead because Trump's racism has material consequences in Puerto Rico. Period. Full stop. If one couldn't bring themselves to vote Clinton because she wasn't left enough when the consequences were far from hidden? That isn't conscience. It's ego.

I'm sorry, but you cannot just say "Bill Clinton" in a vacuum. Nixon started the war on drugs and demonized black rights with calls for law and order. Reagan made it worse. The GOP congress were the ones who demanded harsh measures for sentencing to pass the crime bill, which had tons of things wrapped up in it. The idea of "Bill Clinton is the father of minimum mandatories" is deceptive.

And the idea that voters have no agency and everything is down to one candidate who 'inspires' is just one I reject offhand. Hillary Clinton was the first female presidential nominee, a role model to million of young women and men alike. She inspired millions to vote for her. But it doesn't count for some reason when you don't inspire the right people, or enough people?

Trump, also, sure as hell inspired a ton of white people of the upper income bracket to vote for him even while being (or because of being) a repellent human being.

Trying to "protest" vote is kind of useless too since they won't really know why you voted the way you did.

It's worse than useless actually. For example, if the more blatantly homophobic and / or transphobic candidate wins, it sends the message that appealing to LGBTQ rights isn't a winning strategy. It sends the message that this isn't an issue the constituency cares about much.

Edited by M84 on Jul 20th 2018 at 1:54:18 AM

If I'm left with two (or however many) options that I perceive as ineffectual, I'm going to take the one that at least goes along with my conscience.

I mean, that's still trying to keep less evil out of the world. And also assumes the Democrats are evil, which is not an assumption I take as a given.

And the arguments that they are evil (which is distinct from imperfect, which I think we all agree on) are usually less than convincing.

Edited by LSBK on Jul 19th 2018 at 12:55:52 PM

The GOP once decided it would look at the grassroots and work them till they bled. Look at the result.

I'm curious: which of those options is that?

At this point I don't know. When the election gets closer, I'll figure it out.