The StarDestroyer BBS 2012 US Presidential Election Poll

[General Mung Beans]

Obama. I voted for Hillary in 2008. While Obama has done a few things I'm not super pleased about, he's also done, or attempted to do, plenty of things I agree with. I'm not sure who the other two on that list are. Mitt... is just not a good choice imho. It should be interesting how this election plays out in MN, generally we go blue, but outside of Minneapolis I never hear anything positive about Obama. And the tea part is unfortunately strong here...

Minnesota's the state that's gone the longest without going Republican in a Presidential election.

True, but the majority of our in state elections have increasingly gone red. With the exception of Al Franken and Gov. Dayton, who both narrowly won their races. Also, we have a lot of people who (and I hate to admit this) still love Michele (one "l") Bachmann. Yes, Minnesota hasn't voted (R), in terms of a president, since the dinosaurs roamed the earth way back in 1972, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a strong blue state. Just my opinion and observation, with the political climate getting increasingly divisive and mean, I'm not going to just assume that our whopping 10 electoral votes will go to Obama in Nov.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ the Five Thirty Eight Blog has Obama's chance of winning Minnesota at 91.3%. Not sure about Gov. Dayton but Al Franken is a pretty polarizing figure and he was running against a fairly centrist incumbent. A lot of Great Lakes states do have a tendency to elect fairly conservative governors despite being usually Democratic-Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. I wonder iss this more a question of turnout in midterms or splitting the ballot?

[Admiral Drason]

It's also easy to forget that aside from a few places like the Twin Cities, Minnesota tends to be very rural and contain quite a few small towns. Around where I live (St Cloud) we also have quite a bit of a redneck atmosphere, and given some of the people I've worked and dealt with before its not always a huge shock to understand why we may have voted in someone like Bachmann.

(I'm also not saying 'rural' and 'small town' is automatically an indicator of conservative/right wing thinking, but it wouldn't greatly shock me either)

Holy crap I also live in St Cloud.

Besides the Universality in town this is as strong a tea party hold out as your ever going to find. I have to go out of my way anymore to avoid the large base of tea partiers that I work with/ do business with me. And yes our local newspaper will have letters to the editor defending every action Bachmann makes, and even go as far as saying that shes the only hope America has left. So I really wouldn't be surprised if Minnesota goes Republican this time around.

Edit: after reading the five thirty eight blog maybe I stand corrected.

[Thanas]

In your opinion.

Romney doesn't have to be a "massive rightwing gun-waving wingnut" to be lesser choice.

Lesser enough so that you support torture/extralegal assassination by presidential decree?

Let's be clear here. You are against him on the basis of his political affiliation. Well, golly, last time I checked it was a democrat presiding over extrajudicial rendition/torture/executions right now.

Last time we went around with this I asked you what you thought Americans should do to improve the system since the voting system isn't effective for your purposes. You never answered me. I don't expect you will ever answer me because you don't have an answer other than "America sucks".

Stop lying, stop misrepresenting me. This is your usual "wahwahwa BAAAAAD THANAS IS SO ANTI-AMERICAN WAH WAH WAH" spiel. I told you specifically what I would do in your shoes, that is not voting for a candidate that is claiming he has the god constitutionally given right to kill whoever he pleases via secret decree. And then campaigning for change at the local level.

It is not my problem if you are to stupid or unwilling to accept that. Don't go around claiming I never answered you.

No, we're not. No one in this country has ever had that notion, that you support 100% all the things the candidate you vote for supports or promotes. That comes strictly out of your own mind. The major political parties have dissenting factions within them and often publicly disagree with the chosen candidate/elected official.

a) This is about Obama. I have no problem whatsoever with voting for a politician like, say, Barney Frank.
b) Yes, you do support him 100% at the polls because a vote for him is a vote for him. It is not a vote for "Obama minus X, Y and z", it is a vote for "Obama".

Such a position is ridiculous. Who ever agrees completely with anyone else? By that rationale no one should ever vote for anyone anywhere.

Strawman. You vote for the candidate you feel able to compromise for. If you feel you can compromise "support for extrajudicial killing" with "not Romney", then go ahead.

[Broomstick]

In your opinion.

Romney doesn't have to be a "massive rightwing gun-waving wingnut" to be lesser choice.

Lesser enough so that you support torture/extralegal assassination by presidential decree?

Are you really so stupid, naive, and deluded as to think Romney WON'T continue, if not expand, "torture/extralegal assassination by presidential decree?" Seriously?

NO, I do NOT support "torture/extralegal assassination by presidential decree". I don't support it under any circumstances. What you don't seem to understand that there is NO viable presidential candidate this time around who WON'T engage in such activities. NONE.

What you're basically saying is that any American that votes at all in the November election is voting for "torture/extralegal assassination by presidential decree." You say you aren't telling anyone how to vote but you are, you're telling Americans not to vote at all.

Let's be clear here. You are against him on the basis of his political affiliation.

No, I am not. I don't belong to any political party and never have. To the best of my ability I try to determine the positions of candidates and vote on that basis. Sorry if you don't understand that membership in a politcal party is not required in this country.

I am against Romney for reasons that tie into my survival and that of my family. I realize that that isn't good enough for you, that I'm supposed to vote against my self-interest to please you, who live in another country so very far away, but if don't keep a roof over my head, food on my table, and manage to find my spouse the medical care he needs to stay alive I can't do jack shit for anyone else.

Well, golly, last time I checked it was a democrat presiding over extrajudicial rendition/torture/executions right now.

And that happy horseshit was started by a Republican... your point is what? Dump Obama and take absolutely anyone else because no one could possibly worse than Obama? Thanas, you usually aren't that sort of idiot. Romney WOULD be worse. Worse for those of us in the US, worse for those aboard as I think it is all too likely we'd start another war under Romney.

Last time we went around with this I asked you what you thought Americans should do to improve the system since the voting system isn't effective for your purposes. You never answered me. I don't expect you will ever answer me because you don't have an answer other than "America sucks".

Stop lying, stop misrepresenting me. This is your usual "wahwahwa BAAAAAD THANAS IS SO ANTI-AMERICAN WAH WAH WAH" spiel. I told you specifically what I would do in your shoes, that is not voting for a candidate that is claiming he has the god constitutionally given right to kill whoever he pleases via secret decree. And then campaigning for change at the local level.

What you're saying is that if you were here in the US and a voting citizen you'd vote for no one, and you're setting up an argument that the only moral choice is never to vote at all. In other words, you're saying Americans should simply opt out of the political system entirely. Do you realize who that would leave? The farthest right wing nutjobs, the ones who think a US theocracy is a good idea. One of the biggest problems in the US is that those to the left of center are less likely to vote than those to right of center but hey, encourage the trends of the past 30 or so years to just get worse.

No, we're not. No one in this country has ever had that notion, that you support 100% all the things the candidate you vote for supports or promotes. That comes strictly out of your own mind. The major political parties have dissenting factions within them and often publicly disagree with the chosen candidate/elected official.

a) This is about Obama. I have no problem whatsoever with voting for a politician like, say, Barney Frank.

Barney Frank is not running for PotUS.

And no, this is not about voting for Obama, it's about voting for the next person to sit in the Oval Office in Washington, DC.

b) Yes, you do support him 100% at the polls because a vote for him is a vote for him. It is not a vote for "Obama minus X, Y and z", it is a vote for "Obama".

What a load of horseshit - again, what you're saying is that unless you agree with a candidate 100% don't vote for that candidate, which means never voting for anyone. Again, you're saying the only moral choice is never to vote at all. Yeah, that's great for participatory democracy.

Sorry you don't understand how things work over here. People don't move in lockstep with their parties, the parties have dissension among their ranks, and no on has the illusion that anyone is agreeing 100% with anyone. Maybe it's easier maintaining your fantasies when you live on another continent.

Such a position is ridiculous. Who ever agrees completely with anyone else? By that rationale no one should ever vote for anyone anywhere.

Strawman. You vote for the candidate you feel able to compromise for. If you feel you can compromise "support for extrajudicial killing" with "not Romney", then go ahead.

The choice here isn't "extrajudical killing" and "no extrajudicial killing", it's "extrajudicial killing" or "even more extrajudicial killing". Again, you're totally ignoring the fact that Romeny will not end this "torture/extralegal assassination by presidential decree" bullshit. If anything, it would INCREASE under Romney. A vote for Obama is for the current status quo. If I thought there was a chance for better I'd go for it but there isn't.

[Prannon]

I agree with Broomstick. The US system is not very good at introducing drastic changes when you vote different people into positions of power, unlike a parliamentary system. (People think that drastic changes happen when you vote different people in, but that's not really the case.) There's a reason why a presidential administration is called just that, and "administration." It's not a "government" in the same sense that a parliamentary Prime Minister's government is. It doesn't control legislation and bureaucracy at the same time. It is merely a part of the overall government, which, dysfunctionally competes with itself. I believe this has been discussed at length in this board so I won't wax poetic about it.

What I will say is that the US has a remarkable continuity of policy throughout it's more recent history. That is, it's rare to see a complete revocation of a previous administration's policy, except for the most plublic things like how an administration approaches gay people in the military and how an administration applies existing law. More often than not, an administration just builds on top of existing policy, making up a very mixed up mishmash of things forgotten but left functioning, sorta.

This is to say that no one really talks about "extra-judicial killings" in public places where the masses can get upset about it. It is a previous administration's policy that has been left to its own devices, likely knowingly, for convenience or for whatever reason. No one (in terms of the masses) is considering it as part of why they're voting for one party or another. It's not likely to change no matter who you vote for, thus it is not really an issue here.

Ultimately, my point is that the US has a history of continuity with regards to policy. The fact that Obama has continued elements of Bush's nastier policies should not be surprising.

[Simon_Jester]

Thanas, you didn't answer my question, so I'd like to ask it again.

What I am going to say however is that you should be aware that if you are voting for somebody in a system like this, you are voting for all his policies and supporting all his policies.

Thanas, I've heard you say this before, but I still don't understand: what do you base this on? There seem to be a lot of steps you've skipped- or maybe the act of voting simply means something to you that it doesn't mean to a lot of other people.

This seems almost axiomatic to you, but it's by no means obvious to me. If the election is between two thieves, one of whom is also a murderer, is it "pro-theft" to vote for the man with only one crime on his record?

It seems to me like your idea of the meaning of a vote contains some extra axioms. I'm trying to figure out where you're getting them from. Because you keep saying that to vote for a candidate is to unconditionally approve of all that they do, and support all that they do. And that is just... not something I normally hear in political theory.

You take it so much for granted that this is true, and condemn people so strongly because of it... but I can't remember when you explained why you believe this.

Is this something that's normal in Germany? Does everyone who votes Green in Germany approve of every element of the Green platform? Or FDP? Or Christian Democrat? And if a German disagrees with at least one important point with a party, and disagrees with all the short list of party platforms on at least one thing per party... they just don't vote at all?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Strawman. You vote for the candidate you feel able to compromise for. If you feel you can compromise "support for extrajudicial killing" with "not Romney", then go ahead.

No Thanas, that is not how it works. You are not taking into account the Priors. We do not have a proportional representative system combined with a coalition government like you do. We have two parties who--barring a split in one of them that either creates a new party or otherwise reorganizes the polarity of one or more parties--will win the election. Their winning the election is a given because over the years a combination of political inertia, money, redistricting, and ballot inclusion rules makes this a certainty.

The popular vote also does not decide the election. Each state is apportioned delegates based on population, and the popular vote gives those delegates in an all-or-nothing fashion to the winner in each state. I know you know this, but you have demonstrated that you do not grasp what that means in terms of voter choice.

This situation means that people leaving in deep republican states have the perverse luxury of voting for whoever they want. I for example live in the Texan Junta, and thus it does not matter who I vote for because Romney will win. There are literally not enough liberals in the state to buck that trend, and there will not be demographically for the next 30 years. I can vote purely with my conscience and send a message to the democratic party that their policies are not good enough to win my vote. Cool.

Someone living in say, Florida however does not have that luxury. They have the choice between GOP, DEM, and IDEAL (lets say) and they rank those parties in order of preference as follows

IDEAL
DEM
GOP

Because only the Dem or GOP will ever win the election, all a vote for their ideal candidate will ever do (barring a huge shakeup in the political system, which happens infrequently, but is obvious when it does happen), is siphon votes from the Dem, making it more likely that the voter will be stuck with the election of the candidate they despise.

Between the two parties in the US, both democrats and republicans appear to be OK with torture. Or, at least their politicians are. Kinda goes like this.

GOP Pols (+ Torture)----GOP Voters (+ Torture)
DEM Pols (+ Torture)----GOP Voters (- Torture)

So, a protest vote is a useless gesture if you live in a swing state. The only mathematical difference is that instead of a +1 to the GOP and -1 to the Dem, which would be the result of protest voting for a republican, your protest vote nets +0 for the GOP, and -1 for the Dem.

As I have shown, is a given we will get a government that supports torture. If we are single-issue voters, it does not matter. Protest vote away, because then we dont give a shit about anything else. We dont give a shit about the economy, healthcare, education, wars, or anything but torture.

Very few of us are single issue voters. None of us are ethically required to be single issue voters, because of the Doctrine of Dual Intent. To explain this, I shall use the classic trolly car example. Let us presume that I am the conductor of a trolly car. My breaks are out for whatever reason and I am going down hill. Down the track several hundred meters is a switch that will allow me to change tracks. However, on one set of tracks there is a group of small children. On the other set of tracks is an old wino passed out on said tracks.

The doctrine of dual intent states that I am not morally responsible for the death of the Wino, if my intent was the save the children, and I had no viable third option.

In the US political system, I do not have a viable third option, again, due to the fucked up entrenched political parties and lack of proportional representation (that I have no way to change, because the people writing the laws have a conflict of interest with regard to such a change).

I can vote in such a way as to benefit the republicans who are intractably favor of torture, and also against policies I like/need/require/support as a general rule
Or
I can vote in such a way as to benefit the democrats who are in favor of torture (though less firmly), but whom are also in favor of policies I otherwise like/need/require/support.

Those are my choices, unless I have the luxury of living in a state where the GOP winning is a given, and can thus afford to express my disapproval of torture through a vote.

[Broomstick]

I'd like to outline some of my objections to Romney, based on his current stated positions (where he stands on an issue wobbles quite a bit over the years).

War on Terror: May 15, 2007 Romney says the US should double the capacity of Guantanamo Bay. He has stated that he wants Iraqi combantants to be in Gitmo where they don't get access to lawyers. In the 2007 Iowa Straw Poll he praised not allowing military prisoners to have judicial review of their cases.

Romney says he's opposed to torture but in favor of “enhanced interrogation techniques”. When asked if he thought waterboarding was torture directly he evaded the question. He says he gets advice on the subject from Cofer Black – a man who is supposed to have been rather heavily involved in rendition, interrogation of Al Qaeda and other suspects in the war on terror. He was vice chairman of Blackwater for a number of years, an entity also embroiled in all sort of chicanery. Cofer Black is the head of Romeny's counter-terrorism advisory group, and in 2011 Romeny made him his “special adviser” on all foreign policy issues.

If he has Cofer Black as his adviser on these issues what the FUCK makes anyone think that torture and rendition will stop under Romeny?

Healthcare: he wants to repeal "Obamacare" in it's entirety, which is bad enough, but he and his VP choice both want to reduce funding for Medicare (which covers my dad, my two disabled nephews, and in a few short years is supposed to cover the spouse) and Medicaid (which covers me and one of my two sisters). If successful that would leave half my family without any medical coverage other than "if you're actively dying go to the emergency room". It should be obvious why I'm against this.

Economy: Romney was against the stimulus bill. Granted, there were some serious flaws with the 2008 stimulus but I'm of the opinion it was better than doing nothing in the spirit of Herbert Hoover, which was the alternative. Romney wants more tax cuts - because, I guess, if something isn't working do more of it - rathar than letting the Bush era tax cuts expire on the top earners to generate more revenue to keep the government running. He wants to impose a balanced budget on the Federal government via a constitutional amendment which means the government won't be able to borrow in the event of an emergency. He wants to balance the budget by slashing every social safety net problem left, in addition to inspection and regulation duties. That means the government will no longer be involved in food safety, or environmental regulation. Oh, joy, let's go back to the days of burning rivers. Do I have to explain why I'm against the above?

Romney also is on record that he's rather the US default on its debts than increase revenue. Oh, yeah, that's good for everyone, right? [/sarcasm] I agree that the US debt is a problem and needs to be reduced, but simply refusing to pay the bills to our creditors is unacceptable from my viewpoint. Apparently Romney thinks that's OK, though.

He thinks Wall Street should be even less regulated than it is now, and that it should be made more difficult for the Federal government to regulate the financial industry. Because I guess the Great Recession wasn't deep enough for him or something.

On November 18, 2008 Romney had an op-ed piece in the New York Times saying that the US should simply let the auto industry go bankrupt, basically, fuck 'em and all the jobs those industries support, during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, at time when even more unemployed people in the US would have only made the overall economy worse, not better.

He has threatened a trade war with China if elected.

Middle East/Military in General/War: Romney is in favor of increasing, not decreasing troops in Afghanistan. He still says the US going to war in Iraq was a good idea and the right thing to do. He is on record as saying he'll "take every measure necessary to check the evil regime of the ayatollah" in Iran, including "a military option that will persuade the ayatollahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions" which sure as fuck sounds to me like he wants to start another goddamned war because, I guess, the two we're currently enmeshed in just aren't enough. I can't support that, either. He has threatened to blockade, “bombard”, engage in surgical military strikes, overt means, and covert means to bring down the current regime in Iran. He's been saying that shit since 2007, at least. Stuff like that is why I think if he's elected he's going to get us into yet another war.

Romney wants to increase the size of the US military by at least 100,000. He is opposed to a bilateral nuclear arms reduction between the US and the Russian Federation – sorry, I'm just not in favor of more nukes for anyone, including the US.

Romney doesn't think the President needs to get Congressional approval prior to starting a war – so much for the war powers clause of the US constitution.

More Foreign Relations: Romney has said that Russia is the US's number one “geopolitical” enemy. Really? Newsflash, Mitt, the USSR dissolved back in the 20th Century. I'm pretty sure Russia and the US are not the best of friends but actually we get along reasonably well these days. He wants to “support” Central Asian nations bordering Russia. Mitt, the Cold War is over.

Education: Romney think No Child Left Behind is a great thing and going well, he's also in favor of using government tax money for vouchers to pay tuition at private religious schools, which I disagree with. He also thinks sex education should consist of telling kids to keep their legs crossed until they get married. I think that's stupid so I can't support that, either.

Social and Job stuff: He's against mandating employers provide birth control coverage as part of healthcare coverage, which I disagree with. He thinks we should overturn Roe v. Wade, which at best would further restrict access to abortion and would likely result in a de facto abortion ban for large portions of the country. I don't agree with that, either. He's against same sex marriage, which I am for, and wants to amend the Federal constitution to outlaw it which is basically imposing his religion on everyone else.

He wants to dissolve the National Labor Relations Board, among other things which would basically spell the end of not only unions but worker protections in the US. Yay, let's go back to the 1890's when workers were held in perpetual debt to the company store and otherwise exploited.

Romney wants to abolish unemployment insurance. I think that's a poor idea.

Romeny stated during the Wisconsion governer recall election that “Obama wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people” Uh, excuse me? Hiring more firemen, police, and teachers is bad? WTF? I want MORE of those people!

Agriculture: He wants to eliminate the US Department of Agriculture. I don't think that's a good idea as the USDA is responsible for most of the food safety in this country. We have enough problems with the food supply, contamination, and food-borne disease, cutting this would only make it worse. He wants to eliminate farm subsidies, which I'll grant is a worthy debate, EXCEPT for ethanol food subsidies which I think are one of the worst things to subsidize.

Environment: Wants to reduce what he considers excessive environmental protections on the transport of gas and oil – because I guess we haven't had ENOUGH oil spills and similar disasters. Romney opposed a wind farm for electrical generation in Nantucket because, near as I can figure, it didn't look pretty enough. (I guess he prefers oil-slicked beaches). He's opposed to controlling carbon emissions even though he believes in global warming, which is just stupid. Except when he's saying he doesn't believe in global warming/climate change. Really, that changes week to week with him.

[Agent Sorchus]

Aly, you are using a deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning here. The assumption of your IDEAL party doesn't hold, namely that it only draws from the "Left." Using inductive reasoning we can show that the Green, which admit it is what you're actually talking about, can and does draw from both sides.

From another thread, but fuck it I ain't redoing the argument.

Democratic party strategist and Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) chair Al From expressed a different view. In the January 24, 2001, issue[73] of the DLC's Blueprint magazine,[74] he wrote, "I think they're wrong on all counts. The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."

So bullshit has been called. What people are ignoring is how the US Supreme Court threw the election in Bush's favor. Hell there were more Overvotes in Florida then there were votes for Nader. (Overvotes is when a ballot is marked twice in a location that is mark only one.) And nearly as many that had been thrown out by the mechanical counting machines.

And as a percent of the populace Kerry lost ground compared to Gore, which I would doubt if all the Nader supporters went Democrat in proportion to the populace. Instead I suspect they were poisoned by the 2000 election and dropped out of the active voting pool in larger numbers than those that jumped ship to the democrats, or they jumped to the Republicans.

Why Republicans? Because there are a fair number of areas that the common conservative voter actually trusts the greens more than the democrats, ie gun control. Even just the most basic element of the Green party platform has a large amount of appeal to the basic social conservative that enjoys the outdoors and believes that the 1890's were a better time due in no small part too the closer to nature living of the people then.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, I'll say to you now what I said to you then.

It does not make sense to blame the Greens for the outcome of 2000. Certainly not in any ethical sense. But from the Democrats' perspective...

Any reasonable Democrat would go "Gee, I wish we'd somehow convinced 60% of the Greens to vote for us, and the other 40% to do whatever, if only we could do that without alienating a greater number of other voters." Because just from a point of simple two-plus-two math, that would have been a good thing for them.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from here. Granted, third party vote distributions are not simple. But neither major party really likes the idea of a chunk of their voter base flaking away to a third party; it's just that they don't fear this as a serious possibility as long as the current polarized situation holds.

[weemadando]

I just heard some coverage on ABC Newsradio of the NASCAR derp pumping up the crowd for the Rich White Guy ticket.

Mang, that was some dog-whistling going on.

I mean, yes, start out and go: "We're conservatives! ... We're Republicans!" but then moving on to "We're Americans! ... We're Christians!".

And guess which line got the biggest cheer?

[Agent Sorchus]

Simon you have never responded to this argument. So yeah, a lie, and a bald faced one at that.

Also for all your hand waving about it the truth remains that in the strongest green showing (ever?, at least recently) in fact if and only if those that voted didn't have the green option the majority of them would've gone for Bush. The Democratic Leadership even recognized this in 2002 so your BS reasonable Democrat that is more hand-waving is wrong. AND if the Democrats wanted to gain more of the vote, that simply educating the voters to vote smarter (AKA actually only filling in one in a fill only one section, not any partisan politics) and stopping voter suppression tactics would actually do them more good.

Hell a strong green party actually strengthened Al Gore's showing by draining the REPUBLICANS in greater numbers than the Democrats.

BUT no, according to your COMMON SENSE and NOT ACTUAL FACT a strong green party is a bad thing. BS Simon, and learn to read since it is obvious that you didn't read any of what I posted. Nothing you said defeats the facts from the exit polls. So do concede or actually bring mother fucking evidence next time.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon you have never responded to this argument. So yeah, a lie, and a bald faced one at that.

Ah. I see what went wrong: my memory.

Last time I had this conversation, it was with Formless and Destructionator. Who adopted a tone and position which strongly remind me of yours, but you weren't there and I admit it.

We discussed the same thing- the effect of Nader on the 2000 election, or lack thereof. Formless talked about it in much the same tone you are using now. Destructionator, with many of the same arguments, so far as I can reconstruct what he was saying. Thanas was there saying pretty much the same thing he's saying now, too.

Stupidly, I have mixed that up and thought you were there too. I'm sorry.

So yeah. "Bald faced lie." Obviously.

Also for all your hand waving about it the truth remains that in the strongest green showing (ever?, at least recently) in fact if and only if those that voted didn't have the green option the majority of them would've gone for Bush. The Democratic Leadership even recognized this in 2002 so your BS reasonable Democrat that is more hand-waving is wrong...

I am dubious of that result. For one, a small number of Green votes implies large margin of error in exit polls. For another, I doubt the poll's applicability in the future. Many people in the Greens' strongest demographics thought there would be no difference between Bush and Gore. I doubt many of them think the same thing today, although that may be giving them too much credit.

BUT no, according to your COMMON SENSE and NOT ACTUAL FACT a strong green party is a bad thing. BS Simon, and learn to read since it is obvious that you didn't read any of what I posted. Nothing you said defeats the facts from the exit polls. So do concede or actually bring mother fucking evidence next time.

OK, chemical imbalances aside.

"According to me, a strong green party is a bad thing." Seriously, where did I say that?

My entire argument is that the existence of a third party has the potential to act as a cautionary influence on the major parties. If 3% or so of Republicans calved off to form an independent Tea Party or Christian Whatzit Party, you can bet that the Republicans would be trying to bring them back into the fold.

So far, the strategy of getting Democrats to mirror-image this has not worked well. It may work in the future. Personally, I think that if it is to work, the key is to push in the solid states, the ones that are not in contest in major national elections. There are two reasons for this.

1) If you like a left-wing third party and want it to not fail- you have your best chance of winning local elections and putting Greens in office there. If a Green runs against a Republican and a centrist Democrat in certain places (mostly particular districts in coastal states), the Green might win. That creates real politicians tied to the Green platform, not just agitators. Which is a great thing for the long term health of the party.

2) If you want to send messages to a major party and are afraid of shooting yourself in the foot, the best place to send the message from is from states that are 'out of play' in the national elections.

Pursuing a strategy of building strength in states that are already solidly partisan is better for third parties than pursuing that strategy in swing states. I am well content to see it happen, because I think it might help knock the American center-left out of its stupor.


I get how you're trying really hard to make me out as an evil liar, but you're missing my point so widely I'm having a hard time taking you seriously.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Aly, you are using a deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning here. The assumption of your IDEAL party doesn't hold, namely that it only draws from the "Left." Using inductive reasoning we can show that the Green, which admit it is what you're actually talking about, can and does draw from both sides.

From another thread, but fuck it I ain't redoing the argument.

There is so much wrong with your argument that I do not know where to actually start. I suppose from the beginning...

No. I am actually using induction. Taking observation and logic and building a probabilistic argument from them. Deduction is when I state things with certainty. This is not the case. I was making probabilistic statements regarding the outcome of voter choice.

Then there is your prattle about the right wing. They are actually irrelevant to the point. This is basic game theory. Under no condition is it a good idea politically to "cooperate" and vote green party in a swing state, because even if you assume that there are republicans voting constitution party or whatever, every liberal voter not mobilized for the democratic party increases the probability that the republican will win the election--independent of what right wing voters are doing. It is the same thing as staying home.

Now, this is frequency dependent--in states with far more liberals than conservatives, it can pay to send a message regarding your displeasure by way of voting third party, because there is no risk of the republican winning even if you siphon off 3% of the vote or whatever to the greens.

I am also not talking about the 2000 election, but taking a game-theoretical approach to the choices of individual voters. The 2000 election is irrelevant. However, now that you have decided to make it an issue, and did so in such a poor way (your data is useless), I will shame you in public.

Democratic party strategist and Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) chair Al From expressed a different view. In the January 24, 2001, issue[73] of the DLC's Blueprint magazine,[74] he wrote, "I think they're wrong on all counts. The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."

Please link the source so I can check poll methods. That said, I will go with my impressions, subject to change pending more complete description.

There are several problems with this. They are multi-faceted and interconnect to mean that your source is full of shit.

1) National exit polls mean jack-fucking-shit in an election determined by a state-by-state all-or-nothing electoral college.

2) Assumtion: the exit polls were compared to the actual election results
The spread in the actual election was 47.9 to 48.4 in favor of Gore. A .5 percent spread, compared to a 1% spread in the two-way exit poll. That difference (a total of 1.5%) is not within the standard error of the mean for most polls, which is +/- 3%. Meaning, said poll is meaningless. This might be a different story if they have a sample size an order of magnitude larger. Standard error does not drop linearly with sample size.

3) Assumption: The exit poll was compared to another exit poll that included only Nader as a third party.
This is problematic because people who hate both parties might choose Nader, when they might otherwise choose the constitution party, libertarians etc in the actual election. In either case, the net effect does not matter nationally. Only in swing states. As a result, the distribution state by state would need to be examined.

Now, as for the conclusions you seem to draw...

And as a percent of the populace Kerry lost ground compared to Gore, which I would doubt if all the Nader supporters went Democrat in proportion to the populace. Instead I suspect they were poisoned by the 2000 election and dropped out of the active voting pool in larger numbers than those that jumped ship to the democrats, or they jumped to the Republicans.

No. Just...no. The idea that green party supporters would go republican in that election is ridiculous on its face. No. Bad! *hits you with rolled-up newspaper* Bad!

There are other more parsimoneous things to consider. Now, I care about the decisions of individual progressive voters ( I am assuming progressive ideology on the part of the people I discuss). I care about whether or not a liberal should or should protest vote, depending on the state they live in.

You are looking at electoral trends and trying to assign causality to those trends, and then interpreting your data without considering a very important factor--one which I need not consider, because it is irrelevant to my argument--"independent voters". The "mindless middle" who do not have a solid ideology and thus vote with their emotions and how much they personally like the candidate.

Kerry had all the personality of a mushroom. He was incompetent to run for political office at the national level, because he sat back and permitted his conduct during Vietnam to being assassinated--without countering with Bush's virtual draft-dodging. He ran on a campaign of "I am not Bush", against an incumbent who at the time had a ~50% approval rating. Not a good strategy. He did not make himself seem approachable to the individuals who comprised the mindless middle.

Now, on to your ridiculous notion about conservatives voting green to an extent such that it cancels out progressives voting green. Well... what more needs to be said? The notion is ridiculous on its face. "Yes, I am a conservative. Let me vote for the nation's far-left party". No. Just... no. That does not make any sense.