The StarDestroyer BBS 2012 US Presidential Election Poll

[General Mung Beans]

BTW, election-related question: is there going to be an omnibus thread for the general election much like for the GOP nomination?

[Broomstick]

Rather than quoting Formless, I'll just state it here:

In a national election the only time I'll vote 3rd party for PotUS is if it's a foregone conclusion my state will go to a particular candidate. If that is the case, then voting 3rd party won't harm my own agenda (getting the candidate most in line with my ideals/desires into office) but will allow me to help 3rd parties more in line with my own views than either major party. As Indiana is historically a solidly Red state, I've voted 3rd party for PotUS on occasion in the past while living here, although not every election.

If, however, it is not a foregone conclusion then I will either vote for one of the two candidates, or against the one I really, really don't want to get into office, as seems best on the occasion.

I do frequently vote third party in local elections where they have some chance of winning.

In the last election my state went Blue for the first time in nearly 50 years. It is quite likely it will go back to Red this time, so for PotUS my only meaningful choices are either Obama or Romney.

[Channel72]

That's the simplest way of putting it. A more accurate way would be to replace the word "fact" with "process by which they can't get office". In addition, I also think it is important to have a voting strategy that extends beyond any one election and office, so that you can hopefully start the kind of turnover that happened to the Whigs. Sure, at that point it stops being a third party, but at least there would be turnover. We don't really have that much as things are. Plus, you might get a party that has a philosophy or set of goals more concrete than some vague association with right wing or left wing politics (whatever those things are), which can change over time. Speaking of which, even if all you do is start making the other major parties move towards the kind of politics you are after, that can help too.

Okay, fair enough. You've explained your strategy, but you still haven't addressed how your strategy addresses the arguments against Third Party candidates raised in this thread.

And this is why I said that I would not respond to you anymore.

1. No "Broken Record" Tactics. Do not employ the "broken record" debating style of continuously repeating yourself until other people give up.
2. Back Up Your Claims. If you make a contentious statement of fact and someone asks for evidence, you must either provide it or withdraw the claim. Do not call it "self evident", restate it in different words, force the other person to prove your claim is not true, or use other weasel techniques to avoid backing up your claims.

Are you a mod? No? Then......... die.

If the actual mods have a problem with my debating, I'm sure they'll let me know. In the meantime, fuck off.

Speaking of ignoring arguments and broken record tactics, it's hilarious how you snipped just about every important argument from my previous post, including the specific arguments concerning exactly why voting Third Party is an unproductive and often counter-productive strategy (which you still haven't addressed, other than repeating your initial position ad nauseam), the alternate (and much more productive) strategies proposed for getting policies espoused by Third Parties enacted into law, as well as all the arguments detailing why voting Third Party in this particular election is a bad idea, because of the extreme negative consequences of a Romney administration (which again, you've ignored except to repeat yourself and claim anyone who fears the consequences of another Republican administration is being "immature".)

[Formless]

Frankly the problem with third party candidates is they aren't really making an effort to get elected, they just want to get their message out. Maybe if they made an actual effort to get elected people would be more inclined to vote for them.

And that I can understand. Unfortunately, that's one point where I think the issue is money, and the fact that our system ignores its influence. For instance, the Green Party does not accept corporate money on principle, hence why most people probably haven't heard of Jill Stein. Would they have better publicity if they did? Maybe... of course, whehter or not doing so would be ethical or would consistent with Green politics... well, you see the problem. For what its worth, among the reforms to the electoral system I would like to see is some way of making money no longer such a barrier to entry. It strikes me as corrupt.

As Mayor Koch said it best, “If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, you should vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, you should see a psychiatrist.” Do you agree with Ms. Stein on 12 out of 12 issues?

That depends on the issues at stake. You can't simply put a number on it, because some issues are more important than others. For instance, I may be a green, but I admit that in the short term foreign policy is higher priority than saving the whales.

And we can go ahead and close this if you like since you invoked Godwin's and one doozy of a slippery slope. Obama is not Hitler and Romney is not the Devil. I think Romney winning is not terrifying because his policies are demonic or evil. I think he's terrifying because his victory is possible and the consequences of that are horrendous, but hardly hellish.

I made no such comparison. Godwin's Law is not intended to force people to never mention the name of Hitler in a debate. I mean, I also used the devil in the same argument, but there is no such law saying you can't bring up Belzebub. And the reason is that its irrelevant. My point was to establish just how arbitrary the Lesser of Two Evils is as a standard to judge a candidate by. Over time, the lesser evil can easily become more and more evil. Precicely because of the Overton Window. So yes, I obviously am interested in shifting that window. I don't know why it was assumed I wasn't, given that I want to extend voting choices beyond the most immediate election. But then, I don't know why it was assumed I only care about my own voting habits either.

[eion]

As Mayor Koch said it best, “If you agree with me on 9 out of 12 issues, you should vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12 issues, you should see a psychiatrist.” Do you agree with Ms. Stein on 12 out of 12 issues?

That depends on the issues at stake. You can't simply put a number on it, because some issues are more important than others. For instance, I may be a green, but I admit that in the short term foreign policy is higher priority than saving the whales.

That wasn't the question though. I wasn't asking about her priorities, but about her positions. Can you name for me one Stein policy you absolutely disagree with? One where you think she is flat out wrong. I can name at least 5 for Obama, but then he isn't my Mr. Right, he's my Mr. Right Now. I can’t think of any Romney positions (assuming my grasp of his positions this week is accurate) that I agree with.

My point was to establish just how arbitrary the Lesser of Two Evils is as a standard to judge a candidate by. Over time, the lesser evil can easily become more and more evil. Precicely because of the Overton Window. So yes, I obviously am interested in shifting that window. I don't know why it was assumed I wasn't, given that I want to extend voting choices beyond the most immediate election. But then, I don't know why it was assumed I only care about my own voting habits either.

Yes, I agree with you. That's how we went from abortion being available for victims of rape and incest being a settled matter to new laws being passed specifically against rape and incest victims seeking abortions. Slippery Slopes happen, the Overton window moves, and Romney would be sliding further down the hill we've been clawing our way back up for 4 years, so I guess yes, I'd vote for Hitler over Mephisto if Mephisto's policies were the destruction of the entire planet out of spite and the eternal torturing of humanity in Hell, whereas Hitler just wanted to rule the world and kill anyone who stood in his way, etc.

I never claimed to be following some high-minded voter's morality. I'm just making the only sensable choice in THIS election to prevent Romney from winning. I agree with 70% of Obama's policies, and like my chances of him and his successors moving closer to me on the other 30% than I do Romney and his lot.

[Thanas]

I don't get people who claim to do the idealistic thing in preventing Romney by voting for somebody who openly advocates for and has presided over the most drastic reduction in civil liberties we have seen in this time.

I bet the same people claim they don't support rendition, torture etc. neither. While voting for the guy who supports it and accusing republicans who vote for Romney of supporting the radical GOP policies.

[General Zod]

Frankly the problem with third party candidates is they aren't really making an effort to get elected, they just want to get their message out. Maybe if they made an actual effort to get elected people would be more inclined to vote for them.

And that I can understand. Unfortunately, that's one point where I think the issue is money, and the fact that our system ignores its influence. For instance, the Green Party does not accept corporate money on principle, hence why most people probably haven't heard of Jill Stein. Would they have better publicity if they did? Maybe... of course, whehter or not doing so would be ethical or would consistent with Green politics... well, you see the problem. For what its worth, among the reforms to the electoral system I would like to see is some way of making money no longer such a barrier to entry. It strikes me as corrupt.

Nobody heard of Obama either, and he still managed to pull out ahead in 2008. Given how much gain Ron Paul had in the preliminaries I think it's safe to say that if a third party put forward a candidate without a ton of baggage and made a genuine effort to get elected they'd be able to give the establishment a run for their money. Spending caps and limits on televised advertising would definitely help level the playing field, but that's never going to happen.

[Broomstick]

I don't get people who claim to do the idealistic thing in preventing Romney by voting for somebody who openly advocates for and has presided over the most drastic reduction in civil liberties we have seen in this time.

I bet the same people claim they don't support rendition, torture etc. neither. While voting for the guy who supports it and accusing republicans who vote for Romney of supporting the radical GOP policies.

In some cases it's not idealism but pragmatism

Do you think Romney is going to preserve/restore civil liberties?

Do you think rendition/torture/all that shit is going to increase or decrease under Romney?

Which do you prefer, the guy who hasn't started a new war in 4 years and is bringing US troops home, or the guy who has recently spent time blithering in a manner that suggests he is in favor of more war?

Which do you think is better for the average US citizen, the guy who is trying to expand healthcare coverage or the guy who wants to abolish whatever medical safety net is left in the US?

Which do you think is better for his nation, the guy who says that if the nation can't pay it's bills with its current revenue stream other sources of income (like tax increase) should be considered, or the guy whose solution to insolvency is to cut more taxes for the rich?

The whole concept of voting for the lesser of two evils implies that the guy you vote for is, in fact "evil" or bad. You're not voting for him because you like him, you're voting for him because the other guy is worse.

[General Mung Beans]

Frankly the problem with third party candidates is they aren't really making an effort to get elected, they just want to get their message out. Maybe if they made an actual effort to get elected people would be more inclined to vote for them.

And that I can understand. Unfortunately, that's one point where I think the issue is money, and the fact that our system ignores its influence. For instance, the Green Party does not accept corporate money on principle, hence why most people probably haven't heard of Jill Stein. Would they have better publicity if they did? Maybe... of course, whehter or not doing so would be ethical or would consistent with Green politics... well, you see the problem. For what its worth, among the reforms to the electoral system I would like to see is some way of making money no longer such a barrier to entry. It strikes me as corrupt.

Nobody heard of Obama either, and he still managed to pull out ahead in 2008. Given how much gain Ron Paul had in the preliminaries I think it's safe to say that if a third party put forward a candidate without a ton of baggage and made a genuine effort to get elected they'd be able to give the establishment a run for their money. Spending caps and limits on televised advertising would definitely help level the playing field, but that's never going to happen.

Nobody heard of Obama when? He was pretty notable ever since his keynote address to the DNC in 2004. Anyways considering this it probably helps if you happen to be a billionaire like Ross Perot.

[Simon_Jester]

Mitt Romney.

According to some people it doesn't matter which of the two big parties get elected, so let's put this to a test, I say.

Lonestar, I'm glad someone said it even though I don't agree with the politics.

The thing with Romney is he's a habitual liar and he's incapable of answering questions he doesn't have a canned answer prepped for. I have a hard time imagining why anyone would actually want to trust him to run a country.

Frankly the problem with third party candidates is they aren't really making an effort to get elected, they just want to get their message out. Maybe if they made an actual effort to get elected people would be more inclined to vote for them.

I think I agree. It makes so much more sense to try and take over one of the major parties (what the Limbaugh/Beck crowd did with Tea-ism) from 'within' than to try to replace it from 'without.'

And if you say "but I can't do that!" then maybe you should ask yourself why. There are reasons the US doesn't have a Green president and never has. SDN posters may or may not find those reasons palatable, but logic is good and facing facts is good. Anyone who doesn't know the brute facts of American politics, or chooses to reject and ignore them, really shouldn't be opining on American politics.

Slightly off topic, but is your country had a preferential voting system, you could satisfy both Formless and Eion's motivation. You can vote for the third party alternative, and if that doesn't pan out, your vote still goes to the so called "lesser evil".

Oh yeah. There are a hundred ways we could improve our system. The problem is that bringing them up just gets "shut up, I'm trying to think" from real policy-makers.

No one with any power in the current system wants to change the way it works, and there's no groundswell for political reform the way there is for economic relief or foreign policy changes.

I don't get people who claim to do the idealistic thing in preventing Romney by voting for somebody who openly advocates for and has presided over the most drastic reduction in civil liberties we have seen in this time.

I bet the same people claim they don't support rendition, torture etc. neither. While voting for the guy who supports it and accusing republicans who vote for Romney of supporting the radical GOP policies.

Thanas, the Republican position on Obama's civil rights legacy is "I'd do everything he does, only harder." They don't criticize him for civil liberties violations, or at least not violations you'd care about. They criticize him for not being harsh enough.

Replacing Obama with Romney gets you the same civil rights record, or a worse one, and worse domestic policy that will have all sorts of painful consequences for the US. And possibly other countries as well, but isn't "in the US" enough to explain why Americans would want to keep him out of power?

Nobody heard of Obama either, and he still managed to pull out ahead in 2008. Given how much gain Ron Paul had in the preliminaries I think it's safe to say that if a third party put forward a candidate without a ton of baggage and made a genuine effort to get elected they'd be able to give the establishment a run for their money. Spending caps and limits on televised advertising would definitely help level the playing field, but that's never going to happen.

I think a third party would probably cap out at about 10% of the popular vote and few or no electoral votes in this climate. There are really not that many people on the left who really dislike the Democrats for not being leftist enough. They're grotesquely overrepresented here on this forum, but there aren't enough to change much politically.

A "serious" third party candidate would probably do exactly what Ron Paul did: run for the nomination of one of the two major parties. By doing that, Ron Paul got a lot more air time for libertarianism than he would have as the uncontested presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party.

The resources that would have made him a vaguely familiar name and face to 10-20% of America as a third party candidate instead made him famous and well-known, with the sympathy of many Republicans, even the ones who decided not to vote for him. Had he been relatively saner and more aligned with the great bulk of the party primary voters, Paul might have had a decent shot at winning even.

Unfortunately, with an incumbent Democrat in the White House, Jill Stein didn't have that option in this election cycle.

[weemadando]

I don't get people who claim to do the idealistic thing in preventing Romney by voting for somebody who openly advocates for and has presided over the most drastic reduction in civil liberties we have seen in this time.

I bet the same people claim they don't support rendition, torture etc. neither. While voting for the guy who supports it and accusing republicans who vote for Romney of supporting the radical GOP policies.

In some cases it's not idealism but pragmatism

Do you think Romney is going to preserve/restore civil liberties?

Do you think rendition/torture/all that shit is going to increase or decrease under Romney?

Which do you prefer, the guy who hasn't started a new war in 4 years and is bringing US troops home, or the guy who has recently spent time blithering in a manner that suggests he is in favor of more war?

Which do you think is better for the average US citizen, the guy who is trying to expand healthcare coverage or the guy who wants to abolish whatever medical safety net is left in the US?

Which do you think is better for his nation, the guy who says that if the nation can't pay it's bills with its current revenue stream other sources of income (like tax increase) should be considered, or the guy whose solution to insolvency is to cut more taxes for the rich?

The whole concept of voting for the lesser of two evils implies that the guy you vote for is, in fact "evil" or bad. You're not voting for him because you like him, you're voting for him because the other guy is worse.

Or maybe the Democrats need to be reminded that people don't want a Clayton's GOP?

[Lonestar]

Lonestar, I'm glad someone said it even though I don't agree with the politics.

Even better are the brave individuals stating that they're gonna vote third Party because they're pissed at Obama...while being in Bastion States(either GOP or Dems).


Hey, whatever. I'm in a swing state. Let's ride this mother to the ground.

[CaptHawkeye]

I don't get people who claim to do the idealistic thing in preventing Romney by voting for somebody who openly advocates for and has presided over the most drastic reduction in civil liberties we have seen in this time.

I bet the same people claim they don't support rendition, torture etc. neither. While voting for the guy who supports it and accusing republicans who vote for Romney of supporting the radical GOP policies.

If I have to chose a tyrant, I chose the one who supports gay marriage, broadened the coverage of hate crime laws, ended the Iraq war, and plans to end the war in Afghanistan. Shit options to be had sure, but Mitt Romney wants to turn back the clock on social progress AND destroy America's civil liberties.

Honestly Thanas it's telling how many people in this country on either side of the spectrum think Obama is left wing. Makes you wonder what the Republican's idea of the "right wing" spectrum is. Still, people associate the progression of liberalism and left wing politics with him, and if his winning continues to push Americans toward that side then so be it.

[Channel72]

I don't get people who claim to do the idealistic thing in preventing Romney by voting for somebody who openly advocates for and has presided over the most drastic reduction in civil liberties we have seen in this time.

Nobody is claiming this is idealistic. It's the opposite of idealistic; it's just pragmatic. Honestly, I don't see what's so hard about this. There's all sorts of compelling reasons to believe that a Romney administration will be considerably worse than another 4 years of Obama (Romney is literally the poster-child for corporate greed) - and Obama is the only guy with a chance of beating Romney. That's all there is to it.

P.S., voting for Romney as a "protest" vote isn't going to teach the Democrats anything except perhaps that they need to be more centrist conservative.

[CaptHawkeye]

Realize though that Thanas's problem is that American voters are forced into a position where they must be pragmatic in the first place. Ideally we should be able to vote for candidates who are just all around good people. The fact that we can't indicates an inherent failure of our political system. I think the "Vote for Obama because Romney is worse" red herring is a shitty excuse to vote for Obama too, but like I said, I chose the socially progressive tyrant.

Unless he were to get into office, make a complete about-face and send the Republicans a mass-text during his first State of the Union address that says "LOL PUNK'D" and reveals he's actually as left-wing as Jill Stein is. Sadly I don't think I live in a country that awesome.

[Simon_Jester]

Lonestar, I'm glad someone said it even though I don't agree with the politics.

Even better are the brave individuals stating that they're gonna vote third Party because they're pissed at Obama...while being in Bastion States(either GOP or Dems).

Hey, whatever. I'm in a swing state. Let's ride this mother to the ground.

I think the guys in bastion states have a point. If I were a Democrat or Republican planner, I know I'd be looking at the single-digit share of the electorate that goes to third parties on my side of the spectrum. If 2.5% of the electorate (far-lefties in bastion states) vote Green, it's a signal to the Democratic party that they've shifted far enough to the right to lose about 5% of their hardline voter base.

That changes the calculation "should we move farther right to win more people in the middle?" Because now they know they can lose ground by moving right, instead of it being a one-way ratchet of "move right, get more power!"

[Block]

Makes you wonder what the Republican's idea of the "right wing" spectrum is. Still, people associate the progression of liberalism and left wing politics with him, and if his winning continues to push Americans toward that side then so be it.

Limbaugh and his ilk are the right wing ideal.

[LadyTevar]

This Jill Stein isn't even listed on the WV ballot.
Source: WV Candidate Search

[The Yosemite Bear]

what a suprise we the modestly informed are now qualifying as evul lieburalz, enemies of america as per Fox, well nothing new...

find it funny that the Green party person got more votes than Mitt the twit here....

[Simon_Jester]

Bear, it may not always have been so, but the place tilts really freaking far to the left now.

[Lonestar]

I think the guys in bastion states have a point. If I were a Democrat or Republican planner, I know I'd be looking at the single-digit share of the electorate that goes to third parties on my side of the spectrum. If 2.5% of the electorate (far-lefties in bastion states) vote Green, it's a signal to the Democratic party that they've shifted far enough to the right to lose about 5% of their hardline voter base.

Or the national leadership may not give a crap because they've already written off the bastion states, either because they'll always vote one way or the other.

It's the swing states they have to worry about, which means they have to be right of center at least.

[Simon_Jester]

After what happened in Florida in 2000, party leaders would have to be on crack to not worry about it.

There's no magic force field stopping swing state voters from pulling a Formless and giving up on the major parties in a huff. If the guys in the bastion states were voting for fringe parties, it's a pretty good sign that other voters across the country are too- or are just giving up on the election in disgust because "it doesn't make any difference."

Either way, it at least puts another variable into the equation. Sort of like how the Republicans have a "no enemies to the right" policy about basically everything this side of the KKK, because they know damn well they can't afford to alienate the hardcore evangelicals or libertarians if they want to win swing states.

[Vaporous]

I don't get people who claim to do the idealistic thing in preventing Romney by voting for somebody who openly advocates for and has presided over the most drastic reduction in civil liberties we have seen in this time.

I bet the same people claim they don't support rendition, torture etc. neither. While voting for the guy who supports it and accusing republicans who vote for Romney of supporting the radical GOP policies.

In some cases it's not idealism but pragmatism

Do you think Romney is going to preserve/restore civil liberties?

Do you think rendition/torture/all that shit is going to increase or decrease under Romney?

Which do you prefer, the guy who hasn't started a new war in 4 years and is bringing US troops home, or the guy who has recently spent time blithering in a manner that suggests he is in favor of more war?

Which do you think is better for the average US citizen, the guy who is trying to expand healthcare coverage or the guy who wants to abolish whatever medical safety net is left in the US?

Which do you think is better for his nation, the guy who says that if the nation can't pay it's bills with its current revenue stream other sources of income (like tax increase) should be considered, or the guy whose solution to insolvency is to cut more taxes for the rich?

The whole concept of voting for the lesser of two evils implies that the guy you vote for is, in fact "evil" or bad. You're not voting for him because you like him, you're voting for him because the other guy is worse.

How is Obama actually different from Romney on any of these issues? You can't paint Mitt Romney as some kind of right wing radical when he's the most bland and boring candidate imaginable. He's a Republican John Kerry who's practically identical to Obama in every way. Why the fuck do I care whether or not Romney is in favor of tax increases? Obama has been extending Bush's tax policies for the last four years.

I would agree with the "you can't be idealistic, you have to accept that in the current American political system/climate voting for Obama is the only real option" line of thinking if the Democratic candidate was only mediocre/a centrist and if the Republican candidate was awful because that's usually the case. I normally think that way, and never expected Obama to govern from the left. But that isn't the case now. I don't see how a Romney presidency will be appreciably different from an Obama second term, except that everyone will switch sides on every political issue again, with the Republicans deciding that everything that was a terrible extension of federal/executive power under the Democrats is now either great or regrettable but necessary. You know, like how most liberals decided torture and rendition were kinda bad but couldn't be helped because it was their guy doing it and you can't root against your team.

[Lonestar]

After what happened in Florida in 2000, party leaders would have to be on crack to not worry about it.

Florida isn't a Bastion state, at least not when it comes to Presidential elections.

There's no magic force field stopping swing state voters from pulling a Formless and giving up on the major parties in a huff. If the guys in the bastion states were voting for fringe parties, it's a pretty good sign that other voters across the country are too- or are just giving up on the election in disgust because "it doesn't make any difference."

Except, again, in order to win swing states Dems have to be more conservative, not less.

Sorry, the American Electorate is very conservative. That's the way it is. 4 of the 5 biggest parties are conservative-ish, and generally treat words like "progress" like they are dirty.

No matter what, the message the Dems have recieved over and over again is that in order to get independents, they have to take generally conservative stances. Yeah, in some ways they are more progressive, but topics like "gay marriage" aren't the kiss of death like they were even ten years ago. As long as they can be conservative on other topics they'll be "okay".

Hell, the 2010 election was a reinforced that message big time.

Either way, it at least puts another variable into the equation. Sort of like how the Republicans have a "no enemies to the right" policy about basically everything this side of the KKK, because they know damn well they can't afford to alienate the hardcore evangelicals or libertarians if they want to win swing states.

The Dems can, and will, continue to act conservative with a little bit of their policies being left of center because they damn well know that the voters that identify as far-left are few and far between. Especially in swing states.

[General Zod]

How is Obama actually different from Romney on any of these issues? You can't paint Mitt Romney as some kind of right wing radical when he's the most bland and boring candidate imaginable. He's a Republican John Kerry who's practically identical to Obama in every way. Why the fuck do I care whether or not Romney is in favor of tax increases? Obama has been extending Bush's tax policies for the last four years.

Romney's practically chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran. I can't imagine that he'd even consider attempting a diplomatic approach before sending in the troops.