About the "If you don't vote for Hillary you are voting for Trump!" nonsense.

[May90]

There's no inconsistency. I am dealing with probability, nothing more. Historically, sometimes elections swing one way or the other based on a very small number of votes due to the electoral college or just randomness, which means it's important to vote for a main party candidate because the votes could end up mattering (though sometimes they don't). However, third party candidates have never even come close to succeeding, even when the third party candidate was someone who had already been president for two terms and was extremely popular and is remembered extremely well by history.

Well, I suppose I can accept the argument on probabilities - although I still don't think it is right to vote for a main party candidate just based on that. But I understand the reasoning.

Well, then quoting Theodarzna its up to the candidate to come up with a certain appeal. Gary Jhonson could easily come with a better appeal that both of the main candidates have (I'm not X, X being (the establishment TM, an imbecile)) . Its the fault of Third parties for not playing the political game, like Obama, Trump and Clinton did.

Sadly, third parties, as was mentioned earlier, luck funding to carry out a successful campaign. Sadly, it is unlikely to change on its own, and people need to demand that it changes, by maybe banning candidates from getting any kind of funding at all and only be allowed to use, say, a certain allocated amount.

[Kaleredar]

The point is, in 2000, Nadar's vote pull was negligible compared to how many Democrats voted for George W. Bush.

Yeah and hanging chads ultimately are what gave us a Bush presidency. You're forgetting that Gore actually won the popular vote among Americans.

[Matchles]

Ultimately it is on the Candidate to WIN voters, how many Democrats are going to ultimately write in Trump? Who the fuck knows, but maybe Hillary people should spend more time figuring out why Hillary deserves a vote and not screeching about spoilers and Trump.

You keep saying that. What could Clinton possibly do to "WIN" your vote? How about an actual answer on policy this time? I've had enough of the vague platitudes from the RNC over the last 4 days.

[spinner981]

Yeah and hanging chads ultimately are what gave us a Bush presidency. You're forgetting that Gore actually won the popular vote among Americans.

Thank goodness too. We almost had gore as a president o.o

[Kaleredar]

Thank goodness too. We almost had gore as a president o.o

Yeah where would America be without the invasion of Iraq.

Think of all of those poor defense contractors who wouldn't be raking in the billions they do now.

- - - Updated - - -

You keep saying that. What could Clinton possibly do to "WIN" your vote? How about an actual answer on policy this time? I've had enough of the vague platitudes from the RNC over the last 4 days.

Come now. They don't know what any of Hillary Clinton's campaign policies are. They never bothered to find out. All they know is that they were told she's icky.

[Gamdwelf]

You keep saying that. What could Clinton possibly do to "WIN" your vote? How about an actual answer on policy this time? I've had enough of the vague platitudes from the RNC over the last 4 days.

I'd vote for her if she killed herself.

[Pterodactylus]

In terms of things they are various forms of evil, if by being evil they are the same, sure. But both have different sorts of evil.

Hillary eats babies?

[Cthulhu 2020]

You keep saying that. What could Clinton possibly do to "WIN" your vote? How about an actual answer on policy this time? I've had enough of the vague platitudes from the RNC over the last 4 days.

As someone else put it, people seem obsessed with this "Clinton is a criminal" narrative, while of course ignoring burden of proof and innocent til proven guilty otherwise. The FBI director said there was enough evidence that they could indict, but said nothing about convict, and people take this is a "SHE MUST BE GUILTY CAUSE HE SAID SO" schtick. She's already adopted many of Bernie's most popular policies - policies which she has in the past both pushed for and voted for, and yet people keep saying "She'll never actually do these things" despite her record of you know, doing those things.

It seems that there is an underlying irrational hatred of her, because when people irrationally dislike something or the idea of something, they try to tag a rationalization onto it, often one that makes no sense or is just straight up wrong. Could it be that they dislike the idea of her as president because she's a woman? Possibly, it might be other reasons as well, all equally as irrational as that one.

I often think that it would be interesting to see the facebook feeds of many MMO-C voters, considering many bite their tongue because they know saying things like "A woman can't be president" might get them an infraction, meanwhile the echo chambers on facebook feeds often paint a different story of what people ACTUALLY think, because they see their facebook friends as an echo chamber for which they will receive no repercussion or criticism for voicing irrational opinions.

[Matchles]

As someone else put it, people seem obsessed with this "Clinton is a criminal" narrative, while of course ignoring burden of proof and innocent til proven guilty otherwise. The FBI director said there was enough evidence that they could indict, but said nothing about convict, and people take this is a "SHE MUST BE GUILTY CAUSE HE SAID SO" schtick. She's already adopted many of Bernie's most popular policies - policies which she has in the past both pushed for and voted for, and yet people keep saying "She'll never actually do these things" despite her record of you know, doing those things.

It seems that there is an underlying irrational hatred of her, because when people irrationally dislike something or the idea of something, they try to tag a rationalization onto it, often one that makes no sense or is just straight up wrong. Could it be that they dislike the idea of her as president because she's a woman? Possibly, it might be other reasons as well, all equally as irrational as that one.

I often think that it would be interesting to see the facebook feeds of many MMO-C voters, considering many bite their tongue because they know saying things like "A woman can't be president" might get them an infraction, meanwhile the echo chambers on facebook feeds often paint a different story of what people ACTUALLY think, because they see their facebook friends as an echo chamber for which they will receive no repercussion or criticism for voicing irrational opinions.

Totally agree. I just have to ask when someone is insisting that she just hasn't done enough to win them over.. I'm doubting that she would get their support even if she adopted 100% of Sanders' platform. If there is nothing she can do to win their vote, fine, it is their vote... to waste (trigger warning). I just get tired of those pretending to be reasonable without saying what they are holding out for. That way the rest of us can judge whether they are actually being reasonable or just concern trolling.

[Pterodactylus]

the echo chambers on facebook

Isn't that the truth. And the memes that lack any of the nuance and details be passed along as gospel.

The real world is filled with nuance, but most folks sputter out after a few sentences.

[Ilfayt]

I saw probably the most interesting take on this in a long time on a 'youtube' channel(akin to TYT, in style). The guy on their put in a way that is so stupidly simple, yet fitting. Paraphrasing the idea+my own words; It's not always 'your fault' for not voting for someone, and it's not your fault their opponent wins either. A lot of times it's that candidates fault for not trying to legitimately win your vote. I don't mean pandering to superficial things like race and gender(which is most of what Hillary does to try and win votes), but as in making clearcut promises and, better than that strides to actually do the things the public wants. Hillary is a lot like Trump in that regard, they're playing to emotion more than actual specifics. 9 out of 10 times you see her OR him on t.v., it's either them igniting their base or playing down their opponent. I mean, moreso than I can recall in the past decade between political candidates. In short, they're playing on emotions and things that only their core base care for.

In Hillary's case her 'emotional' card is she's the first woman president and she'll be historical and 'fix' all the problems women are facing in discrimination. Beyond a few 'rousing speeches' though, I really don't see her talking about ways to fix that as much as she grandstands about it. Obviously, this is the same with Trump(if not worse). Speeches and 'emotional' or 'aggressive' commercials/social media expressions are great for your base, but they don't really mean anything to anyone who is not already voting for you. I don't think a massive influx of Bernie Sanders voters will vote for Trump(no where near as much as we hear at least), but the remainder that either don't vote or vote 3rd party could be in the margin of error for an elector vote loss here and there for Hillary. She really should be trying to win their attention, even if it doesn't mean changing your 'core' values. Her and the Democratic party pretty much gave lip service to Bernie and then shut out his policies and suggestions for the party platform so far. Maybe at the DNC they will actually make attempts to fulfill some of those 'promises' in their platform or something, I don't know, but it's really not looking good.

And that brings me back to the whole point, the thing that guy said struck me. He was a Liberal who pretty much wasn't going to vote for Hillary,but was tired of hearing people say that to him when he said he wasn't voting for either. When people would say "It'll be your fault if she loses!". His response "It'll be her fault for not even trying to win my vote."

Does it sound self-righteous and conceited? Maybe...but at the same time, doesn't the opposite sound true? At least if the standard was the politician trying to appease the voter, it would mean a lot more humble politicians who are aware of the fact they actually have to do what people ask of them. Sounds naive, sure, but damn I wish it was the case. Instead we have the bases for both candidates being charged to the breaking point, leading to these type of comments period. Yes, I get the mirror of this, "If you don't vote you're voting for Hillary", from Family and friends all the time. Especially since I live in Indiana(you have no idea how confusing Mike Pence being the VP is for a lot of us).

[Sury]

But what if as a Bernie supporter you would rather have things shaken up for a few years than more of the same political garbage.

Unfortunately, for those Sanders' supporters, the head of the executive branch has never had the power to solely accomplish such a shake up considering the legislative branch and judicial branch serve as a check and balance.

The Supreme Court has 8/9 seats filled. Sanders' supporters should think long and hard about the future balance of that court. This election will decide who could potentially sit in that life long seat. Also, consider the ages of three of the other members (Stephen Beyer 77, Anthony Kennedy 79, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg 83). Now add 4-8 years to each of those ages.

The staunch Sanders' supporters better hope their liberal convictions are more than just rhetoric considering how much power that court maintains. If liberal values are really that important to you folks then understand one thing. The person sitting in the Oval Office over the next couple election cycles will have 1-4 opportunities to decide the balance of the most powerful court in the land. Those appointments might bring the real shake up you are looking for.

[May90]

As someone else put it, people seem obsessed with this "Clinton is a criminal" narrative, while of course ignoring burden of proof and innocent til proven guilty otherwise. The FBI director said there was enough evidence that they could indict, but said nothing about convict, and people take this is a "SHE MUST BE GUILTY CAUSE HE SAID SO" schtick. She's already adopted many of Bernie's most popular policies - policies which she has in the past both pushed for and voted for, and yet people keep saying "She'll never actually do these things" despite her record of you know, doing those things.

It seems that there is an underlying irrational hatred of her, because when people irrationally dislike something or the idea of something, they try to tag a rationalization onto it, often one that makes no sense or is just straight up wrong. Could it be that they dislike the idea of her as president because she's a woman? Possibly, it might be other reasons as well, all equally as irrational as that one.

I often think that it would be interesting to see the facebook feeds of many MMO-C voters, considering many bite their tongue because they know saying things like "A woman can't be president" might get them an infraction, meanwhile the echo chambers on facebook feeds often paint a different story of what people ACTUALLY think, because they see their facebook friends as an echo chamber for which they will receive no repercussion or criticism for voicing irrational opinions.

Honestly, I believe you are overthinking it. People just love to hate on someone or something. However trivial it sounds, people just like to think that someone famous and successful is a horrible person, so they can feel that they are better than them. Feeling that you are better than Hillary Clinton, one of the most influential women on this planet - isn't it awesome! And when coincidentally there is such a huge smear campaign going on against her, it is very convenient to jump on this hate train.

People hate on virtually anyone/anything popular: Bill Gates + Microsoft, Jobs + Apple, Clinton + Democrats, Trump + Republicans, the US + Americans, Israel + Jews, Middle East + Muslims... I wouldn't try to analyze it, it is a basic people's instinct to try to feel better at the expense of others, and popular people/things are the easiest target.

[Cthulhu 2020]

@Theodarzna

Realize this, that as much as you might like or dislike Hillary, this election is not really about who becomes president. With the congress/senate the way it is, very little in the way of drastic change will occur because of who is president.

This election is about Supreme Court seats. You want to vote third party over Hillary because you think Jill Stein, who will get less than a percent of votes, is better? Have at it. But if you enjoy living under a free society and not a Christian Theocracy, those supreme court seats will mean more to you than your stupid pride and convictions about who is written on your presidential ballot.

[Jeezy911]

Well i was wanting to see Bernie but since he sold out to the Clinton Foundation I think we should pump up the Jill Stein Train.

[Matchles]

Well i was wanting to see Bernie but since he sold out to the Clinton Foundation I think we should pump up the Jill Stein Train.

Sweet. I can't wait till my health insurance covers crystals and aura readings.

[Bollocks]

I saw probably the most interesting take on this in a long time on a 'youtube' channel(akin to TYT, in style). The guy on their put in a way that is so stupidly simple, yet fitting. Paraphrasing the idea+my own words; It's not always 'your fault' for not voting for someone, and it's not your fault their opponent wins either. A lot of times it's that candidates fault for not trying to legitimately win your vote. I don't mean pandering to superficial things like race and gender(which is most of what Hillary does to try and win votes), but as in making clearcut promises and, better than that strides to actually do the things the public wants. Hillary is a lot like Trump in that regard, they're playing to emotion more than actual specifics. 9 out of 10 times you see her OR him on t.v., it's either them igniting their base or playing down their opponent. I mean, moreso than I can recall in the past decade between political candidates. In short, they're playing on emotions and things that only their core base care for.

In Hillary's case her 'emotional' card is she's the first woman president and she'll be historical and 'fix' all the problems women are facing in discrimination. Beyond a few 'rousing speeches' though, I really don't see her talking about ways to fix that as much as she grandstands about it. Obviously, this is the same with Trump(if not worse). Speeches and 'emotional' or 'aggressive' commercials/social media expressions are great for your base, but they don't really mean anything to anyone who is not already voting for you. I don't think a massive influx of Bernie Sanders voters will vote for Trump(no where near as much as we hear at least), but the remainder that either don't vote or vote 3rd party could be in the margin of error for an elector vote loss here and there for Hillary. She really should be trying to win their attention, even if it doesn't mean changing your 'core' values. Her and the Democratic party pretty much gave lip service to Bernie and then shut out his policies and suggestions for the party platform so far. Maybe at the DNC they will actually make attempts to fulfill some of those 'promises' in their platform or something, I don't know, but it's really not looking good.

And that brings me back to the whole point, the thing that guy said struck me. He was a Liberal who pretty much wasn't going to vote for Hillary,but was tired of hearing people say that to him when he said he wasn't voting for either. When people would say "It'll be your fault if she loses!". His response "It'll be her fault for not even trying to win my vote."

Does it sound self-righteous and conceited? Maybe...but at the same time, doesn't the opposite sound true? At least if the standard was the politician trying to appease the voter, it would mean a lot more humble politicians who are aware of the fact they actually have to do what people ask of them. Sounds naive, sure, but damn I wish it was the case. Instead we have the bases for both candidates being charged to the breaking point, leading to these type of comments period. Yes, I get the mirror of this, "If you don't vote you're voting for Hillary", from Family and friends all the time. Especially since I live in Indiana(you have no idea how confusing Mike Pence being the VP is for a lot of us).

I don't think that works anymore. As much as people want to say they are fact based we are narrative driven. So in elections like this its not so much about what you do or promise but the narrative you have with you. I like a lot the ideas that Romney and Kasich have right now, but that is not a narrative that resonates with the audience. People want to be promised solutions for problems that do not exist or do not comprehend enough, it doesn't matter if its unrealistic as long as it is a solution. Its how Trump managed to ascend and push his more rational opponent Kasich, its how Bernie managed such a strong grip with his supporters despite being factually wrong so many times. People (including me) do not care about facts anymore and it all boils down to narrative or in simple terms pandering. The more you pander the better.

[Lady Dragonheart]

Thus, there is the innate flaw with the two-party system. If you don't vote for what you deem is the lesser evil, then don't whine and complain when whom you consider the greater evil to takes office.

[Theodarzna]

@Theodarzna

Realize this, that as much as you might like or dislike Hillary, this election is not really about who becomes president. With the congress/senate the way it is, very little in the way of drastic change will occur because of who is president.

This election is about Supreme Court seats. You want to vote third party over Hillary because you think Jill Stein, who will get less than a percent of votes, is better? Have at it. But if you enjoy living under a free society and not a Christian Theocracy, those supreme court seats will mean more to you than your stupid pride and convictions about who is written on your presidential ballot.

With the Congress the way it is what changes will come in the SCOTUS? How long has Obama's nominee been held up?

[Cthulhu 2020]

With the Congress the way it is what changes will come in the SCOTUS? How long has Obama's nominee been held up?

If a couple of more SCOTUS justices retire or die, do you really think the Senate can delay 2-3 nominations for another 8 years without serious backlash?

I'm not saying it's not possible, but I'm also pointing out the real importance of this election, which should be blatantly obvious to you.