Originally Posted by
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).