A simple poll

[WeezyBengal]

I had to delete the last one. I stupidly left third party choice off of it.

The poll is anonymous.

[Rotobeast]

Uggghh.... lumped together 3rd party.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2016, 12:09 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Uggghh.... lumped together 3rd party.

Well no one is voting for Stein. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-27-2016, 12:09 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Uggghh.... lumped together 3rd party.

Nothing wrong with that if his purpose is to determine are posters voting for major candidates, third party candidates, and none. 

[WeezyBengal]

(10-27-2016, 12:09 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Uggghh.... lumped together 3rd party.

Third party candidates should be lumped together for this poll. None of them are going to win, so which one you exactly vote for is irrelevant.

Honestly, I guess I could have just left it off.

[WeezyBengal]

(10-27-2016, 09:23 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Nothing wrong with that if his purpose is to determine are posters voting for major candidates, third party candidates, and none. 

The original purpose of the poll was to see which way this forum leans when it comes to the two relevant candidates. 

[Benton]

(10-27-2016, 06:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: Well no one is voting for Stein. 

So I shouldn't have sold all my stocks in those companies that make vaccines?

[Benton]

(10-27-2016, 10:00 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Third party candidates should be lumped together for this poll. None of them are going to win, so which one you exactly vote for is irrelevant.

Honestly, I guess I could have just left it off.

Not trying to derail, but that's been part of the problem that advances the two party system. 

For decades people only had two parties. They actually had more, but everyone told them they only had two parties so they believed it. And now there's the stigma that voting for anything else is a wasted vote.

At this point in your pole, it's 3 for Trump, 8 for Clinton and 6 for other. If half of those "other" are voting for one candidate, then that's as many as one of the main party candidates. Which is where things are heading. The Repubs and Dems are made up of smaller groups that came together over time to further their beliefs. But there's more and more dissatisfaction growing within each party, leading to more and more third parties. 

[hollodero]

(10-27-2016, 11:09 AM)Benton Wrote: And now there's the stigma that voting for anything else is a wasted vote.

Well, it is.

Voting for a third party is nothing more but an illusional rebellion against the current voting system.
No vote for Ross Perot changed that, no vote for Ralph Nader changed that, no vote for Johnson or Stein will change that.

As long as people are not completely indifferent between the two major candidates, it doesn't seem wise to vote third party. It's just leaving the decision to others. A wasted vote indeed.

When Trump closely wins Ohio and therefore gets president, probably every Jill Stein voter (and probably most of the Johnson voters) just has to kick himself in the butt. Reality.

[Benton]

(10-27-2016, 11:33 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, it is.

Voting for a third party is nothing more but an illusional rebellion against the current voting system.
No vote for Ross Perot changed that, no vote for Ralph Nader changed that, no vote for Johnson or Stein will change that.

As long as people are not completely indifferent between the two major candidates, it doesn't seem wise to vote third party. It's just leaving the decision to others. A wasted vote indeed.

When Trump closely wins Ohio and therefore gets president, probably every Jill Stein voter (and probably most of the Johnson voters) just has to kick himself in the butt. Reality.

Parties are about members. Go back to the Republican shift in the 60s with the southern strategy. They were running out of supporters, the population was changing and more people were supporting the direction of the Democrats. Republican strategists realized they needed to expand their base, so the southern strategy was born — bring in white, southern people unhappy with desegregation and rising minority population. That's been a big party of the party's base... until now.

Chunks of the Republican party are breaking off. Evangelicals are unhappy. Angry isolationists are unhappy. Small business owners are unhappy.

The same thing has happened to both parties before where large groups went in a different direction, effecting a change of course as parties go off or come together. If enough people show enough dissatisfaction, either the parties will respond by adapting or they'll shrink and get absorbed into another party.

Stein (or whoever) voters won't be kicking themselves. These are already the people who realize neither candidate is going to make a good president.

[hollodero]

(10-27-2016, 11:55 AM)Benton Wrote: Parties are about members. Go back to the Republican shift in the 60s with the southern strategy. They were running out of supporters, the population was changing and more people were supporting the direction of the Democrats. Republican strategists realized they needed to expand their base, so the southern strategy was born — bring in white, southern people unhappy with desegregation and rising minority population. That's been a big party of the party's base... until now.

Chunks of the Republican party are breaking off. Evangelicals are unhappy. Angry isolationists are unhappy. Small business owners are unhappy.

The same thing has happened to both parties before where large groups went in a different direction, effecting a change of course as parties go off or come together. If enough people show enough dissatisfaction, either the parties will respond by adapting or they'll shrink and get absorbed into another party.

Stein (or whoever) voters won't be kicking themselves. These are already the people who realize neither candidate is going to make a good president.

All of that might be true (I do not doubt this analysis) - but doesn't change what I said. When a party loses votes to the other, it will shift positions. Sure. Doesn't change the fact that only two candidates can become president in an election and it's not really meaningful to vote for neither of them.

Third party voters won't kick themselves as long as they truely believe either candidate is equally bad (not just "bad", but equally bad). As soon as you feel one candidate is even worse than the other, voting third party doesn't seem reasonable.

[Benton]

(10-27-2016, 12:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: All of that might be true (I do not doubt this analysis) - but doesn't change what I said. When a party loses votes to the other, it will shift positions. Sure. Doesn't change the fact that only two candidates can become president in an election and it's not really meaningful to vote for neither of them.

Third party voters won't kick themselves as long as they truely believe either candidate is equally bad (not just "bad", but equally bad). As soon as you feel one candidate is even worse than the other, voting third party doesn't seem reasonable.

You're not wrong. But... if the point is to effect a change, the fastest (and just about the only way for the majority of us who don't make six figure campaign donations) is to show political strategists you're willing to vote for someone who reflects your interests. The numbers from this election will be analyzed a lot over the next few years. Just using simple numbers, if one party sees a 10-15% dip in turnout, while a third party sees about the same amount in growth, party leaders are going to look at why. What issue was it, was it just the candidates, was it use of social media, etc.

Many — maybe even most — don't like the direction of the country. Voting for a third party voices that displeasure. And the people who manipulate the system realize you've got to keep people happy if you want them to stay stupid enough to let you rob them blind.

[hollodero]

(10-27-2016, 12:31 PM)Benton Wrote: You're not wrong. But... if the point is to effect a change, the fastest (and just about the only way for the majority of us who don't make six figure campaign donations) is to show political strategists you're willing to vote for someone who reflects your interests. The numbers from this election will be analyzed a lot over the next few years. Just using simple numbers, if one party sees a 10-15% dip in turnout, while a third party sees about the same amount in growth, party leaders are going to look at why. What issue was it, was it just the candidates, was it use of social media, etc.

Many — maybe even most — don't like the direction of the country. Voting for a third party voices that displeasure. And the people who manipulate the system realize you've got to keep people happy if you want them to stay stupid enough to let you rob them blind.

Ross Perot had 19%. Just saying. Did Ross Perot sustainably change the political landscape? (This is an honest question, although I think he didn't).

As for your other point. I don't think third party voters are regarded as voices of dissatisfaction. The fact that about half - half! - the people don't bother to vote at all should be regarded as such. But no one seems to care too much about that form of protesting (which it is at this extent). 
So why should they care about some Johnson or Stein voter. They are either irrelevant - or take away votes from one party, leading the other to victory. A fact so evident that it will always cap third party's success.
Democrats do not go after Ralph Nader or Jill Stein voters by shifting their policy in their direction. Jill Stein causes no such thing. If at all, Bernie Sanders does.

[Rotobeast]

(10-27-2016, 10:00 AM)WeezyBengal Wrote: Third party candidates should be lumped together for this poll. None of them are going to win, so which one you exactly vote for is irrelevant.

Honestly, I guess I could have just left it off.

Well....we are amassing an army, collectively.
I guess I'm ok being lumped together, considering that.
I look forward to proving our relevance.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Rotobeast]

(10-27-2016, 11:33 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, it is.

Voting for a third party is nothing more but an illusional rebellion against the current voting system.
No vote for Ross Perot changed that, no vote for Ralph Nader changed that, no vote for Johnson or Stein will change that.

As long as people are not completely indifferent between the two major candidates, it doesn't seem wise to vote third party. It's just leaving the decision to others. A wasted vote indeed.

When Trump closely wins Ohio and therefore gets president, probably every Jill Stein voter (and probably most of the Johnson voters) just has to kick himself in the butt. Reality.

I'm not voting in protest.
My vote is galvanized with hope (keep the Obama jokes), integrity, and responsibility.
I REFUSE to have my vote tainted by fear.

It may not be this election, but I assure you, I will help create a ground-swell to perpetuate change.

If Trump can garner this much support, anyone can.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Benton]

(10-27-2016, 12:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: Ross Perot had 19%. Just saying. Did Ross Perot sustainably change the political landscape? (This is an honest question, although I think he didn't).

As for your other point. I don't think third party voters are regarded as voices of dissatisfaction. The fact that about half - half! - the people don't bother to vote at all should be regarded as such. But no one seems to care too much about that form of protesting (which it is at this extent). 
So why should they care about some Johnson or Stein voter. They are either irrelevant - or take away votes from one party, leading the other to victory. A fact so evident that it will always cap third party's success.
Democrats do not go after Ralph Nader or Jill Stein voters by shifting their policy in their direction. Jill Stein causes no such thing. If at all, Bernie Sanders does.

I think Ross Perot changed in regard to perception that you have to belong to either side. That's opened the door for third party candidates at the local level, and for reform efforts within one of the parties (the tea party).

as far as voter turnout, half not showing up isn't a sign of dissatisfaction that's a sign of disinterest. If your job is to make sure your party's candidates are reelected, you don't care about people who aren't going to negatively impact you. It's the same whether there's 10 people participating or 10,000 or 10 million.

[hollodero]

(10-27-2016, 02:49 PM)Benton Wrote: I think Ross Perot changed in regard to perception that you have to belong to either side. That's opened the door for third party candidates at the local level, and for reform efforts within one of the parties (the tea party).

Hm, there seems to be some truth to that.
Although, as you pointed out yourself, reform efforts always existed (when a party loses votes to another).
I'd still assume Perot's biggest impact was to secure Clinton the presidency - as it was Nader's biggest impact to secure the Bush presidency (now that one's true).

(10-27-2016, 02:49 PM)Benton Wrote: as far as voter turnout, half not showing up isn't a sign of dissatisfaction that's a sign of disinterest. If your job is to make sure your party's candidates are reelected, you don't care about people who aren't going to negatively impact you. It's the same whether there's 10 people participating or 10,000 or 10 million.

I'd say it's mostly a sign of resignation.
As to your other point - can't the same be said about third party voters? You might not care about Johnson voters just as you might not care about non-voters. They do not hurt - or negatively impact - you either.

[hollodero]

(10-27-2016, 02:37 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'm not voting in protest.
My vote is galvanized with hope (keep the Obama jokes), integrity, and responsibility.
I REFUSE to have my vote tainted by fear.

It may not be this election, but I assure you, I will help create a ground-swell to perpetuate change.

If Trump can garner this much support, anyone can.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Yeah we already reached that point. I think you're wrong - but I really hope I'm wrong and you're not. I get your stance. (Mine is - as long as your voting system don't change, nothing will.)

The Trump example, however, is flawed. His success stems from the fact that he entered the republican primaries, was in all the debates and media covered every fart he made. If he were an independent, that would never have happened to that extent. And he wouldn't stand a chance to get elected were he not running for the GOP.

-- Would you say that you're a libertarian?

[WeezyBengal]

(10-27-2016, 11:09 AM)Benton Wrote: Not trying to derail, but that's been part of the problem that advances the two party system. 

For decades people only had two parties. They actually had more, but everyone told them they only had two parties so they believed it. And now there's the stigma that voting for anything else is a wasted vote.

At this point in your pole, it's 3 for Trump, 8 for Clinton and 6 for other. If half of those "other" are voting for one candidate, then that's as many as one of the main party candidates. Which is where things are heading. The Repubs and Dems are made up of smaller groups that came together over time to further their beliefs. But there's more and more dissatisfaction growing within each party, leading to more and more third parties. 

Voting for a third party wouldn't be wasting a vote, but it would be casting an irrelevant vote. I dont think I could ever say a vote is a wasted vote. Its your right as an American to vote. 

Would I vote for a third party if there was someone that I actually believed in and thought they had a real legitimate change to win? Absolutely. 

A third party has never won an election. It's not going to happen anytime soon and it may never happen. If there was any year in which the gap would be closed, THIS is the year, and based on polls it isn't even close. 

When it comes to the "stigma" that voting third party is "wasting" a vote, perception is kind of reality. 

[WeezyBengal]

(10-27-2016, 03:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah we already reached that point. I think you're wrong - but I really hope I'm wrong and you're not. I get your stance. (Mine is - as long as your voting system don't change, nothing will.)

The Trump example, however, is flawed. His success stems from the fact that he entered the republican primaries, was in all the debates and media covered every fart he made. If he were an independent, that would never have happened to that extent. And he wouldn't stand a chance to get elected were he not running for the GOP.

-- Would you say that you're a libertarian?

I think you (and a lot of other people who think Hillary is going to win this election) underestimate just how much Trump's message resonates with the common working class man (or woman). People are fed up with the system and Trump is saying all of the right things (whether they hold true or not) to reel them in. 

Could any third party Joe Blow that had the same message as Trump have a legitimate shot at the presidential race? I doubt it. Thats where Trump's fame came in. People know him, know hes a good businessman (or so we are told), and respond to his message.