A protest vote for a third party gets entered into the official record. Declining to vote as a protest measure can't be differentiated from general apathy, and thus is completely ineffectual as a means of voicing my displeasure with the system.
If, say, the Green party got a few hundredths of a percentage point more in the general election, it gives them slightly more legitimacy in the media. At this point, that's basically the only effect voting in a populous (and non-swing) state can have on anything more than the local elections. (And even then, my city council district has a single council member representing around 150,000 people, so good luck getting a lunch meeting there.)
The main point is that the two parties are not mirror images of each other and are asymmetrical in organization, ideology, and governance.
The two very different parties seem to exist to serve a public that wants to have its cake and eat it too; namely they support liberal positions on individual issues while simultaneously wanting a smaller and less active government.
The main point is that the two parties are not mirror images of each other and are asymmetrical in organization, ideology, and governance.
The two very different parties seem to exist to serve a public that wants to have its cake and eat it too; namely they support liberal positions on individual issues while simultaneously wanting a smaller and less active government.
Yes, people want lots of things, but do not want to pay for it. News at 11.
What causes the two parties to remain (very roughly speaking) balanced? When one party gains more power, does that automatically make the other party seem more appealing?
What causes the two parties to remain (very roughly speaking) balanced? When one party gains more power, does that automatically make the other party seem more appealing?
The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
A brief overview of the mathematical reasons why our voting rules create a two party system. How appealing or convincing it is depends on the point of view you have, but as far as youtube video introductions to a topic go, this video and the ones after it are fun to watch.
Bernie Sanders has been polling in the double digits recently, and considering its the slow period of the election season that's not surprising. This required him being put in his place as a marginal participant with zero chance of getting elected.
Bernie Sanders: sex pervert who's fantasies include rape and brutalizing women.* And he is running against someone who could be our first female President. His campaign is done.
Considering this was dropped shortly after his kick-off, I'd give good odds that Mother Jones has a lot more where it came from.
Hillary learned well from the last election: Define your opponent early and in ways that net you more votes.
* I'm aware that's not exactly what he wrote, but it's close enough for an attack ad.
Bernie Sanders has been polling in the double digits recently, and considering its the slow period of the election season that's not surprising. This required him being put in his place as a marginal participant with zero chance of getting elected.
Bernie Sanders: sex pervert who's fantasies include rape and brutalizing women.* And he is running against someone who could be our first female President. His campaign is done.
Considering this was dropped shortly after his kick-off, I'd give good odds that Mother Jones has a lot more where it came from.
Hillary learned well from the last election: Define your opponent early and in ways that net you more votes.
* I'm aware that's not exactly what he wrote, but it's close enough for an attack ad.
Sorry, but I don't think Bernie is even on Hillary's radar. This is a media hurting for a story on the Democratic side of this election.
There's hints in the article that makes me think the story was fed to MJ: there's "doing some digging" and dragging 40-50 year old dirt on someone. This stinks of opposition research, not a journalist hunting for a headline.
The whole article written by Sanders isn't shown, so what he actually was saying isn't obvious, but the "controversial" parts are obviously a hook to draw in readers, not an expression of Sanders' views. The author of the article about Sanders also doesn't weigh in on Sanders' article, so where are you getting the "dirt" from?
The essay as a whole doesn't really matter, just the first few graphs. That's the dirt. And MJ doesn't have to say anything, they only had to show the first part, the questionable part, and leave it hanging; readers will come to their own conclusions -- and they have -- which forces Sanders to respond.
Edit: The article frames the image of Sanders' 40 year-old essay. It let's the reader pick up on it, giving room for further attacks later. Again, the point is to remind the Sanders camp that they aren't running against Hillary, but the Republicans; their job is to attack the GOP and leave Hillary above the fray.
Edit 2: Martin O'Malley is running. He wont win this year, unless some scandal tanks Hillary's primary campaign, because of Freddie Grey, so this is probably a bid for the VP spot, a cabinet position, or to stack his claim for 202 if Hillary doesn't win the general.
There's hints in the article that makes me think the story was fed to MJ: there's "doing some digging" and dragging 40-50 year old dirt on someone. This stinks of opposition research, not a journalist hunting for a headline.
I wouldn't be surprised if MJ picked it up themselves. They're no strangers to picking a candidate and going after anyone else in the race, including those on the same side of the house.
The real race is on the republican side, I have no idea who's going to come out of that. If I had to place a bet it would be Scott Walker, though god i don't like any of them even personally this year.
The real race is on the republican side, I have no idea who's going to come out of that. If I had to place a bet it would be Scott Walker, though god i don't like any of them even personally this year.
I really want it to be Ted Cruz. The man's a walking political hypocrisy who Hillary could destroy in the general.
I almost want it to be Rand Paul. He's one of the few people in the running who is genuinely nuttier than Ted Cruz, and with three times the nasty baggage. Directly financially benefiting from those famous newsletters, his ties to various racists and hate groups, the fact that his social media manager is one of the most famous neo-confederate racists in the country, open support of discrimination, the fact that he's openly a conspiracy theorist, the list goes on.
It'd be a fucking three ring circus, and I'm all in favor of that.
Rand Paul would be a very useful republican candidate, albeit with that terrifying possibility of 'what if everything goes horrifyingly wrong and he wins' pressing at the back of your mind. Of course, that would likely require the democrats to literally begin the ritual sacrifice of puppies on live television.
(Even then, I'd still vote for the democrats because, hey, they're noticeably less likely to start throwing around the concentration camp rhetoric again.)
I think Paul has a chance. He's nuts, but he's able to act calm in a way no one else in the GOP yet does.
Also, having signed up to volunteer for the Sanders campaign, I'm eagerly awaiting them to mobilize us. Even a landslide loss will be a landmark in American socialism unlike anything since Debs.
This comment from below the article seems to raise an issue that I was wondering about.
"The Clinton Foundation and the State Department are both huge entities, and it's not difficult to compile lists of other huge entities (such as governments allied to the U.S.) who've done business with both. That doesn't prove quid pro quo.
As for the general increase in arms exports, it was presidential policy with the goal of "helping the country's allies shoulder more of the burden of international security". So the general increase was driven not byState Department policy.
Finally, if we exclude the "separate" Pentagon-brokered deals Sirota writes of, the increase in arms deals approved by the State Department in the 20 countries that he lists was about 84% (according to figures published by the International Business Times), compared to 80% for all countries, not a significant difference.
That leaves the "separate" Pentagon-brokered deals involving 16 of the countries - but if those deals were brokered by the Pentagon, how could Hillary have controlled them? The Pentagon is a much bigger and more influential entity than the State Department. And how often does the State Department decline to approve deals that the Pentagon has already put together?"
Running for President sounds and appears to be crazy, only a specific few people would seem to be able to do it, it appears you can't do it with integrity either as you would lose to a person who just gets more money.
Running for President sounds and appears to be crazy, only a specific few people would seem to be able to do it, it appears you can't do it with integrity either as you would lose to a person who just gets more money.
Money is free speech, just because I have a billion more dollars just means I'm more free than you are :-p
So, FRCF, what's your excuse for not voting Sanders? Supporting Clinton over him is the modern equivalent of voting Johnson or Humphrey instead of McCarthy or Kennedy.
Meh. I got to the part about how Sanders is polling better than the GOP candidates and quit. This writer is evaluating the polls emotionally and can't be trusted. Of course Sanders is polling higher than any GOP contender, the GOP list is a clown car getting more packed every day. The Democratic one isn't, and Hillary is leading the pack at 60-70% depending on who gets included. For a Republican, polling at 10% means you have to be taken seriously -- especially since the 'frontrunners' are hovering between 17 and 23%.
Bernie also doesn't have a good path through the primary; at most he'll make a bunch of noise trying to move the conversation (not Hillary) in a certain way.
Bernie also doesn't have a good path through the primary; at most he'll make a bunch of noise trying to move the conversation (not Hillary) in a certain way.
So you're not voting Sanders because he won't win the primary?
Comments
If, say, the Green party got a few hundredths of a percentage point more in the general election, it gives them slightly more legitimacy in the media. At this point, that's basically the only effect voting in a populous (and non-swing) state can have on anything more than the local elections. (And even then, my city council district has a single council member representing around 150,000 people, so good luck getting a lunch meeting there.)
The main point is that the two parties are not mirror images of each other and are asymmetrical in organization, ideology, and governance.
The two very different parties seem to exist to serve a public that wants to have its cake and eat it too; namely they support liberal positions on individual issues while simultaneously wanting a smaller and less active government.
The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained
A brief overview of the mathematical reasons why our voting rules create a two party system. How appealing or convincing it is depends on the point of view you have, but as far as youtube video introductions to a topic go, this video and the ones after it are fun to watch.
Bernie Sanders: sex pervert who's fantasies include rape and brutalizing women.* And he is running against someone who could be our first female President. His campaign is done.
Considering this was dropped shortly after his kick-off, I'd give good odds that Mother Jones has a lot more where it came from.
Hillary learned well from the last election: Define your opponent early and in ways that net you more votes.
* I'm aware that's not exactly what he wrote, but it's close enough for an attack ad.
Edit: The article frames the image of Sanders' 40 year-old essay. It let's the reader pick up on it, giving room for further attacks later. Again, the point is to remind the Sanders camp that they aren't running against Hillary, but the Republicans; their job is to attack the GOP and leave Hillary above the fray.
Edit 2: Martin O'Malley is running. He wont win this year, unless some scandal tanks Hillary's primary campaign, because of Freddie Grey, so this is probably a bid for the VP spot, a cabinet position, or to stack his claim for 202 if Hillary doesn't win the general.
It'd be a fucking three ring circus, and I'm all in favor of that.
(Even then, I'd still vote for the democrats because, hey, they're noticeably less likely to start throwing around the concentration camp rhetoric again.)
Also, having signed up to volunteer for the Sanders campaign, I'm eagerly awaiting them to mobilize us. Even a landslide loss will be a landmark in American socialism unlike anything since Debs.
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/
"The Clinton Foundation and the State Department are both huge entities, and it's not difficult to compile lists of other huge entities (such as governments allied to the U.S.) who've done business with both. That doesn't prove quid pro quo.
As for the general increase in arms exports, it was presidential policy with the goal of "helping the country's allies shoulder more of the burden of international security". So the general increase was driven not byState Department policy.
Finally, if we exclude the "separate" Pentagon-brokered deals Sirota writes of, the increase in arms deals approved by the State Department in the 20 countries that he lists was about 84% (according to figures published by the International Business Times), compared to 80% for all countries, not a significant difference.
That leaves the "separate" Pentagon-brokered deals involving 16 of the countries - but if those deals were brokered by the Pentagon, how could Hillary have controlled them? The Pentagon is a much bigger and more influential entity than the State Department. And how often does the State Department decline to approve deals that the Pentagon has already put together?"
So, FRCF, what's your excuse for not voting Sanders? Supporting Clinton over him is the modern equivalent of voting Johnson or Humphrey instead of McCarthy or Kennedy.
Oh I didn't realize Medium was just a shitty website where people can write anything.
Bernie also doesn't have a good path through the primary; at most he'll make a bunch of noise trying to move the conversation (not Hillary) in a certain way.