Knowing everything you know now, would you have voted differently in 2016?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

not American, but if I could have voted it would have been third party and that has not changed since. The whole dog and pony show that I have seen this past year has told me very explicitly that no one currently walking the halls of power in the US has any kind of fuck to give about anything that does not help themselves.

I've likened the process to voting for Kang or Kodos by staying with one of the 2 parties. Either way you get a monster. Feeding them is madness incarnate.

Well, I certainly hope this election result has woken up all the lazy codgers who couldn't be arse to go out and vote.

Voted Remain, and would vote Remain again.

I think that was the only vote of 2016 for me. I can't quite remember when the last local election I voted in took place, but I don't think that was last year.

Well no, because I actually voted right. As in, I took it seriously while other people yolo'd or did not vote at all, and I already knew what I was getting into, unlike Trump voters.

FalloutJack:
Well no, because I actually voted right. As in, I took it seriously while other people yolo'd or did not vote at all, and I already knew what I was getting into, unlike Trump voters.

We'd be infinitesimally better off if you had written in Bernie Sanders, as your vote did not cause Hillary Clinton to win, but +1 in the progressive column is a slight increase in pressure for the Democrats to take more popular positions. If it was Trump 43, Clinton 20, Stein 10, Sanders 15, or some mix that looked like that maybe the Democratic Party would stop doing their best ostrich impressions.

image

Seanchaidh:

FalloutJack:
Well no, because I actually voted right. As in, I took it seriously while other people yolo'd or did not vote at all, and I already knew what I was getting into, unlike Trump voters.

We'd be infinitesimally better off if you had written in Bernie Sanders, as your vote did not cause Hillary Clinton to win, but +1 in the progressive column is a slight increase in pressure for the Democrats to take more popular positions. If it was Trump 43, Clinton 20, Stein 10, Sanders 15, or some mix that looked like that maybe the Democratic Party would stop doing their best ostrich impressions.

image

I'm sorry, but um... bullshit.

Getting half of what you want is significantly better than getting the exact opposite of what you want. The change Bernie started in the Democratic Party was already taking effect after the primaries (see the large number of his proposals that made it into the official party policy for the election). Standing on your principles is all well and good until it ends up with you getting absolutely nothing in the world of politics which is based entirely on compromise. Hillary would have continued to move the country in the right direction, even if grudgingly; instead, we're moving in the completely opposite direction. All or nothing will be the death of any liberal party in the US. The demographics simply aren't there yet.

Avnger:

Seanchaidh:

FalloutJack:
Well no, because I actually voted right. As in, I took it seriously while other people yolo'd or did not vote at all, and I already knew what I was getting into, unlike Trump voters.

We'd be infinitesimally better off if you had written in Bernie Sanders, as your vote did not cause Hillary Clinton to win, but +1 in the progressive column is a slight increase in pressure for the Democrats to take more popular positions. If it was Trump 43, Clinton 20, Stein 10, Sanders 15, or some mix that looked like that maybe the Democratic Party would stop doing their best ostrich impressions.

image

I'm sorry, but um... bullshit.

Getting half of what you want is significantly better than getting the exact opposite of what you want. The change Bernie started in the Democratic Party was already taking effect after the primaries (see the large number of his proposals that made it into the official party policy for the election). Standing on your principles is all well and good until it ends up with you getting absolutely nothing in the world of politics which is based entirely on compromise. Hillary would have continued to move the country in the right direction, even if grudgingly; instead, we're moving in the completely opposite direction. All or nothing will be the death of any liberal party in the US. The demographics simply aren't there yet.

The demographics!

Have you looked at polls on the issues? There are solid majorities for fundamentally changing the role of money in politics, medicare for all single payer healthcare, more equal distributions of wealth and higher taxes on the rich, and various other progressive priorities. Political resistance to that agenda is not about the will of voters. What is holding us up is the iron grip of wealthy donors over both the Republican and Democratic parties. It's not principle or ideology or even polling that drives Congress but cash.

The demographics are past being there. The demographics are impatient. The demographics have given up on hope for change from either party establishment. That's why we have Trump. That's why the most unapologetic and revolutionary progressive contender was able to go from zero to hero in a matter of months in the Democratic Party primary, even with the entire establishment arrayed against him and "liberal" media like MSNBC deliberately choosing to display Trump's empty podium instead of even mentioning him. That's why that guy is now the most popular politician in America.

You want to talk about demographics, here's an important one: income inequality is now the highest it has been since before the Great Depression. That affects how people view things. But I guess we're not brown enough yet or something. Give me a break.

Seanchaidh:
Snip

Wow, so blatantly insulting and baseless. Is this what you resort to after having been proven wrong so many times? No, you voted wrong and we have Trump. Hope you're happy.

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:
Snip

Wow, so blatantly insulting and baseless. Is this what you resort to after having been proven wrong so many times? No, you voted wrong and we have Trump. Hope you're happy.

Pick a better candidate next time.

I certainly don't regret voting remain in the Brexit referendum, or for voting Labour in the last general election.

If Ed Miliband had won Brexit, as well as the resulting Scottish IndyRef2 would have been avoided. Who knows? Maybe in the future people will say that if the Brits wern't so offended by Ed's inability to eat a bacon sandwich then the UK would have remained in the EU and not broken apart.

Seanchaidh:

Avnger:

Seanchaidh:

We'd be infinitesimally better off if you had written in Bernie Sanders, as your vote did not cause Hillary Clinton to win, but +1 in the progressive column is a slight increase in pressure for the Democrats to take more popular positions. If it was Trump 43, Clinton 20, Stein 10, Sanders 15, or some mix that looked like that maybe the Democratic Party would stop doing their best ostrich impressions.

image

I'm sorry, but um... bullshit.

Getting half of what you want is significantly better than getting the exact opposite of what you want. The change Bernie started in the Democratic Party was already taking effect after the primaries (see the large number of his proposals that made it into the official party policy for the election). Standing on your principles is all well and good until it ends up with you getting absolutely nothing in the world of politics which is based entirely on compromise. Hillary would have continued to move the country in the right direction, even if grudgingly; instead, we're moving in the completely opposite direction. All or nothing will be the death of any liberal party in the US. The demographics simply aren't there yet.

The demographics!

Have you looked at polls on the issues? There are solid majorities for fundamentally changing the role of money in politics, medicare for all single payer healthcare, more equal distributions of wealth and higher taxes on the rich, and various other progressive priorities. Political resistance to that agenda is not about the will of voters. What is holding us up is the iron grip of wealthy donors over both the Republican and Democratic parties. It's not principle or ideology or even polling that drives Congress but cash.

The demographics are past being there. The demographics are impatient. The demographics have given up on hope for change from either party establishment. That's why we have Trump. That's why the most unapologetic and revolutionary progressive contender was able to go from zero to hero in a matter of months in the Democratic Party primary, even with the entire establishment arrayed against him and "liberal" media like MSNBC deliberately choosing to display Trump's empty podium instead of even mentioning him. That's why that guy is now the most popular politician in America.

You want to talk about demographics, here's an important one: income inequality is now the highest it has been since before the Great Depression. That affects how people view things. But I guess we're not brown enough yet or something. Give me a break.

We get it you're both pretty; argue without flame. Aggression is fine but no need to attack each other; that just makes people more extreme in their views.

crimson5pheonix:

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:
Snip

Wow, so blatantly insulting and baseless. Is this what you resort to after having been proven wrong so many times? No, you voted wrong and we have Trump. Hope you're happy.

Pick a better candidate next time.

^basically this, Hillary Clinton was a scandal ridden corporate sellout who should've never been allowed to run. She was the one democrat bad enough that Trump was preferable. I'm a registered democrat and my order of preference was from best to worst Bernie> Gary> Donald> Hillary

Voted Clinton, no regrets in the slightest. Would rather have gotten some of what I wanted over what we have now. All I can tell ya is that I'll be voting D in the coming elections, I don't care who they put on the ticket. If they move to the left, great. If they move more to the right to get more of the moderates? Won't be happy, but it'll still be better than the shit show we have now.

Zontar:

So net food producers who have raw resources and a moderate level of industry will be dead, but net food importers who have fewer raw resources and are dependent on imports of most goods period will be fine?

So would you propose that Ukraine and Argentina are better off than Singapore and the Netherlands?

Producing food and having resources and industry is to a large extent a red herring. In world where just about everything can be bought and sold from somewhere in the world, it mostly just boils down to how much everything you make in goods and services is worth.

Nope. I choose to not vote for President as a form of protest. I'm happy with that decision. No matter which of them won, I was unhappy with them winning.

Zontar:

erttheking:
Except Lincoln got elected, so it sounds like there wasn't too much support. Tyranny of democracy. I don't think that term means what you think it means. The Confederacy was on board with that towards Blacks. THAT is tyranny of democracy.

Yes, Lincoln got reelected, but given how his popularity only rose after the Battle of Atlanta, well there's a reason why there's a legitimate debate to be had over whether that battle was why the war continued given how McClellan likely would have negotiated something.

Lincoln was actually hugely unpopular. He only even won in the first place because there were three major candidates running for election and he was able to win more votes than either of the other candidates. It's even said that he entered the capital in secret for fear he would be assassinated. And there was actually talk of him being challenged by his own party before his bid for reelection, but they opted not to divide the party and supported him despite his unpopularity.

The Civil War was hugely unpopular in the Union. Most supported allowing the Confederacy to secede. It was only after Atlanta was sacked that the war became popular and he actually would be able to win reelection. Before that, even he was making plans on what to do after he lost. Which included making a last ditch effort to win the war before he had to officially leave office.

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:
Snip

Wow, so blatantly insulting and baseless. Is this what you resort to after having been proven wrong so many times? No, you voted wrong and we have Trump. Hope you're happy.

Reiterating your position without engaging mine is not the same thing as proving me wrong. Nor is deciding that I'm arguing something that I'm not.

Your vote did not help us gain a President other than Trump, as Trump is indeed President. And it harmed efforts to gain a President other than Trump in the future because gaining a President other than Trump in the future (or avoiding the election of Republican politicians in general) is dependent on the performance of the Democratic Party and its responsiveness towards people who would potentially vote for it. Trying to get away with being only a bit closer to the political center of America than Trump, and still being correctly viewed as paid off by wealth, is a strategy which did not work. But the Democrats seem to be doubling down. Why? Because they are not sufficiently persuaded of the strength of conviction of those who "voted wrong". Or maybe it is because they don't care whether they lose because they are well taken care of either way; they may not mind going down with the Titanic as long as they have first class seats (and losing an election is hardly like drowning for political elites). In any case, I for one am going to gleefully "vote wrong" again unless the Democratic Party horks up something substantially better than Sec. Clinton. You can either join me in doing what is right for the country or continue to lose. Pick better candidates. Argue more forcefully for a progressive agenda. Stop pretending that middle America really wants to cut social security or medicare or medicaid; it's the donors that want that, not the people.

I see unnecessarily prolonged misery with either party establishment. And I see that the only way to move those establishments is to break the influence of large sums of cash. Hillary Clinton raised twice as much money as Donald Trump; she is not a person who would have done anything significant about money in politics. That is not to say that Donald Trump is such a person; it is to say that voting for either of them is voting against adequate campaign finance reform.

The choice between Clinton and Trump was a choice between empty promises and empty platitudes. And because you didn't take the opportunity to register your disapproval with both, the Democratic Party is incrementally more assured of the safety of pursuing its losing strategy once again. The fact it was a close election is harmful for the future of the Democratic Party because apparently even getting completely wiped out in national politics hasn't been enough to convince them to change their strategy.

crimson5pheonix:

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:
Snip

Wow, so blatantly insulting and baseless. Is this what you resort to after having been proven wrong so many times? No, you voted wrong and we have Trump. Hope you're happy.

Pick a better candidate next time.

Advice that everybody should be taking, but nobody does. Work with what you got.

FalloutJack:

crimson5pheonix:

FalloutJack:

Wow, so blatantly insulting and baseless. Is this what you resort to after having been proven wrong so many times? No, you voted wrong and we have Trump. Hope you're happy.

Pick a better candidate next time.

Advice that everybody should be taking, but nobody does. Work with what you got.

Neither of the big 2 were worth voting for.

crimson5pheonix:
Snip

Nothing else would work. *Shrug* Moan and groan if you want. Still true.

Seanchaidh:
Snipple

It's no good trying to defend your arguments, Search, because...well...ya haven't got one. Your demands are untenable and you don't deal with what's in front of you. You don't even bother telling your Left from your Right, and your hate for the Left has made it impossible for you to discuss this stuff logically. Because logically...you know that my views make sense, and that yours are unreachable at this time. However, instead of just understanding this, you decide that cheap shots and insults are the way to go. Well hey, they don't work, so I'm just dismissing it all entirely. Ya got nothing for me here. Take your hatedom elsewhere.

FalloutJack:

crimson5pheonix:
Snip

Nothing else would work. *Shrug* Moan and groan if you want. Still true.

Moan and groan? I did that last year to try and get people to understand that there were better choices. At this point I'm just basking in being correct and holding back from spamming Doom Paul memes.

Like this

image

crimson5pheonix:
Snip

Indepedent candidates weren't strong enough. There's no solidarity in the Independent sector. Just another Nader Syndrome.

FalloutJack:

crimson5pheonix:
Snip

Indepedent candidates weren't strong enough. There's no solidarity in the Independent sector. Just another Nader Syndrome.

Stronger than either of the two candidates

image

FalloutJack:

crimson5pheonix:
Snip

Indepedent candidates weren't strong enough. There's no solidarity in the Independent sector. Just another Nader Syndrome.

After the dems screwed Sanders (Clinton even being stupid enough to hire the disgraced former head of the DNC) I decided to vote against them. Sanders wasn't some corporate sellout with a new scandal every day and a spouse with loyalty issues. He was the one we needed but the dems didn't want him so if I had to choose between them and Trump I'd go Trump. Thankfully Gary Johnson was on the ballot so I voted for him instead.

Agema:

So would you propose that Ukraine and Argentina are better off than Singapore and the Netherlands?

Well they certainly have the potential to be. Though it's unfair to compare a former Soviet state and a nation with a long and very recent history of Junta with two nations which have been economically vibrant for well over a century now.

crimson5pheonix:
Snip

Well, no they weren't. I mean, look at 'em. It needed to be Sanders or no Independents at all, and they pushed him out.

Xan Krieger:
Snip

Sorry, but regardless of your feels, that did not help matters.

FalloutJack:

crimson5pheonix:
Snip

Well, no they weren't. I mean, look at 'em. It needed to be Sanders or no Independents at all, and they pushed him out.

Xan Krieger:
Snip

Sorry, but regardless of your feels, that did not help matters.

image

Oh yes they were. Either Johnson or Stein would have been better than Trump and Hillary.

Seanchaidh:

We'd be infinitesimally better off if you had written in Bernie Sanders, as your vote did not cause Hillary Clinton to win, but +1 in the progressive column is a slight increase in pressure for the Democrats to take more popular positions. If it was Trump 43, Clinton 20, Stein 10, Sanders 15, or some mix that looked like that maybe the Democratic Party would stop doing their best ostrich impressions.

That's assuming, of course, that the DNC would take precisely the same message from that electoral result that you did. Alternatively, they could see that the Republicans' win was even more convincing than it was in reality, and decide that they needed to shift right. Or the RNC could see that the Left will be endlessly willing to split into factions, and so they needn't worry about compromising their positions at all.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

We'd be infinitesimally better off if you had written in Bernie Sanders, as your vote did not cause Hillary Clinton to win, but +1 in the progressive column is a slight increase in pressure for the Democrats to take more popular positions. If it was Trump 43, Clinton 20, Stein 10, Sanders 15, or some mix that looked like that maybe the Democratic Party would stop doing their best ostrich impressions.

That's assuming, of course, that the DNC would take precisely the same message from that electoral result that you did. Alternatively, they could see that the Republicans' win was even more convincing than it was in reality, and decide that they needed to shift right. Or the RNC could see that the Left will be endlessly willing to split into factions, and so they needn't worry about compromising their positions at all.

If the Democrats think shifting right would help in a landscape where the Republicans are winning with 43 and everyone else to their left, there's no helping them.

Seanchaidh:

If the Democrats think shifting right would help in a landscape where the Republicans are winning with 43 and everyone else to their left, there's no helping them.

The message I would take is that reconnecting with the left is essential, but that's hardly the only message one could take. I've always found voting for minor third parties (or abstaining) to be a pretty useless method of expression. What does it express? That the RNC need not worry about you?

And the DNC could take the message that they need to reconnect. Orrrrrr, they could see that the Right's victory is ever greater, and conclude that left wing sentiment is weak. The opposite of the intended message.

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

If the Democrats think shifting right would help in a landscape where the Republicans are winning with 43 and everyone else to their left, there's no helping them.

The message I would take is that reconnecting with the left is essential, but that's hardly the only message one could take. I've always found voting for minor third parties (or abstaining) to be a pretty useless method of expression. What does it express? That the RNC need not worry about you?

That the DNC needs to better represent you if they want your vote.

And the DNC could take the message that they need to reconnect. Orrrrrr, they could see that the Right's victory is ever greater, and conclude that left wing sentiment is weak. The opposite of the intended message.

Yes, if they are innumerate, they might take that message away. Otherwise, 43 is not a majority and if everyone is to the left of that, and the bulk of the remainder is to the left of the Democrats, then there is no way going further right makes sense unless they figure they can't win any of those left voters back. If the Democrats go further right in such a scenario, a third party or independent candidacy from the left would be yet stronger. Such a fragmented election result on the left sends signals not only to parties but to voters: the tactical choice may not be the Democrats.

Seanchaidh:

Silvanus:

Seanchaidh:

If the Democrats think shifting right would help in a landscape where the Republicans are winning with 43 and everyone else to their left, there's no helping them.

The message I would take is that reconnecting with the left is essential, but that's hardly the only message one could take. I've always found voting for minor third parties (or abstaining) to be a pretty useless method of expression. What does it express? That the RNC need not worry about you?

That the DNC needs to better represent you if they want your vote.

And the DNC could take the message that they need to reconnect. Orrrrrr, they could see that the Right's victory is ever greater, and conclude that left wing sentiment is weak. The opposite of the intended message.

Yes, if they are innumerate, they might take that message away. Otherwise, 43 is not a majority and if everyone is to the left of that, and the bulk of the remainder is to the left of the Democrats, then there is no way going further right makes sense unless they figure they can't win any of those left voters back. If the Democrats go further right in such a scenario, a third party or independent candidacy from the left would be yet stronger. Such a fragmented election result on the left sends signals not only to parties but to voters: the tactical choice may not be the Democrats.

So Trump represents you then?

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

Silvanus:

The message I would take is that reconnecting with the left is essential, but that's hardly the only message one could take. I've always found voting for minor third parties (or abstaining) to be a pretty useless method of expression. What does it express? That the RNC need not worry about you?

That the DNC needs to better represent you if they want your vote.

And the DNC could take the message that they need to reconnect. Orrrrrr, they could see that the Right's victory is ever greater, and conclude that left wing sentiment is weak. The opposite of the intended message.

Yes, if they are innumerate, they might take that message away. Otherwise, 43 is not a majority and if everyone is to the left of that, and the bulk of the remainder is to the left of the Democrats, then there is no way going further right makes sense unless they figure they can't win any of those left voters back. If the Democrats go further right in such a scenario, a third party or independent candidacy from the left would be yet stronger. Such a fragmented election result on the left sends signals not only to parties but to voters: the tactical choice may not be the Democrats.

So Trump represents you then?

No, and neither did the Democrats. That is why neither got my vote.

crimson5pheonix:
Snip

Without doing what Bernie did, they wouldn't have the same backing. No solidarity, no numbers. No numbers, no chances.

Meme away. It makes no difference.

Saelune:
Snip

I'd love to say it, but I think he's really just an Independent who doesn't wanna get lynched for his choices. He can't distinguish Left from Right because they don't instantly cater to him, so he grumbles and says they're both the same, which they're not. And when he's called on it, he gets insulting.

FalloutJack:
snip

image

That doesn't change that they were better by leaps and bounds.

I did not vote and was Validated by the results in the popular election not actually mattering and my state(Texas btw) being overwhelmingly one sided anyway so 100% would still not vote in primaries or general because one primary was rigged and the other was a landslide so why should I?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here