|
I don't understand why other people don't understand the hate for Hillary Clinton. The reality is that all political spectrum have a distaste for her due to various reasons. The right dislikes her not only because she has a "D" next to hear name, but that she was the wife of Bill Clinton, and most of all planning to run for president for well over a decade. I recall even in 2004 when it was highly assumed that she was going to run for the presidency. The left dislikes her because she is Bill Clinton's wife. Bill Clinton is very vilified by much of the left wing. Mostly because he was the president that solidified the end of the new Deal Democrats and officially began the era of Third Wayism. This resulted in many moves that contributed to the financial crisis and the economic problems we have today such as the repeal of Glass Stegall, pushing the housing market, NAFTA, and welfare reform. On top of that he also was intricate in criminal justice reforms of the mass incarceration problem we see today, not to mention "super predators". Hillary Clinton was behind her husband all the way with most if not all of this and championed these things herself. Now obviously the more establishment type left leaners will defend these things as saying that "it was a different time", but the more "radical" types would say there was no excuse. I also have a strong feeling that if we had a time a machine and transported everyone back to that era, little in opinion would change. On top of all of this, Clinton has created an image of herself as a Centrist who speaks for "the average American". This made a lot of sense in the '90s and 2000s. However, the 2010s is a very different landscape with a much more populist base on all sides. Due to Hillary marketing herself as a lot less left wing she is, it shouldn't come to surprise that people on the left are distasteful of her. "Middle America" dislikes Hillary due to the combination of the right wing demagogue, the fact that she's been in politics so long ("no one can be in politics all these years and have their hands clean"), and that as even her supporters say, she comes off as very awkward at times. The first impression of Hillary is a "politician" through and through. Her supporters may clap when she says lines in debate like "I don't imagine an America for only the 1%, I don't imagine an America for only the poor, I imagine an America for everybody!", but everyone else just rolls their eyes. This is why there was such a stark contrast between her popularity during the Democratic primaries and her relative poor popularity during the general, specifically prior the first debate. Not to mention she does flipflop on major policies at times, such as her recent notorious awkward change of heart with TPP. I'm not saying I agree with all or any of the "sides". Personally, I feel that Hillary will make a fine president. However, she does have some skeletons in her closet. It's just that the size of the closet as been hilariously over-exaggerated.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I don't understand why other people don't understand the hate for Hillary Clinton. The reality is that all political spectrum have a distaste for her due to various reasons. I don't think that's the issue. There's this vague area of "i don't like Hilary Clinton and..." where the actual result is the big argument because in our fptp all anyone cares about is relative votes. I did think it was notable in the other thread all the best most coherent arguments against Hilary were from foreigners who can't vote and largely more focused on US foreign policy in general than Hillary herself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Basically you know how John Oliver discussed that Sweedengate thing and Hillary's involvement in it? I am certain the majority of people who "hate Hillary" hate her for roughly the same reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I don't think that's the issue. There's this vague area of "i don't like Hilary Clinton and..." where the actual result is the big argument because in our fptp all anyone cares about is relative votes. Could you please elaborate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
A good chunk of the left loves Bill. The only hate for Hillary that is 'more than half' is white men.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:A good chunk of the left loves Bill. No a good chunk of liberals love bill. The left can't really stand him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:No a good chunk of liberals love bill. The left can't really stand him.  Please illustrate what the difference is between the two and what chunk of the electorate you think they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:There is a difference between support and turnout Yes, but these changes occur over extended periods of time. A solidly blue or red state is not going to stop being solidly red/blue before this election any more than most Democrats might suddenly start voting for the Green Party. You would be able to see the trend as fewer people decided to vote Democrat (or whatever); it's not a change that will suddenly occur in a large population. The fact that it's technically possible for a bunch of Democrats to not vote in a solidly blue state (and cause the state to no longer be blue as a result) doesn't change the fact that the chance is still negligible. It's possible for a state to change within a certain margin of error before the election, and if you live in one of those states you should absolutely vote Democrat. But if you don't, the state isn't going to suddenly experience some radically different change in voting patterns. So basically my point here is that there's no moral or practical reason to vote Democratic if you live in a state that is currently solidly red/blue (unless your favorite candidate is actually Clinton, of course). edit: For the record, I'll be voting for Clinton in a solidly red state, but that is because I think that she is actually the best candidate, not as some calculus to defeat Trump. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:
Liberals vs socialists is what they mean, and I leave you three guesses as to how many americans outside of web forums identify as socialists and related.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
All of their friends do, that's all that matters, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
vintagepurple posted:Liberals vs socialists is what they mean, and I leave you three guesses as to how many americans outside of web forums identify as socialists and related.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
So now that Hillary is showing leads that could make Texas, Illinois, etc go blue, will the 3rd party voters in this thread vote for her to help push her over the edge?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Mrit posted:So now that Hillary is showing leads that could make Texas, Illinois, etc go blue, will the 3rd party voters in this thread vote for her to help push her over the edge? It honestly might be fun to vote for her just to help run up the score.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It honestly might be fun to vote for her just to help run up the score. IDK, the petulant whining that would come from her not pulling a Nixon would be entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:IDK, the petulant whining that would come from her not pulling a Nixon would be entertaining. If you think a Hillary Clinton win is going to be met by anything but "oh thank loving christ this loving election is over" you're kidding yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:If you think a Hillary Clinton win is going to be met by anything but "oh thank loving christ this loving election is over" you're kidding yourself. Making/Seeing Scott Adams cry is always worth it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:If you think a Hillary Clinton win is going to be met by anything but "oh thank loving christ this loving election is over" you're kidding yourself. For the most part, definitely, but there will be those few who'll get indignant about Hillary not winninig by enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:For the most part, definitely, but there will be those few who'll get indignant about Hillary not winninig by enough. I don't think you really understand what is going on with this election.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Mrit posted:I don't think you really understand what is going on with this election. Trump will not win. With that in mind if people want to vote for minuscule leftist parties they might as well go nuts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Trump will not win. With that in mind if people want to vote for minuscule leftist parties they might as well go nuts. This election is not at all in the bag to that degree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Trump will not win. With that in mind if people want to vote for minuscule leftist parties they might as well go nuts. A catastrophic loss by the GOP will do a lot more to advance progressive ideas in this country than any number of votes for vanity parties. MizPiz posted:For the most part, definitely, but there will be those few who'll get indignant about Hillary not winninig by enough. You are a few bad decisions away from a "Like this and drive liberals MAD!" poster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Hillary's going to win. If you ever bought into that lesser of two evils poo poo to begin with (you shouldn't), you can vote your conscience now. Also pay attention to the downticket stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:This election is not at all in the bag to that degree. Have you paid attention to anything that has happened in the last few days? It's over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 05:57
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Our point doesn't change just because one party is nigh-guaranteed to win. Burning your vote on third party self-soothing is still a bad idea. And a nigh-guarantee is not a guarantee, so pull that lever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:A catastrophic loss by the GOP will do a lot more to advance progressive ideas in this country than any number of votes for vanity parties. Seems more likely that a catastrophic loss by the GOP would convince the Democratic leadership that their milquetoast lobbyist-friendly centrism is what the voter base really wants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:Seems more likely that a catastrophic loss by the GOP would convince the Democratic leadership that their milquetoast lobbyist-friendly centrism is what the voter base really wants. Of course! The only way the left will get what they want if if the right takes over, why didn't I see it before? because its retarded
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Of course! The only way the left will get what they want if if the right takes over, why didn't I see it before? How the gently caress do you get "therefore, let the Republicans win" out of what I said?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:
The left dislike Liberalism because historically the push for the rights of the individual, which Liberalism stands for, has historically been used as a cudgel against minorities, particularly in the areas of slavery and eugenics, if not outright genocide. Read Liberalism: A Counter-History by Domenico Losurdo for a good summary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:A catastrophic loss by the GOP will do a lot more to advance progressive ideas in this country than any number of votes for vanity parties. Why would the D team promote more progressive ideas if they know they have the left wing vote in the bag? The rich people who run the party would instead look to get more right-wing voters by putting in right-wing policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:09
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:A catastrophic loss by the GOP will do a lot more to advance progressive ideas in this country than any number of votes for vanity parties. The GOP can still catastrophically lose, especially in the popular vote, while the democratic party gets unexpectedly pinched by support for further left third parties. This election is in the bag, if people want to try and make it clear to the democrats that they expect a more consistent leftwing path for the future there is nothing to lose except for boorish democratic party loyalists if they vote for a different party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
Of course the Democratic party will swing conservative after watching the Republican party get torn apart by its dying out conservative followers. It makes perfect sense. Inside every leftist/liberal (your pick) lies a hardcore conservative racist just waiting to get out. After all it's not like there's any difference between Liberals now and liberals in the past. Go for it, vote for your vanity party choice. That's sure to stem the inevitable rightward swing of the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Why would the D team promote more progressive ideas if they know they have the left wing vote in the bag? The rich people who run the party would instead look to get more right-wing voters by putting in right-wing policy. Why would they promote progressive ideas if the "left wing vote" can't ever be satisfied? They've put out the most progressive platform in Dem history and if they then see a bunch of lefties voting for third parties, it would be logical to drop them and turn to the center and the disaffected right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Of course the Democratic party will swing conservative after watching the Republican party get torn apart by its dying out conservative followers. It makes perfect sense. What the gently caress relation does this have to anything I posted. In the event that the Republicans really do blow up this time(they won't) then the Democrats could just try to position themselves to try and gobble up 'moderate' conservative votes, especially if they know that they effectively have the entire left wing of the country captive. This was really obviously what a lot of people within the democratic party hoped to do this election when it was clear that Trump wasn't going to be stopped. In that event, why should they bother tracking leftward away from the center? So long as they always have lefty votes then the main battleground will probably be the sort of people who consider themselves economically liberal and don't really care about social issues like Gay marriage enough to vote Republican when they're represented by somebody like Trump. The fact that the left made an unusual amount of fuss this year in America was the main thing stifling that from happening, and voting third party is a part of that by showing that the Democrats aren't automatically entitled to peoples votes, especially in a year they are guaranteed to win in large part because of the chaos the other guys are going through.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
Sure, and only your brave votes for vanity parties that don't show up for off-year elections or in many cases downtickets in general can stop that.Barbe Rouge posted:Why would they promote progressive ideas if the "left wing vote" can't ever be satisfied? They've put out the most progressive platform in Dem history and if they then see a bunch of lefties voting for third parties, it would be logical to drop them and turn to the center and the disaffected right. It all makes perfect sense since as Woke True Leftists they can see that that platform is simply a deceptive veil over the arch conservative core inside of the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:The GOP can still catastrophically lose, especially in the popular vote, while the democratic party gets unexpectedly pinched by support for further left third parties. This election is in the bag, if people want to try and make it clear to the democrats that they expect a more consistent leftwing path for the future there is nothing to lose except for boorish democratic party loyalists if they vote for a different party. Well, maybe, but it's not like there's been a convincing case made in this thread that voting third party sends a "clear" message. Or any message at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
If I'm told to vote for "the lesser of two evils," then the "lesser of 3 evils" is not an unreasonable stretch. "You're throwing your vote away", as a statement, also gives me a vibe that someone is angry that other people didn't validate them by voting for their candidate. Sulphuric Asshole fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:The left dislike Liberalism because historically the push for the rights of the individual, which Liberalism stands for, has historically been used as a cudgel against minorities, particularly in the areas of slavery and eugenics, if not outright genocide. That said, I'm sure there are people who can name specific beefs with some interpretations of Liberalism, like the Founding Fathers and their love of slavery, in much the same way as people can rightly point out a lot of flaws in the Soviet interpretation of Socialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Why would the D team promote more progressive ideas if they know they have the left wing vote in the bag? The rich people who run the party would instead look to get more right-wing voters by putting in right-wing policy. Because the leadership doesn't have complete control over who runs, and if they get too out of touch with the base, their candidates will get primaried. If a conservative candidate makes it onto the general election ballot in the first place, then clearly the base wasn't really all that ticked off about that candidate after all. If you want to influence the direction of a party, you need to care about the political process more than just 1-2 months every 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Mrit posted:So now that Hillary is showing leads that could make Texas, Illinois, etc go blue, will the 3rd party voters in this thread vote for her to help push her over the edge? Illinois has been a blue state since 1988. What the gently caress do you mean "go blue"? Is she gonna make DC go blue too? She really is a modern miracle!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 21:01 |
|
|
To try (likely in vain) to sway the conversation back to the original question, there is one major reason why voting for anyone other than the major D and R candidates for POTUS is worthless: The Spoiler Effect. The Spoiler Effect is a result of a "First Past the Post" or "Winner Take All" voting system. This is the voting system that the US uses, and basically says that everyone gets one vote, and 50% + 1 vote wins. This results in a voting system that trends towards two political parties because of the mathematics of how votes are tallied. Over the course of multiple elections, citizens will start to "meta-vote", where they don't vote for the candidate they like the best, but rather vote against the candidate they liked the least. To use a modern example (assuming all three were running), it would be like voting for Hillary instead of Bernie, even though you like Bernie more, because you feel like Hillary has a better chance of beating Trump, and you REALLY don't want Trump to win. This happens in reverse as well. To use the same example, if Bernie were to announce that he was running, and that his name would be on the ballot, he would just pull votes away from Hillary, resulting in a Trump win, because while Hillary and Bernie have an overlapping constituency, who can only vote for one of them, people wanting to cast their vote toward the other end of the spectrum would only have one choice. Here is a video explaining the problems better, and he also has videos showing the pros and cons of other voting systems, and the problems with the Electoral College, which is also a factor in devaluing votes in American politics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 16:58
|
|