Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Chaoswizkid]

if Bachmann wins the nomination, I may just have to vote against her, whoever that someone else is.

Who[m]ever they are.  It's not just two people running... can't think of a time when it ever has been just two.

Fair enough, though I'm not really wrong with what I'm saying. I'm not voting for someone I support, I'm voting against her. Someone is going to be a main opponent, or most likely to succeed against her. I don't think I'd be wrong in assuming that it'd probably be a Democrat, but all they'd have to be is the main person who can beat her. A situation in which there are multiple people who have an equal chance of success against her is unlikely, but if it did happen, then yes, it should be rephrased with "are".

I'm not really sure if the correction to "whomever" works here, though. The sentence would need to be broken down, and I think the end might be an improper clause, which would invalidate either form since one couldn't figure out if it's the subject of the clause or if it's an object of something else.

[Leafsnail]

It's not refusal.  There is no legitimate comparison.  One is race relations and the other is another "branch" of Civil Rights.  One had what amounted to a Federal decree that institutions must provide equal service if separated (even though they ignored it) and the other has no Federal acknowledgement at all.

The thing that's annoying is that you've completely missed the point of the comparison every time.  I mean, I wouldn't mind if you got the point and then said it wasn't a valid comparison, but the points you're using to dismiss it are irrelevant to the actual argument (ie the comparison is still valid even though it's another branch of Civil Rights (that's the whole point of a comparison!) and if one is acknowledged by states rather than the federal government).

[Bauglir]

It's not refusal.  There is no legitimate comparison.  One is race relations and the other is another "branch" of Civil Rights.  One had what amounted to a Federal decree that institutions must provide equal service if separated (even though they ignored it) and the other has no Federal acknowledgement at all.

Well, the point is that the principle of "Separate but Equal is never Equal" applies more broadly than just to race relations; there's no significant difference, as long as you have two groups, one of which is powerful and despises the other, and which are arbitrarily kept separate, when the powerful group determines what is or is not "equal". Note that when "Separate but Equal" is brought up, people never say "Separate but Equal Races" or something like that. Essentially, it comes off as if you know the event that actually occurred, but don't understand the reasoning behind the decisions made, or the actual implications of those decisions. It's the historical equivalent of saying that 2+2 = 4, but that 2+3 does not necessarily = 5, because there's no logical connection between the two.

[Andir]

Someone is going to be a main opponent, or most likely to succeed against her. I don't think I'd be wrong in assuming that it'd probably be a Democrat, but all they'd have to be is the main person who can beat her.

That's the main problem I had with that statement.  You are negative voting.  You are voting for the person you think will win in order to prevent another from winning, irregardless of your actual thoughts on the issues (edit) irregardless of your actual feelings toward the person you will be voting for.

[Chaoswizkid]

Someone is going to be a main opponent, or most likely to succeed against her. I don't think I'd be wrong in assuming that it'd probably be a Democrat, but all they'd have to be is the main person who can beat her.

That's the main problem I had with that statement.  You are negative voting.  You are voting for the person you think will win in order to prevent another from winning, irregardless of your actual thoughts on the issues (edit) irregardless of your actual feelings toward the person you will be voting for.

That's pretty much it. However, if the main opponent (most likely to succeed) also has a poor character, or whose campaign mainly focuses on an aspect I find appalling, then the situation returns closer to an even playing field. In my opinion, it's very difficult for any administration to actually do a whole lot. You have four years to really change things, 8 if you get re-elected and can keep those policies running, but it's more likely that the next person in office will tweak or annul them (which is what most of the GOP candidates are talking about). Therefore, even if I don't necessarily agree with most of their policies, as long as they don't stand for something I'm truly afraid of and as long as they have a better character, I'd rather vote for them and keep her out of office. I'd rather have someone who is a better person in office whose sociopolitical views I somewhat disagree with.
That is, of course, if she doesn't redeem herself between now and then. Looking at what she's running for, though, it looks like I don't support her platform either, so there are multiple negatives involved at this early stage.

[RedKing]

Someone is going to be a main opponent, or most likely to succeed against her. I don't think I'd be wrong in assuming that it'd probably be a Democrat, but all they'd have to be is the main person who can beat her.

That's the main problem I had with that statement.  You are negative voting.  You are voting for the person you think will win in order to prevent another from winning, irregardless of your actual thoughts on the issues (edit) irregardless of your actual feelings toward the person you will be voting for.

That's not negative voting, it's voting. Just plain voting. When you are presented with two viable options, you weight them against each other. If one option is incredibly poorly ranked in your judgement, then the other option is your choice by default. I think it's obvious that if Bachmann was the GOP candidate and the Dem candidate was someone equally repugnant (difficult to imagine, but let's just assume) that the poster would then revisit his initial pledge and either vote third party or abstain altogether.

To put it another way, saying "Vote for the person you like best" and "vote for the person you dislike least" are essentially the same thing in a two-party system. And if you dislike one of the candidates enough to want to actively deny them the seat (which is pretty damn common in most races these days, given the hyperbolic rhetoric) then you're not going to cast your vote outside the two-party framework. Bottom line: if you want people to move away from the "lesser of two evils" mindset, you have to either get rid of the two-party system and/or get rid of first-past-the-post voting.

[PTTG??]

Note that FPTP Voting only allows a two-party system.

[Jack A T]

Note that FPTP Voting only allows a two-party system.

Actually, Canada uses it, and Canada has more than two major parties.  FPTP doesn't force a two-party system.  It does make a system with more than two major parties work poorly, but it doesn't force a two-party system.

[Andir]

Note that FPTP Voting only allows a two-party system.

Actually, Canada uses it, and Canada has more than two major parties.  FPTP doesn't force a two-party system.  It does make a system with more than two major parties work poorly, but it doesn't force a two-party system.

Yeah, but at some point Canadians figured out that a third party could be viable and stopped the ridiculous "Voting against Bob, because I don't like Bob."  Unfortunately, some people even take this as far as "I don't like Bob's party because Joe did something in the past, so I'll vote for the other side just so Bob doesn't win.  Since I'm a vindictive fucker, I'm voting for the one that will assure Bob doesn't win even if I don't know what that person is about.  I just know it's not Bob."

[Neonivek]

Canada's multiparty system also has the disadvantage of having a pernament split vote.

The Conservatives don't have to share their votes with anybody. The Liberals/NDP/Bloc/Greenparty/PC all share their votes with eachother.

This is one of the major reasons for the Canadian Minority. It isn't because the Conservatives got more popular (well in part it is) but rather because the Liberals got a lot weaker and got a split vote.

It will pretty much go on forever until someone gets fed up.

[RedKing]

Note that FPTP Voting only allows a two-party system.

Actually, Canada uses it, and Canada has more than two major parties.  FPTP doesn't force a two-party system.  It does make a system with more than two major parties work poorly, but it doesn't force a two-party system.

Yeah, but at some point Canadians figured out that a third party could be viable and stopped the ridiculous "Voting against Bob, because I don't like Bob."  Unfortunately, some people even take this as far as "I don't like Bob's party because Joe did something in the past, so I'll vote for the other side just so Bob doesn't win.  Since I'm a vindictive fucker, I'm voting for the one that will assure Bob doesn't win even if I don't know what that person is about.  I just know it's not Bob."

To be fair, if Joe is the leader of Bob's party in the legislature, and I think Joe is a piece of utter s--t, then not voting for Bob because it gives Joe more power is a fairly valid (and strategic) decision.

It's the reason that Nancy Pelosi was demonized in the runup to the 2010 elections. "You HAVE to vote for Republicans, because a vote for a Democratic Representative *anywhere* is a vote to let Nancy Pelosi turn your unborn babies gay, and abort those she can't convert."

Political races don't occur in a vacuum.

[Andir]

Note that FPTP Voting only allows a two-party system.

Actually, Canada uses it, and Canada has more than two major parties.  FPTP doesn't force a two-party system.  It does make a system with more than two major parties work poorly, but it doesn't force a two-party system.

Yeah, but at some point Canadians figured out that a third party could be viable and stopped the ridiculous "Voting against Bob, because I don't like Bob."  Unfortunately, some people even take this as far as "I don't like Bob's party because Joe did something in the past, so I'll vote for the other side just so Bob doesn't win.  Since I'm a vindictive fucker, I'm voting for the one that will assure Bob doesn't win even if I don't know what that person is about.  I just know it's not Bob."

To be fair, if Joe is the leader of Bob's party in the legislature, and I think Joe is a piece of utter s--t, then not voting for Bob because it gives Joe more power is a fairly valid (and strategic) decision.

It's the reason that Nancy Pelosi was demonized in the runup to the 2010 elections. "You HAVE to vote for Republicans, because a vote for a Democratic Representative *anywhere* is a vote to let Nancy Pelosi turn your unborn babies gay, and abort those she can't convert."

Political races don't occur in a vacuum.

It may be a "valid strategy" but it still enforces the two party system and has an overall negative effect.

[RedKing]

Michelle Bachmann is polling in a close 2nd place to Romney in Iowa. Granted, this is because she has a quasi-home turf advantage. After all, she's from the same town as John Wayne! Oops. Wrong John Wayne. But never you mind that, she meant the right thing and that's what matters! Stop your gotcha liberal journalism, goshdarnit!

Bill Maher said it best: Bachmann is for people who like Palin, but think she's too intellectual.

I think she'll do well in Iowa and South Carolina, because both states have a lot of religious social conservatives. I think she'll get slapped down hard in New Hampshire. New England Republicans are an entirely different (and altogether more sensible) breed, mostly focused on fiscal conservatism. I expect Romney to clean her clock there, and that's when the fireworks will start.

The interesting thing is that if you poll "Republican candidate vs. Obama", you get mixed results, and a fairly close race either way. If you poll specific candidates against Obama, it's a curb-stomp race that ends with Obama chillaxin' on his throne as his enemies are crushed beneath his heel. With the slight exception of Romney, who puts up a decent challenge but still loses. Palin and Bachmann are the worst pollers, -18 and -17.7 points respectively.

So basically, people ain't thrilled with Obama right now, but they sure as hell ain't thrilled with the craptastic GOP field either.

[Andir]

Michelle Bachmann is polling in a close 2nd place to Romney in Iowa. Granted, this is because she has a quasi-home turf advantage. After all, she's from the same town as John Wayne! Oops. Wrong John Wayne. But never you mind that, she meant the right thing and that's what matters! Stop your gotcha liberal journalism, goshdarnit!

The boneheaded part of that is how obvious it was a marketing ploy rather than her actually knowing/feeling that.  She loses a lot of points (she didn't have any... so negative points!) from me simply for the fact that she's not being honest from the start and paying someone else to come up with sales pitches for her.  I actually felt the same way about Obama in his race but look how that turned out.

[PTTG??]

There are a lot of people who really need to grow up and learn to ignore the puppet show. Bachman is a gibbering idiot and everyone, including her staff, knows that. She will not run for president, and if the Republican party wanted to throw the race or something and select her, it would be because they know she will not win.

Please focus on people who have real policies and might have a chance to implement them.