POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

I'm not just talking about one outlet here. I'm talking about how ridiculously transparent it is that every news outlet suddenly started saying the Biden must step aside but they don't ever say that about the rapist, insurrectionist, fraudster convicted felon with blatantly obvious fascist tendencies.

You can try harder to miss the point if you'd like, though.

This guy sums it up pretty well:
https://youtu.be/yOET7XiyLro?t=200

3:20 in case the URL doesn't go straight to it.

It seems like that "suddenness" is because of his performance at the debate. It's not like it came out of nowhere.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

My .02 is that you may be reaching the wrong conclusion there.

What conclusion am I reaching?

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Some of this depends on what you think would happen if each dropped out, about which there's been a lot of speculation but that's all there can be. I think RainMaker has the right of it on the why here though; calling on Trump to drop out would be shouting at the rain. He's not going to do that. Before Biden's statement there was at least potentially a chance he might, and that it would improve the odds of Trump losing. I don't happen to agree with that projection, but I think it's fairly clear where it comes from and I don't think it's from a desire to treat Biden worse than Trump.

I don't care where the desire comes from. I want the media to do better. It shouldn't matter at all what would happen if one of them dropped out. If a media outlet is considering that when reporting, they aren't doing their job.

I think you're both assuming I'm upset because they aren't treating my favorite old man with kid gloves.

No.

I'm upset because the media is doing a bullshit job of covering the election all around, and this is one of the most obvious examples.

Their lack of calling out Trump for his bullshit debate performance but slathering all over Biden for...checks notes...being old is a fucking joke.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It seems like that "suddenness" is because of his performance at the debate. It's not like it came out of nowhere.

You don't say?

jfc

[RainMaker]

The media mostly sucks but them calling for Biden to drop out is probably the most responsible thing they've done in some time

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by KSyrup

practically, you have two choices and you have some insight into who is winning/losing and how the election most likely is going to turn out. One or the other is going to win. For bad or worse, that's our system - it's baked in. And so with that information, the choice one makes to vote 3rd party or sit home when you would not support one of the two candidates under any circumstances is support for the ultimate winner. It just is.

Nothing is baked in. Every potential voter has the same choice. There is a difference between a certain amount of it being predictable, and the idea that those engaging in that predictable choice not having the option to choose something else. There's nothing preventing people from spreading their vote around to 10 different candidates with, say, a 5-20% split going to each.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If Ralph Nader didn't run, Al Gore would've won. (There's not a reasonable argument otherwise here.)

If Jill Stein didn't run, Hillary might've won.

Both candidates could've and should've run much better campaigns. There's no doubt about that. But that doesn't change the belief in many people's eyes that the country would be better off if Gore and Hillary had won. And I wish more people had thought about that instead of voting for Nader and Stein.

Primarily, my problems with all of this are it places disproportionate 'blame', implies the single-cause fallacy, and most of all that it effectively blames a small group of people for the actions of a much larger group instead of letting each person's choice stand on it's own.

Let's take that 2000 Florida example. I agree that if you assume nothing else changes and reassign the people who voted for Nader to Bush/Gore, Gore wins. But ... you can't do that, it's not a realistic scenario. If Nader isn't in the campaign or has negligible support, there are significant changes in the campaign itself. Probably that leans significantly Gore's way, but there are so many other things which could have changed the outcome, not limited to the legal cases, media coverage, weather in certain areas, what the campaigns did and said in response to Nader's candidacy, lower turnout of about 80% of the 2020 level proportionally, the list is almost endless. After all, Florida was not the only close state:

- If Gore wins his home state, he's elected.
- Gore won Iowa by 0.3%, just over 4,000 votes.
- Bush won New Hamsphire by 1.3%, a little over 5,000 votes
- Gore won New Mexico by 0.1%, less than 400 votes
- Gore won Oregon by 0.5%, less than 7,000 votes
- Gore won Wisconsin by 0.2%, less than 6,000 votes

The overall voting went Gore's way by a modest shift from the pre-election polling. It's not hard at all to find a path for either candidate to get 310-320 EV or more just by changing states that were quite close.

On the side of emphasis, Nader got almost 100k votes in Florida. Bush and Gore had 2.9M+ each. Giving all of Nader's votes to Gore does less for him than 1.7% of Bush's voters switching to Gore. Getting exercised about the third party is really badly missing the point, and it's mostly blaming the wrong people. As I mentioned previously, it also ignores the flip side, which is that a vote for the R or D candidate implicitly says 'these candidates are good enough, I affirm one of them as my choice for president' even if you think both are wholly unqualified. It perpetuates the system.

Ranked choice has gotten some attention here; I suggest looking at Australia, where they've had it for a century. Result; they have two dominant parties they aren't happy with. Ranked choice isn't a solution.

A prospective voter is not responsible for other voters deciding to vote for the R and D candidates overwhelmingly. Those voters, and only those, are accountable for that. They are responsible only for their choice, and it only takes a very small percentage of that predictable 'lesser of two evils' group switching candidates to flip a close election. Those are where almost all of the blame should lie, secondarily those who don't vote at all, and the third/party protest voters should be given the basic respect of recognizing their vote for what it is, not what it isn't.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

What conclusion am I reaching?

That Biden is being treated unfairly.

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Their lack of calling out Trump for his bullshit debate performance but slathering all over Biden for...checks notes...being old is a fucking joke.

There are all kinds of reporting that has been done on this, including by 'major/mainstream' news outlets. Trump was called out for it. Debates are, by definition, an exercise in comparision. If one candidate is perceived by the relevant group of people - those who watched it - to have done far worse than the other, that is the story. This is not an ivory tower/Oxford dry theoretical exercise. The whole point of the debate is to convince voters, and that doesn't include just the substance of what you say. The first televised debates between Nixon and Kennedy were notable precisely for the visual impression the candidates made.

That's what political debating is. That is the story.

[larrymcg421]

If a majority of the country does not want someone to be President (or a majority of the state/district, etc.), then they shouldn't be President just because that majority is split in a specific way. I like ranked choice because it ensures that doesn't happen.

The most recent Australian election is a great example. Labor lost the popular vote on the first ballot 35%-32% but most of the third party voters preferred them and they won with 52%. That's the way it should work.

The problem for third parties in Australia's system is similar to ours, where a single member district legislative body means the greens only got 4 seats (up from 1 the previous election!) instead of the 16-17 seats they'd get if it was a proportional system.

[RainMaker]

I'm fine with ranked choice or runoffs. If the 2 major parties are upset with "spoiler 3rd parties", they are free to implement it. Otherwise, they have no one to blame but themselves.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I really don't understand this kind of thing. Like everyone else they had a chance to pick a candidate and primary Biden. Harris had her chance in the '20 primary, and I think there's virtually no chance of Democrats losing their votes long-term over this kind of thing.

I think you misunderstood my entire scenario. I'm talking about if Biden gets replaced and then it's someone other than Harris. African-Americans wouldn't have primaried Biden even if there was a real competitive primary, because they largely like Biden, which helped him win the nomination in 2020. Even today, they're the demographic who most support him remaining on the ballot.

The scenario I'm talking about is if Biden steps down and Kamala doesn't get the nomination. That will be very damaging and Trump will be sure to make an issue of it in the campaign. Sure Kamala ran a terrible campaign in 2020 (like Biden did many times before he won), but it won't even really be about Kamala, but more about the optics of passing over the sitting VP for a white candidate, when the most recent Dem VP hasn't been denied the nomination since the 1950's.

[Ksyrup]

If Biden stepped down, it would be a Harris/Pete B campaign. None of the other major contenders are going to be willing to resign their offices to run for 3-4 months trying to overcome a Trump lead, either for president or VP. Buttigieg has name recognition and a largely favorable view, and also has at least some actual governing experience. And he's a cabinet member so he's out if they lose anyway.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If Biden stepped down, it would be a Harris/Pete B campaign. None of the other major contenders are going to be willing to resign their offices to run for 3-4 months trying to overcome a Trump lead, either for president or VP. Buttigieg has name recognition and a largely favorable view, and also has at least some actual governing experience. And he's a cabinet member so he's out if they lose anyway.

Pretty much the only alternative that had any way of getting selected, but in the end nothing is happening. There was an attempt, but it got no real traction and is already going off the rails. No one is going to force Biden off the ticket, and he is not willing to step aside. Pretty much ends it.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Nothing is baked in. Every potential voter has the same choice. There is a difference between a certain amount of it being predictable, and the idea that those engaging in that predictable choice not having the option to choose something else. There's nothing preventing people from spreading their vote around to 10 different candidates with, say, a 5-20% split going to each.

This is completely wrong from a practical standpoint. It's just word salad theory. This country is by now so hardwired into a 2-party system that, even if the Dems put forth a near-perfect candidate, approximately 47-49% of this country would vote for a convicted felon, a good chunk of whom would do so enthusiastically and another decent portion basically sleepwalking to the polls to vote for him simply because of the R behind his name. They won't even consider a D vote, let alone a vote for a legit 3rd party "mainstreamer" (I'm thinking of a moderate candidate who left either party to run).

Although I fear the next couple decades might give us ample opportunities to test this theory, I can't think of a better opportunity than this election - the POS that is Trump, who wants to be an authoritarian, mainlines Big Macs and tweets insane/inappropriate things from the shitter at 3am versus a decent but clearly in cognitive decline 80+ year old who has politely asked to be able to run the free world during bankers hours so he can get enough sleep so he can try to function like he's 76 again instead of 81.

I mean, come on. Where's your legit 3rd/4th/5th candidate we can all spread 5-10% amongst? The kooks and single issue/extremist candidates don't count.

And beyond the binary choice being hardwired, the system is set up to favor only the 2 major parties. There is something preventing people from being able to vote amongst 4-5 real choices - ballot access. You can't get on the ballot in all the states without significant support, and we as a country largely don't want to support anyone but an R or a D. And the Rs and Ds don't want you to have a choice, either.

So please, come join us back on planet earth in 'Murica, won't you?

[larrymcg421]

National : President: Democratic primary : 2024 Polls | FiveThirtyEight

Harris leads all non-Biden Dem primary polling right now.

[Ksyrup]

I had somewhat forgotten how Biden became the nominee (4 years ago is a long time!), but this hits the nail right on the head (from the The Bulwark):

Four years ago, at a crucial moment in the Democratic presidential primary, several candidates made a strategic decision to drop out and endorse Joe Biden. They did so because they figured, correctly, that he would give the party its best chance to defeat Donald Trump.

Now it’s Biden’s turn to reciprocate. Having aged and diminished, he’s no longer the strongest candidate to put up against Trump. He should withdraw from the race and yield to a better nominee. But he’s refusing to do so.

This is hypocritical and selfish. Let’s remind Biden of what others in his party did for him.

In February 2020, Biden’s candidacy was all but dead. He finished fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire. Bernie Sanders tied for first in Iowa, won New Hampshire and Nevada, and was on his way to the nomination.

Then, in South Carolina, Biden thumped Sanders. Biden still trailed in the delegate count, but his win gave Democrats hope that in a one-on-one race, he could outrun his leftist counterpart, capture the nomination, and beat Trump.

So on March 2, just before Super Tuesday, two candidates who had done well in Iowa and New Hampshire—Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar—threw their support to Biden. They said they were doing it for the team.

Buttigieg said the goal of his campaign—“rallying the country together to defeat Donald Trump”—was “much bigger than me becoming president. And it is in the name of that very same goal that I’m delighted to endorse and support Joe Biden for president.”

Klobuchar praised Biden as a good soul who appreciated and would model this spirit of altruism. She said he would be “a president that understands that service is not about self-interest. It is about sacrifice.”

Two days later, a third candidate, Michael Bloomberg, bowed out and joined the Biden bandwagon. “I’ve always believed that defeating Donald Trump starts with uniting behind the candidate with the best shot to do it,” said Bloomberg.

Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Bloomberg were right. By yielding to Biden, they helped their party take down Trump.

Four years later, the situation has reversed. Biden is the one who should yield. Instead, he’s digging in.

[larrymcg421]

I don't agree that Bernie was on his way to the nomination. He had zero chance to get a majority of the delegates. He was relying on a split vote to have a plurality, but in the best case scenario for him, it would've been decided at the convention.

[Ksyrup]

Agreed - the early primaries were Bernie's sweet spot and he was going to fall back some. Although Biden was in serious trouble given his lackluster showing early on.

[Passacaglia]

It's nitpicking at this point, since I agree with the gist of the article, but Bernie also didn't "tie for first" in Iowa.

[RainMaker]

New AARP poll of Wisconsin, taken after debate.

Trump: 44 (+6pts)
Biden: 38
RFK: 9

Baldwin: 50 (+5)
Hovde: 45

— Elena Schneider (@ec_schneider) July 9, 2024

[RainMaker]

Decision Desk HQ/@thehill Battleground Poll Averages

Michigan - 40 polls
�� Trump (R): 42.6% (+0.9)
�� Biden (D): 41.7%
�� Kennedy Jr. (I): 6.3%

Wisconsin - 29 polls
�� Trump (R): 43.3% (+1.3)
�� Biden (D): 42.0%
�� Kennedy Jr. (I): 6.5%

Pennsylvania - 37 polls
�� Trump (R):… pic.twitter.com/OjcmZxCYn2

— Decision Desk HQ (@DecisionDeskHQ) July 9, 2024

[GrantDawg]

I think he might be on to something....

Sen John Fetterman (D-PA) about Pres Biden electoral chances

“Maybe we can encourage President Biden to bang a porn star”

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) July 9, 2024

[Ksyrup]

Biden already has a enough bad visuals out there. Fetterman is not doing him any favors in an effort to go viral with such a clever quip.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Biden already has a enough bad visuals out there. Fetterman is not doing him any favors in an effort to go viral with such a clever quip.

Oh no. You think his poll numbers will fall even further?

[Ksyrup]

Of course they can. Not necessarily because of this - I was kinda making a joke.

That said, I can't remember the comedian, but some dude did a joke about setting up free wifi and calling it Hulk Hogan's Nutsack just so people have to put that visual in their head (and have to ask around for the PW when he cuts it off). The same thing applies here.

[albionmoonlight]

Heard a snippet of a news story on NPR about the Congresional Dems meeting. The majority of airtime was a long uninterrupted quote from some Congressman I’d never heard of explaining why Biden should get out of the race. Then it finished, almost as an afterthought, with “the vast majority of congressional Democrats came out of the meeting, expressing strong support for Biden campaign.”

[Brian Swartz]

The comparison with the 2020 primary is a very bad one. In that case, it was early in the primary season. Here, it is after the primary season when voters have already had their say on who the nominee should be.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The comparison with the 2020 primary is a very bad one. In that case, it was early in the primary season. Here, it is after the primary season when voters have already had their say on who the nominee should be.

The issue is that Biden, as the incumbent, was uniquely able to chart his own destiny as to whether to run and be virtually unopposed, or do the right thing and step aside for the good of the party/country. And, unlike 4 years ago when people got behind Biden as the best chance to defeat Trump, he's taken the selfish (deluded?) route.

Yes, it's happening now, but he and his people have known what his issues are for far longer. I would suggest they knew well before the primaries started. It's come to a head now, but if he had done the right thing months ago, we wouldn't be here. The voters didn't have a say in the primaries because if the incumbent is running, he's the nominee. Biden took advantage of the process but he has been unable to outrun what is now obvious to most everyone.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Heard a snippet of a news story on NPR about the Congresional Dems meeting. The majority of airtime was a long uninterrupted quote from some Congressman I’d never heard of explaining why Biden should get out of the race. Then it finished, almost as an afterthought, with “the vast majority of congressional Democrats came out of the meeting, expressing strong support for Biden campaign.”

bleeds, leads

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That Biden is being treated unfairly.

No. I didn't say that. I said the media coverage sucks.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

There are all kinds of reporting that has been done on this, including by 'major/mainstream' news outlets. Trump was called out for it.

Was there a huge media blitz demanding he drop out of the race?

No. Only now are a few media outlets saying wait a minute what just happened was fucking crazy. Most are still sticking to the Biden should drop out narrative.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The media mostly sucks but them calling for Biden to drop out is probably the most responsible thing they've done in some time

Utter nonsense. In fact, it's exactly the opposite of that.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Was there a huge media blitz demanding he drop out of the race?

Of course not. I think it would be absurd for such a thing to happen after a debate that was perceived to have won. All the stuff about him lying are the things that have been true since 2016. There was nothing new there to prompt such a call.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

bleeds, leads

This. I can't criticize the media too much here, because there is no way they can ignore cries from the incumbent presidents party for him to step aside. That is major news whether it is a freshman back-bencher or a major committee chair. Realistically though no one in upper leadership or anyone with any real power is calling for Biden to step aside, so there really isn't any danger of that happening. The fact that anyone at all is openly calling for it is a terrible sign, and not something to be ignored. They are seeing the numbers from their own polls and know there is real trouble. If they felt like Biden had a shot at winning, there is no way they would be speaking out now.

[Passacaglia]

Trump is the enemy. You don't ask the enemy to give up, because you know that's not going to happen.

[thesloppy]

This narrative about the mainstream press not demanding Trump bow out ignores a couple crucial issues:

A) Yes they have, repeatedly.
B) 'the media' you read and refer to is not the media that the typical Trump voter consumes.

To my ears, the cries of "the media never ask trump to drop out" sounds a lot more like "the media I consume need to immediately follow every piece of bad news about Biden with worse news about Trump, so I feel better"

What would really create parity here is for right-wing media to call for Trump to drop out, which is close to, but still a far different thing than what folks are crying for.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Of course not. I think it would be absurd for such a thing to happen after a debate that was perceived to have won. All the stuff about him lying are the things that have been true since 2016. There was nothing new there to prompt such a call.

And Biden being old was brand new information? No. Biden broadcast that he's old and isn't a great speaker, Trump broadcast that he is a lying traitorous piece of shit felon to a national audience and the clueless population thinks Trump won the debate and the media responds immediately by saying Biden should quit.

It's bullshit and I'm in awe that people here are defending it. Honestly, the reaction on this board is rather absurd to read. I thought I might enjoy a return to this board, but I'm quickly being reminded why I left in the first place.
I think I'll probably just FO somewhere else again.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Biden being old was brand new information? No. Biden broadcast that he's old and isn't a great speaker, Trump broadcast that he is a lying traitorous piece of shit felon to a national audience and the clueless population thinks Trump won the debate and the media responds immediately by saying Biden should quit.

Biden performing the way he did was new. Having a debate considered as decisive as the one was is very new. Having elected members of your own party say publicly you should step down because of it was new. Similar to how in 2016 it was also heavily covered that elected Republicans were not endorsing Trump, and rightfully so.

If you find it better to go somewhere else more power to you, but the whole point of this board is to discuss these things with people who might have different opinions.

[bronconick]

To be fair, it's 6 Congressmen, 0 Senators, and 0 Governors. One can sometime scrabble up 6 House members to endorse Satan, call for a ban on swimming half an hour after eating, object every four years at the Electoral college vote, or join a Madden tournament. Statewide Democrats joining would've probably really made real news.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

And Biden being old was brand new information? No. Biden broadcast that he's old and isn't a great speaker, Trump broadcast that he is a lying traitorous piece of shit felon to a national audience and the clueless population thinks Trump won the debate and the media responds immediately by saying Biden should quit.

No one cares who "won" the debate. The issue is that Biden looked and sounded like someone with severe cognitive issues. It was a startling performance, by far the worst we've ever seen in a televised debate.

The issue is that Biden can't win. He's down a ton in crucial swing states and we're now seeing other blue states being brought into play. The people asking for Biden to step aside don't want Trump to be President (that includes the media). They understand that an unpopular 82 year old with dementia is going to lose. If you still support Biden running, you have to accept that you are going to lose.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If Biden stepped down, it would be a Harris/Pete B campaign. None of the other major contenders are going to be willing to resign their offices to run for 3-4 months trying to overcome a Trump lead, either for president or VP. Buttigieg has name recognition and a largely favorable view, and also has at least some actual governing experience. And he's a cabinet member so he's out if they lose anyway.

This alone tells you that the Democrats don't believe the "democracy is at stake" talking point they keep using. They're perfectly fine having Trump in power for 4 more years and are planning on running in 2028.

With that said, I can't fathom it would be Mayor Pete as a running mate. I'd guess a Governor who isn't really a 2028 candidate. Roy Cooper or Tim Walz make the most sense. Walz particularly because he's in a crucial swing state. Cooper is term limited so he's got nothing to lose.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

And Biden being old was brand new information? No. Biden broadcast that he's old and isn't a great speaker, Trump broadcast that he is a lying traitorous piece of shit felon to a national audience and the clueless population thinks Trump won the debate and the media responds immediately by saying Biden should quit.

It's bullshit and I'm in awe that people here are defending it. Honestly, the reaction on this board is rather absurd to read. I thought I might enjoy a return to this board, but I'm quickly being reminded why I left in the first place.
I think I'll probably just FO somewhere else again.

Thanks for deleting the "random thoughts" thread on your way out. Talk about taking your ball and going home, eh?

[GrantDawg]

Ban that mf-er

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think he might be on to something....

Sen John Fetterman (D-PA) about Pres Biden electoral chances

“Maybe we can encourage President Biden to bang a porn star”

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) July 9, 2024

lol, Fetterman does have his moments.

[thesloppy]

"I thought I might enjoy a return to this board" via a political thread about the worst debate in the country's history and was truly shocked to find that this board, which I had already left, had not coalesced to present a single, cohesive narrative that was to my liking, in my absence. How absurd!

[GrantDawg]

A guy comes up to George Stephanopoulos on the street and asks him if he thinks Biden should step down. His response was, "He won't last four more years." Of course, the guy was recording it and put it on TMZ.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

White House caught in another lie. All these staffers should be blacklisted from working for any Democratic politician again. House should hold hearings too.

President Joe Biden saw neurologist at White House for Jan. 17 exam, press secretary says | AP News

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by KSyrup

This is completely wrong from a practical standpoint. It's just word salad theory.

It is neither word salad nor theory. It is basic fundamentals of how the voting process works.

Originally Posted by KSyrup

, even if the Dems put forth a near-perfect candidate, approximately 47-49% of this country would vote for a convicted felon, a good chunk of whom would do so enthusiastically and another decent portion basically sleepwalking to the polls to vote for him simply because of the R behind his name. They won't even consider a D vote, let alone a vote for a legit 3rd party "mainstreamer" (I'm thinking of a moderate candidate who left either party to run).

Most of the people who vote Biden do so for similar reasons. But again, just because they choose to do that, does not mean they couldn't choose to do something else. It also does not mean we should blame other voters for the fact that they do that.

Originally Posted by KSyrup

I mean, come on. Where's your legit 3rd/4th/5th candidate we can all spread 5-10% amongst? The kooks and single issue/extremist candidates don't count.

They all count. We could have random people off the street nominated by various parties and it could be spread that way. Voters choose not to do that, but there is absolutely nothing other than their own choice that makes it that way.

A certain percentage of people do vote for third-party candidates as we've observed. Another certain percentage of people don't vote. By your same logic, we could just say 'well that's baked-in, nothing to be done about that, it's just the way things work'. The whole point is the only reason it works that way is that voters choose that behavior, and in so doing choose the consequences that result.

Originally Posted by KSyrup

There is something preventing people from being able to vote amongst 4-5 real choices - ballot access. You can't get on the ballot in all the states without significant support, and we as a country largely don't want to support anyone but an R or a D. And the Rs and Ds don't want you to have a choice, either.

Sure, you need a certain level of support to get on the ballot. Who gets that support is chosen by the electorate. It all comes back to the same place, people choose. The fact that they often choose poorly, for terrible reasons, doesn't change whose responsibility that choice is.

This conversation gives me the impression that we're just trying to find any possible reason we can to not actually give voters the basic respect of taking their choices seriously, and absolve some of them for their responsibilities while assigning excessive blame to others. The system is not to blame for those choices, they are - and they also get the credit to the extent they choose well. What is totally unfair is viewing some votes/non-votes one way, and viewing others a different way because that's 'hard-wired' or 'baked-in', as if that didn't apply equally to all of it. Every person eligible to vote has a choice from the same basic options.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Thanks for deleting the "random thoughts" thread on your way out. Talk about taking your ball and going home, eh?

WTF? Did he really do that?

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Thanks for deleting the "random thoughts" thread on your way out. Talk about taking your ball and going home, eh?

Originally Posted by Edward64

WTF? Did he really do that?

I don't know for sure. All I know is that he started that thread (which I think means he's the only one that can delete it), he posted here in a snit about leaving, and now the thread is gone. I guess we learned our lesson for crossing him...

I sent SkyDog an email because I think he can undelete it. But he didn't answer an email from a few weeks ago. I hope he thinks he might enjoy a return to the board to see what he can do.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This conversation gives me the impression that we're just trying to find any possible reason we can to not actually give voters the basic respect of taking their choices seriously, and absolve some of them for their responsibilities while assigning excessive blame to others. The system is not to blame for those choices, they are - and they also get the credit to the extent they choose well. What is totally unfair is viewing some votes/non-votes one way, and viewing others a different way because that's 'hard-wired' or 'baked-in', as if that didn't apply equally to all of it. Every person eligible to vote has a choice from the same basic options.

Yes, what I'm saying is that you are ignoring the realities of how human beings act. I agree with you that these are all choices we (collectively) make. Everyone is free to vote for whomever they want. That's all theory, except for a few percent of people who (for a variety of reasons, most of which are largely determined independent of each other - meaning, there's no broad collective group consensus to those votes) decide not to vote for an R or a D.

The reason why I say this is "theory" and not reality is that what you're proposing will never happen - at least, not until something so drastic happens in this country that it causes a reconfiguration of our political sensabilities to the point where a large portion of the population throws away the ingrained concept of a 2-party system. But even then, I think the inclination is to either (a) defend "your team" or (b) defect to the "other team." Trump is a perfect example of this - an extremist, with party leaders falling over themselves to give him the party. In this scenario, I'm voting D because any other vote is wasted (not that my KY vote is going to change anything other than the collective popular vote totals). There's no reason to vote 3rd party. No one cares if I'm protesting. It's a political temper tantrum into the void.

Political affiliation is a lot like religion. You have generations-old affilitions and understanding of the system that is passed down and accepted as the truth or an obligation or whatever (it really doesn't matter, the outcome is all that matters). How many people would not have religion in their lives if not for their families? A lot of people's world views are shaped in those first 20 or so years. Even if you manage to break from the family/community political affiliations, you're still largely understanding of the 2-party "them or us" mentality of our system.

Change is hard for humans. It's even harder when you need millions of people to all change at the same time, and we are largely incapable of change on such a wide scale as is needed to truly change our system. Especially when you incorporate this sports-like rooting interest that politics brings with it. So many people see that as part of their identity. And as we've seen, it's easier to justify the unjustifiable and double-down on your team than to step back and reconsider your identity, or broadly, our entire system.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I don't know for sure. All I know is that he started that thread (which I think means he's the only one that can delete it), he posted here in a snit about leaving, and now the thread is gone. I guess we learned our lesson for crossing him...

I sent SkyDog an email because I think he can undelete it. But he didn't answer an email from a few weeks ago. I hope he thinks he might enjoy a return to the board to see what he can do.

Now that’s a name I have not heard in a long, long time.

I think my uncle knows him.

[Ksyrup]

Ben and I follow each other on Strava. Dude runs circles around me lol. I don't know if he's still playing sports sims the way he used to, but if not, I think he channeled it into fitness/running.