The August Presidential Poll

[NobodyHere]

Now that we know the tickets, I'm curious about where FOFC stands right now and how it may change from month to month.

ETA: Votes are private, I'm not trying to create another discussion thread, but I am interested in where FOFC is right now and if anyone's mind gets changed over the course of the election season.

[JPhillips]

We're very politically engaged, so I doubt many if any votes will change. That's the really depressing thing about presidential politics, the least knowledgeable and least engaged voters are the ones that make the difference.

[Toddzilla]

Only 5 for Trump, I'm kind of surprised.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Only 5 for Trump, I'm kind of surprised.

I don't think that this board is a really representative sample.

[thesloppy]

I'd love to see how the 2016 poll finished, but not to the point of putting any effort toward it.

[Atocep]

Who got your vote? - Front Office Football Central

[thesloppy]

Bless you, Atocep!

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Who got your vote? - Front Office Football Central

So another big margin, only this time I won't be giving Trump a defacto vote by going 3rd party. Especially since Arizona is legit in play this year.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Only 5 for Trump, I'm kind of surprised.

One actually as of this posting.

[Edward64]

Gotta be Joe. I want some normalcy.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

One actually as of this posting.

I suspect he was including third party.

[CrimsonFox]

oh dear...you mean there are people on the internetz without a soul?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I suspect he was including third party.

Yeah Democrats tend to think "A Third Party vote is a vote for Republicans" mainly due to Ralph Nader in 2000 and to a lesser extent Jill Stein in 2016.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Yeah Democrats tend to think "A Third Party vote is a vote for Republicans" mainly due to Ralph Nader in 2000 and to a lesser extent Jill Stein in 2016.

I wish this mentality would go away, its part of the problem.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Yeah Democrats tend to think "A Third Party vote is a vote for Republicans" mainly due to Ralph Nader in 2000 and to a lesser extent Jill Stein in 2016.

Of course, they conveniently forget to mention that Gary Johnson and William Weld (two Republicans who ran on the Libertarian ticket) got 4.5 million votes in 2016.
.

[PilotMan]

Mostly because people hated both and were happy with letting fate decide either one, because they felt like there was some overarching nobility in ... whatever it was that caused them to just be ok saying "I didn't vote for either one!" Like that's some sort of greater good argument.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Mostly because people hated both and were happy with letting fate decide either one, because they felt like there was some overarching nobility in ... whatever it was that caused them to just be ok saying "I didn't vote for either one!" Like that's some sort of greater good argument.

More like "the lesser of two evils is still evil."

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Mostly because people hated both and were happy with letting fate decide either one, because they felt like there was some overarching nobility in ... whatever it was that caused them to just be ok saying "I didn't vote for either one!" Like that's some sort of greater good argument.

This was me. I thought Trump was an ok option until we got closer to the election. Then they were both terrible. So, I abstained.

Since I am in Indiana and we typically go Red, I don't think my Biden vote is going to matter, but I don't know that today. Obama was able to flip Indiana blue. So, I am going to make sure I vote.

[PilotMan]

My vote gets thrown away every time in KY, but I still donate to the local D group, and vote. I know it's a waste of money, but grass roots still starts with seeds, and this area will gradually follow Louisville and Lexington as more liberal areas, whereas the rest of the state is a complete, lost cause.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

My vote gets thrown away every time in KY, but I still donate to the local D group, and vote. I know it's a waste of money, but grass roots still starts with seeds, and this area will gradually follow Louisville and Lexington as more liberal areas, whereas the rest of the state is a complete, lost cause.

Eastern KY turned out well for Breshear.

[PilotMan]

Eastern KY as you know, is a world unto itself.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Eastern KY as you know, is a world unto itself.

i think every state has an area like that really.

Why don't you move to a place less plaguey

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

More like "the lesser of two evils is still evil."

Are there degrees of evil though?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Butter

Are there degrees of evil though?

The phrase explicitly says there are.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Eastern KY as you know, is a world unto itself.

But it isn't a lost cause for Dems. I don't think the Dems should compromise on equality issues to try to win Trump voters, but they also shouldn't write off rural areas. Equality and equal economic opportunity can work for some rural voters.

[Brian Swartz]

I'm pretty sure he was including third party, I'm just not going to meekly accept redefinition of terms like that . A vote for someone other than Trump is not a vote for Trump, unless we've all just decided left is right and up is down (and maybe a lot of people have, but not me).

[PilotMan]

A vote for a non-viable third party, or a non-vote, is implicitly a vote for either party, regardless of how you choose to rationalize it internally.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The phrase explicitly says there are.

Then wouldn't one prefer less evil in a situation where they had control over selecting one or the other?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

A vote for a non-viable third party, or a non-vote, is implicitly a vote for either party, regardless of how you choose to rationalize it internally.

This and this did not resonate for me in 2016 anywhere near the way it does now. Then I voted 3rd party following my heart, now it is Biden, even though he was not my preferred candidate, for the country. Trump for 4 more years will be a disaster we can't afford.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

This and this did not resonate for me in 2016 anywhere near the way it does now. Then I voted 3rd party following my heart, now it is Biden, even though he was not my preferred candidate, for the country. Trump for 4 more years will be a disaster we can't afford.

Not directed at you but I really hope some people see just how much of an unmitigated disaster things can be so the "they're all the same" brush doesn't get used too effectively for a decade or a generation.

SI

[JPhillips]

I don't have a problem with third-party voting if you are more aligned with that party, I don't think it will ever lead to a winning candidate, but whatever. I can also understand trying to get to the debate stage through vote share.

I think voting third party as a protest against a candidate is absolutely stupid. Voting for Kanye because you're mad that Biden beat Bernie just makes Trump that much more likely.

[molson]

Lots of Sanders supporters yelled that there was no difference between Trump and Clinton. You don't hear that much anymore from them about Clinton or Biden.

[GrantDawg]

Are you kidding, Molton? On Twitter I am seeing the far left crying "it is choosing between two fascist."
I voted third party last time. It was mostly a protest vote against Hillary, and I felt safe in doing it. Georgia was going Trump regardless, and I felt there was no way that Hillary wasn't going to win overall. I am never doing that again.
If you can't see the real danger between 4 more years of Trump versus 4 years of Biden, then you are part of the problem at this point.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't have a problem with third-party voting if you are more aligned with that party, I don't think it will ever lead to a winning candidate, but whatever. I can also understand trying to get to the debate stage through vote share.

I think voting third party as a protest against a candidate is absolutely stupid. Voting for Kanye because you're mad that Biden beat Bernie just makes Trump that much more likely.

I have stated on this board I favor a multi-party system. So I hope one a 3rd party candidate gets the 5%.

These buffoons in the Federal government are useless. So I vote to try and open up the system.

What really needs to happen is the 45% that dont vote, get informed and vote.

[larrymcg421]

The only problem I have with multiple parties is that they don't work in a First Past the Post system, not unless you have runoffs, which aren't feasible for a Presidential election. If you have like 10 candidates, someone like Trump is more likely to win, not less, as his die hard supporters will consolidate around him, whereas you could have 9 noble people running, splitting the the rest of the vote. Even 30-35% for Trump, or someone worse than Trump, would be enough for him to win the election.

I'd be happy if we universally adopted Maine's Ranked Choice system, which would solve that problem. I'd be more likely to consider third parties under that system, but they'd still have to present people less crazy than Nader and Stein.

[GrantDawg]

We definitely need a ranked choice system, and for it to go hand in hand with a vastly limited executive, and a Senate based on population.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[stevew]

I feel strong irony in the “Trump 2020: No More Bullshit” flags I see flying. Like if you wanna vote for Trump because you’re rich or think he’ll stack the Supreme Court I can respect that. Just puzzling messages otherwise, though.

[tarcone]

I do like the ranked choice method. Pretty good idea.

[stevew]

They’re using unemployment systems based on COBOL and voting machines from god knows when. I’m sure they will have enough funding or technology to implement ranked choice.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

We definitely need a ranked choice system, and for it to go hand in hand with a vastly limited executive, and a Senate based on population.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

A Senate based upon population defeats the whole point of the Senate. Why not just abolish it then?

[GrantDawg]

It actually doesn't. Still make it a state wide election, but changing the number of Senators per state. It would still be a smaller, more senior unit. Just make it more representative.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

All of the counter-majoritarian elements of our system have made white nationalism a much more electorally viable ideology.

[cuervo72]

I don't know if I will elucidate this well, but the Senate/Electoral College isn't really functioning to protect interests of states anymore, it's functioning to protect the interests of the majorities in those states. Probably not well-put. But in my mind there's a difference in how it was devised and how it's currently functioning.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

A Senate based upon population defeats the whole point of the Senate. Why not just abolish it then?

Almost every state (except Nebraska, I think) has a Senate and a House in their legislature. The Senate districts are also drawn by population (they have to be, per Baker v. Carr), but they are larger districts.

[stevew]

Completely abolish the senate or change the terms to 2 years.

[joe the wanderer]

Trump’s going to steal the election through some combination of Russian interference and his gutting of the USPS.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

A vote for a non-viable third party, or a non-vote, is implicitly a vote for either party, regardless of how you choose to rationalize it internally.

No, it really isn't. A non-vote isn't a vote for anyone. A vote for a specific candidate is a vote for that candidate, period - the viability of the party has nothing to do with it. The stated approach implies that people are responsible for how others vote, assuming that they will always vote for one of the major-party candidates. But you can't be responsible for what other people do that you have nothing to do with. You can only be responsible for what you do, and whether you vote for the best candidate available or you don't.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No, it really isn't. A non-vote isn't a vote for anyone. A vote for a specific candidate is a vote for that candidate, period - the viability of the party has nothing to do with it. The stated approach implies that people are responsible for how others vote, assuming that they will always vote for one of the major-party candidates. But you can't be responsible for what other people do that you have nothing to do with. You can only be responsible for what you do, and whether you vote for the best candidate available or you don't.

You argument only works in a fair and open system though. We do NOT have that. in the system we have a vote for the third fourth or tenth parties or no vote at all is literally helping limit the votes and therefore your opponent, depending on which side you are on.

if you do not vote or you vote something other than dem/rep in OUR system, you're vote is wasted. period.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

What really needs to happen is the 45% that dont vote, get informed and vote.

I agree with this. There should be a sustained campaign to increase voting % somehow.

In my line of work, there is "change management" which is essentially communicating and preparing people for change in their work lives. Get them onboard and trained for the "change". I wish there was a focused campaign to get people to vote. Not specific to GOP-Dem-3rdParty but like a feel good "hey, it's your duty and privilege to vote so do it".

Re: voting for a 3rd-party. IMO vote for who you believe can represent you and your beliefs/wants/needs the best (not necessarily who you believe in or agree with the most) regardless of whether that person has a shot.

[GrantDawg]

I still get a chill down my spine from a conversation I had with my then boss a few years ago. I was commenting on how we should do everything we can to make it easier to vote, and she said "you mean, getting the right people to vote." Ugh.