If there was ever a year a third party could make traction... (1 Viewer)

[tenordas]

surely this is it.

One party is running a man half the country hates - no, despises, the other is running a woman even most of the other politicians in her own party can't stand.

Where are you Libertarians? Green Party? Hello?

I thought 2016 was a real shot, but the two most viable third parties both put up unelectable morons.

All one of them needs is someone actually viable and IMHO they could sway a lot of people away from these two...

 

[Infoman]

Can you walk me through how this is different if you change the word "state" to "country"?

And there is a huge difference between someone from Los Angeles or The Bay Area and someone from Stockton or Barstow. Just like New Orleans to Shreveport.

Have already explained the difference several times - in detail - along with the math - with cited history and sufficient logic.... not going to keep doing so.

 

[Heathen]

Please explain it detail how the Democratic Party is in large part responsible for the advancement of christo-fascism.

Surely.

Don't spout off anymore broad proclamations.

Does the passive aggressive posting thing work out for you usually? Asking for a friend.

Get down into the specific, objective, factual details of how exactly the Democratic Party is in large part responsible for the advancement of christofascism

Here are some specific, objective, factual, empirical, observable details for you to start with. Once you’re done digesting this detail, we’ll move on to others:

Democrats found to be boosting extreme right wing candidates: https://www.vox.com/23274469/democrats-extremist-republicans-mastriano-cox-bailey

National Democrats, party-aligned nonprofits, and some of their candidates have together spent millions to elevate the most extreme positions of far-right candidates in races in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Colorado, and Maryland, and it’s a strategy that’s divided party operatives. The total investment this cycle was over $44 million as of last quarter, according to anOpen Secrets analysis.

Party representatives have claimed it’s because they want to highlight the extremism of today’s GOP, knowing that even candidates who are running as “moderates” will feel pressure to appeal to voters on their right flank. They have denied that it’s with the intent of making extremist candidates more appealing to a Republican primary base and because they think it will be easier to beat those kinds of opponents in November.

 

[MT15]

Heathen, I think that is more than a bit of a stretch to say that some money spent in some primary races in a handful of states is responsible for the rise of Christofascism. That seems hyperbolic.

Even to adequately evaluate the effects in those particular districts we would have to know if the more extreme candidates actually won their primaries and then were elected in the general. It doesn’t appear from the article that any of the candidates boosted were ever elected in the general although some won their primaries.

The other issue with calling this somehow dirty pool is that the ads are not misleading in the slightest. They were ads that called the candidates extreme and highlighted that they were endorsed by Trump. Both things objectively true.

How is running ads correctly pointing out a candidate’s extreme views in any way some sort of endorsement of those views?

 

[SystemShock]

Not sure why you put protest in quotations - as if a protest vote has any less merit.

By ignoring the fact that left leaning voters in deep red states can vote 3rd party as there is no competition even if all of them voted Democrat, you’re effectively throwing the baby out with the bathwater with this argument.

Here's a novel idea: want to cast a protest vote in a deep red State? Vote for the Democrat.

Thanks for the breaking news on Jill Stein, though. I’ll have to relay this to her staffers.

This isn't breaking news. No one in his right mind thinks Jill Stein could ever be POTUS. And not just because of her... there is no juice behind the Green Party... no money, no members in Congress... I don't think there's even been a Green Party governor...

As will you.

But at least I'd have done something about it, even if I am voting in a red State.

So to start, I never said there was nothing I could do. Where did you get that from?

From you saying you live in a deep red State and your vote for a Democrat wouldn't make a dent.

Which group of people specifically are you blaming for Clinton losing in 2016, these people who thought “there was nothing they could do”?

There were a lot of Bernie Sanders followers that didn't vote or voted for Green Party because their feelings got hurt.

 

[Heathen]

Heathen, I think that is more than a bit of a stretch to say that some money spent in some primary races in a handful of states is responsible for the rise of Christofascism. That seems hyperbolic.

I pretty clearly stated that this was just one of many reasons. I obviously don’t think that a single issue is wholly responsible as much as many are.

To that end, would you not say that donating to extremist Republican candidates is being directly responsible, in a way, of expediting the popularity and election chances of christofascist candidates? If I vote for Trump, folks on this board would accuse me of such. So how about if I donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to the campaign?

I’d argue (and happy to go page by page with this stuff) as I mentioned that the Democratic Party has played a large part in the Republican party’s increasingly extreme nature - including the rise and not squelching out of christofascism due to how weak the party has become in so many aspects.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Let's start with a reminder of of you're original statement, "One can understand that the right wishes to institute christofascism and that the Democratic Party is in large part to blame for that advancement."

Here are some specific, objective, factual, empirical, observable details for you to start with. Democrats found to be boosting extreme right wing candidates: https://www.vox.com/23274469/democrats-extremist-republicans-mastriano-cox-bailey

I was aware of that. I was also aware of this from your own quote from that article:

...it’s a strategy that’s divided party operatives.

So some Democratic operatives did that and other Democratic operatives fought against it. Those actions were not the actions of the Democratic Party as a party. Was the Saints organization at the time that the Saints won the Super Bowl in large part to blame for Darren Sharper's sexual assaults that took place while he was on the team that won the Super Bowl? The answer is of course, hell no.

So your proclamation that "the Democratic Party is in large part to blame for that advancement" of christofascism is at best a hyperbolic inaccuracy.

Some Democrats certainly did do some things that helped some christofascists, but the Democratic Party is not, in any reasonable or rational way, in large part to blame for the advancement of christofascism in American. The large part of that blame falls squarely and solely on the christofascists.

 

[MT15]

donating to extremist Republican candidates

You think they did that? From what I read what happened was that they spent money on billboards. The typical message was “X is too extreme for {insert state}”. Or they highlighted an endorsement from Trump with similar wording - too extreme for us.

They were billboards critical of the extremist policies. Paid for by the Dem candidate. They didn’t give money to any campaigns.

 

[B4YOU]

I agree about why he got pushed out - but keep in mind it wasn’t simply polling, it started due to actual concerns about his age-related speaking gaffes. And I was one who wanted him to remain, because he has broad appeal with the working class and the aged and progressives.

But, the fact remains he’s not someone who took advantage of his position in the Senate to make himself wealthy, and I think he truly cares about making things better for the middle and lower classes, which is another reason the big donors had itchy trigger fingers IMO. Several of his changes were nibbling away at them on the margins, and they weren’t overly fond of him.

Corny as he could sound, he truly believed most of it.

JB is a top 5 one-term president. He likely edges out GHW Bush for #5. There is a quiet contingent of Dems who really want a 2nd Biden term, but were heart broken watching the debate. If Harris wins, then Biden deserves every piece of infrastructure that gets his name.

To the topic: This is a terrible election for a 3rd party candidate and our system ensures every election makes a 3rd party candidate a spoiler.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Thinks it’s more than the 50 state elections

Doesn’t each county have its own ballot?

There’s over 3000 counties in America

**which makes claim of rigging a national election even harder to swallow

Yes to all of that. My point was that each state independently picks the presidential winner of their state in isolation and Congress can't change that by passing a law.

 

[MT15]

JB is a top 5 one-term president. He likely edges out GHW Bush for #5. There is a quiet contingent of Dems who really want a 2nd Biden term, but were heart broken watching the debate. If Harris wins, then Biden deserves every piece of infrastructure that gets his name.

To the topic: This is a terrible election for a 3rd party candidate and our system ensures every election makes a 3rd party candidate a spoiler.

I did take a bit of comfort from the Ipsos poll released today. It shows Harris with a slim 2 pt lead in a two way race. But when Kennedy was added - her lead grew substantially. It was clear that Kennedy took more from Trump than from Harris.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You are talking about the general election here. Nothing I suggested changes anything about the general election.

I am talking about primaries. The constitution doesn't discuss that process at all.

I know what you're talking about.

That's what I'm talking about too. With your system across the 50 states, candidates A & B, or
B & C, or C & D, or D & E could win state primaries. Their could easily be 4 or 5 different combinations of candidates on general election ballots across the 50 states.

Then in the general election A could win some states, B could win some states, C could win some states, D could win some states, E could win some states. For every different candidate past two candidates that wins a state, the chances increase that no candidate will get 270 EC votes and then the House of Representatives would get to choose the president by a simple majority.

 

[Heathen]

Here's a novel idea: want to cast a protest vote in a deep red State? Vote for the Democrat.

Voting third party would be a more novel idea.

This isn't breaking news. No one in his right mind thinks Jill Stein could ever be POTUS. And not just because of her... there is no juice behind the Green Party... no money, no members in Congress... I don't think there's even been a Green Party governor...

These sort of things often don’t happen in even several election cycles. Sometimes generations.

The fact that it hasn’t happened before shouldn’t ever discourage anyone who wants something better than what they’re getting.

And you mention “no money”. That’s precisely much of the reason why people are fed up with the duopoly and want a change. I think many would be proud for a bit of “no money” (super PACs, billionaires like Musk) influencing elections for a change.

That’ll only continue to be a motivator.

But at least I'd have done something about it, even if I am voting in a red State.

Once more, explain how voting for third party or Democrat in a state a Democrat has absolutely not a shot in hell to win means one of these voting choices is different than another in terms of outcome.

What are you doing about it that the independent voter is not?

From you saying you live in a deep red State and your vote for a Democrat wouldn't make a dent.

You had attempted to compare my position to voters who in 2016 “couldn’t do anything” that led to Clinton’s loss and the eventual SCOTUS lineup.

You haven’t explained yet what myself and these voters have in common and how that would lead to the ultimate result of a democratic candidate losing.

There were a lot of Bernie Sanders followers that didn't vote or voted for Green Party because their feelings got hurt.

Im not sure what this has to do with it.

 

[Heathen]

You think they did that? From what I read what happened was that they spent money on billboards. The typical message was “X is too extreme for {insert state}”. Or they highlighted an endorsement from Trump with similar wording - too extreme for us.

They were billboards critical of the extremist policies. Paid for by the Dem candidate. They didn’t give money to any campaigns.

Fair point. Donating to the cause of far right candidates through pro-extremist ads, billboards etc and attacking the more moderate candidates.

Here’s an example from PA:

In Pennsylvania’s race for governor, Democratic gubernatorial candidate and state Attorney General Josh Shapiro dropped$840,000 on TV ads highlighting the stances of Republican gubernatorial candidate and state Sen. Doug Mastriano — more than double what Mastriano spent on his own ad buys.

Shapiro’s ads call Mastriano, whose campaign bused rally-goers to the Capitol the day of the Jan. 6 riots and has been subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 committee, one of “Trump’s strongest supporters” and highlight his belief that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

“I’m going to have to send him a thank you card,” Mastriano told a local news outlet after seeing Shapiro’s ads.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/07/democrats-spend-millions-on-republican-primaries/

Another good article with examples of the ads:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/democrat-ad-spending-republican-trump/

 

[LA - L.A.]

Have already explained the difference several times - in detail - along with the math - with cited history and sufficient logic.... not going to keep doing so.

Did you cite the part of history about how the very same people that created the Electoral College system also Consitutionally mandated that every seat in the House of Representatives represent the same number of people? Did you cite that part of the history?

Did you cite the part of history that Constitutional amendments and a law passed by Congress in the 1920's changed that to so that each House seat now represents significantly different numbers of people? Did you cite that part?

The creators of the Electoral College designed it to be way more equally representative of the general population, than it currently is. Since the 1920's, the Electoral College system has not worked the way its creators wanted it to work, and that was by design.

Guess who spearheaded those changes? That's right, the wealth elites. Guess who's giving everyone the talking points to justify keeping the Electoral College the way it currently is? That's right, the wealth elites. Guess who has historically funded and propped up every fascist movement? That's right, the wealth elites.

Don't just read the history they give you. Read the entire history on your own.

 

[MT15]

Fair point. Donating to the cause of far right candidates through pro-extremist ads, billboards etc and attacking the more moderate candidates.

Here’s an example from PA:



https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/07/democrats-spend-millions-on-republican-primaries/

Another good article with examples of the ads:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/democrat-ad-spending-republican-trump/

I get what you mean. It’s not unethical, though, because they aren’t hiding anything and the ads are basically true.

I don’t like them running ads against the more moderate candidates, though, that may cross a line. And I’m not super comfortable with the entire idea. I just disagree that it leads to extremism.

It’s risky, but on the other hand, if it calls attention to extremists and highlights their views accurately- I don’t see how it can be characterized as leading to extremism. The people aren’t made extreme by seeing those views exposed. IMO anyway.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I pretty clearly stated that this was just one of many reasons.

Yes, you said that there are many other reasons, but you haven't stated or shown any other reasons.

You've only gave that one example that you say supports your proclamation that that the Democrat Party is in large part to blame for the advancement of christofascism People usually lead with their best example. If that's the best you've got, then you don't really have anything that supports your proclamation.

 

[J-DONK]

I did take a bit of comfort from the Ipsos poll released today. It shows Harris with a slim 2 pt lead in a two way race. But when Kennedy was added - her lead grew substantially. It was clear that Kennedy took more from Trump than from Harris.

Can we talk about all the parallels between 2016 HRC campaign and Trump:

1. Hubris they already won
2. Propping up a candidate that they think will make it easier for them to win
3. Picking a horrible VP with zero upside

 

[LA - L.A.]

I did take a bit of comfort from the Ipsos poll released today. It shows Harris with a slim 2 pt lead in a two way race. But when Kennedy was added - her lead grew substantially. It was clear that Kennedy took more from Trump than from Harris.

That's why Trump tried to bribe Kennedy to drop out of the race and then endorse Trump.