The General Election

[BigRedBuster]

[zoogs]

What would be a better state of affairs, out of curiosity?

 

Is it a better state of affairs if substantial numbers of people were known to be undecided between these two candidates -- or let's say, generic candidates under these two party platforms -- regardless of party registration?

[BigRedBuster]

What would be a better state of affairs, out of curiosity?

 

Is it a better state of affairs if substantial numbers of people were known to be undecided between these two candidates -- or let's say, generic candidates under these two party platforms -- regardless of party registration?

Wait....You actually think it's a good thing that so many people register for a party and then pretty much always just vote along party lines?

 

Interesting. So.....really.....winning an election should simply be a matter of who registers the most voters. Actually making a decision based on the quality of the candidate should just be thrown out the window.

[zoogs]

What's the alternative, here?

 

These candidates are not black boxes. They align to their party platforms in most cases, because that's how they become viable candidates in the first place. And I'm commenting specifically on the presidential ballot, but to an extent similar ideas apply.

 

Do parties present a coherent platform of political goals, or not? Are they similar, or not? Should electoral successes or failures not be significantly dependent on years of cumulative work by the party to respond to the needs of their voter base (whomever they choose to include)?

 

I don't think any of these things throws candidate quality out the window. I just don't think it's /quite/ fair to make that musing about the state of affairs.

[BigRedBuster]

I have to say that I am very surprised I am having a conversation with you where you are actually defending and promoting people vote party line up and down the ballot.

 

If that's the case, I would be still in the Republican party voting for Trump. Are you saying that's what I should do because being independent and making decisions on candidates based on their own beliefs and quality of candidate is just simply the wrong way anyone should do it?

 

I guess maybe this explains your defense of Hillary and why you believe she isn't nearly as bad as Trump. It's because she has a D beside her name.

 

The alternative you ask??? Think for yourself instead of just following party lines.

[zoogs]

I'm not saying you should do anything, and at no point did I say candidate quality was irrelevant. You seem to be saying that the party affiliation of a candidate should be irrelevant to more people, and I'm challenging that. Why should a candidate's party affiliation be irrelevant? Does that not signal quite a lot, actually, about their policy priorities?

 

With regards to Hillary, I believe she's a quality candidate. I think she's serious, capable, and highly qualified. These are things that are true for people in different parties. However -- serious, capable, highly qualified people in another party might have policy goals such as "Tear down the Clean Power Act and withdraw from the Paris treaty", among many others. And far from having a letter designation next to her name, she -- and other politicians, really -- have a record of political objectives in addition to the current platform they are endorsing.

 

And contrary to the cynics' line, pols keep most of their promises.

 

My argument is this: in a country where we have sorted into two political factions with some very distinctive and opposed aims, why *shouldn't* there be many voters familiar with these respective goals, and who vote in predictable ways according to their own political preferences?

 

With respect to the current cycle and Trump, there's a fracturing of the GOP right now. The candidate is unabashedly nativist, and so is a good chunk of the GOP base. Another good chunk of that base is entirely opposed to this. I don't know that there's a good solution available for them, right now. It's certainly been a stressful situation.

[Moiraine]

My opinion aligns a lot more with BigRedBuster here. The reason being, there are millions and millions and millions of U.S. citizens who are voting age. We are all different. There is no way in hell even 10% of us truly have views that line up with one of two parties, no matter how gungho some supporters are of one party. If they all truly looked at the party and what it does about various issues, most people would find they disagree with quite a bit of what their own party does and stands for.

 

A two party system makes no logical sense at all. There's no way you can find that many people who agree on so many different issues. There are many more gradients for each issue and there should be far more parties that have more proportional popularity. But the other parties don't have the resources to contend with the big two. I don't spend a lot of time crying about media bias but both parties get free coverage. Most everyone else is ignored.

[zoogs]

This supposes voting in an election is an expression of what one individually believes, rather than an effort to influence policy in a self-governing state where governance is shared.

 

A two-party system <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger" s_law"="">is a logical consequence of our rules. I'm not saying they're the best rules (I'm skeptical that they are, but any set of rules comes with its own drawbacks, to be sure). But, given the rules, the resulting organization is an equilibrium state and neither surprising nor disappointing. [Which isn't to say there aren't disappointing revelations of what are priorities, and what are not].

 

All voters among a party's base do not agree on every issue. However, they agree on *enough* to work together. If they don't organize, then they will all be defeated. We do, in practice, have plenty of diversity in viewpoints. That they are wings within the umbrella of larger parties should not obscure their existence.

[BigRedBuster]

Here is a simple but different way of looking at this that quite frankly scares me. I didn't really realize this until I stepped away from a party and looked at things individually.

 

People don't influence the party's views. The party influences the people's views.

 

When you sign up for a party and start believing like what you are saying, the party starts influencing how you see the world in the way THEY want you to see it. When that happens in mass, it greatly influences (many times negatively) the direction the country goes. When you step away, it very well might be in a totally illogical way. BUT....they wanted you to view the world that way because it gives them the best chance to gain more power.

 

That is a sick way of going through life politically.

[Moiraine]

Looking at fivethirtyeight again. One thing that scares me is they're getting closer in the same pattern as they did the previous two times. It seems like every time Trump is in the spotlight a lot as far as people actually seeing him talk, Clinton's lead increases. Then when he goes relatively quiet (for him) for awhile, he closes the gap. People have short memories. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 60-40 likelihood of Clinton winning by November 8.

[TGHusker]

I had to laugh at this. Not at Hillary but at Drudge. They are so over the top Trump that the pics they place on the website are really over the top. Yesterday, it was Hillary pictures ( a group of about 12) wt her wt beer in her hand - making it look like she was a drunk.

Yet, I'm sure with their vast readership some are influenced by the pics.

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

Economy grew 2.9% this quarter. October jobs report is due out next week.

Definitely gift to Clinton, even if it is only a quarter/month's worth of data. Kind of blunts some of Trump's "our economy is dying" shtick. No doubt he'll try to advance that storyline anyway. I'm imagining something pertaining to phony, rigged numbers.

[Danny Bateman]

Nevermind ^^^

Comey just released a very letter to Congress with some very vague details saying that they're reopening their email investigation due to finding some newly pertinent emails.

So prepare for a few more weeks of hearing about that...

[Whistlebritches]

Eleven days till we vote and the FBI is re-opening the Clinton email investigation. I don't want to hear the word 'rigged' uttered again by Trump.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html

[Moiraine]

President Tim Kaine