Why would you vote Hillary Clinton?

[Terxpahseyton]

Because the Green party can't win?

And Hillary can win because you vote for her? I am so sick and tired of the bandwagon effect. People are morons. (I apologize, but it had to be said)

Some things take time. If just all people stopped to vote for the candidate who can win but instead voted for the candidate they want to win - then this would be an important stepping stone towards such a candidate finally actually winning in the future. Popularity breeds more popularity.
But moreover - if those candidates that can win right now see their votes swimming away to the "fringe", they will tend to be more like the fringe even if the fringe can't win. Case in point: crazy far-right Republican candidates.

 

[Pangur Bán]

If she gets the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for her unless she really manages to annoy me with her policies. Given the state of the Republican party, even former moderates like Mitt was forced to swing toward the crazy to secure the base.
If I have a choice between tolerable and terrible, I'm going with tolerable.
Or I drink the Kool-Aid and go 3rd party.

If Hillary does get the nomination, basically her entire campaign will have to be some variant of "I'm the best you guys have, and unless you want that nutcase elected you had better vote for me".

Keep in mind that over a longer period of time there are only gonna be so many Democrat presidents. It's not necessarily better from a leftist perspective to vote for any Democratic candidate if it makes a left-of-centre one less likely in future.

 

[downtown]

And Hillary can win because you vote for her? I am so sick and tired of the bandwagon effect. People are morons. (I apologize, but it had to be said)

No, Hillary can win because she has access to a nearly unmatched political network and money, along with name recognition, a base political constituency that adores her, and a reputation of being within the bounds of the political mainstream.

Green Party candidates have none of those, along with other deficiencies. Even if you're a progressive, not voting for one for President is pretty rational.

There is nothing that excites me about a Hillary candidacy, and I won't vote for her in the Dem primary. I doubt I'll be living somewhere where my presidential vote will matter then though.

 

[KMRblue1027]

And Hillary can win because you vote for her? I am so sick and tired of the bandwagon effect. People are morons. (I apologize, but it had to be said)

Some things take time. If just all people stopped to vote for the candidate who can win but instead voted for the candidate they want to win - then this would be an important stepping stone towards such a candidate finally actually winning in the future. Popularity breeds more popularity.
But moreover - if those candidates that can win right now see their votes swimming away to the "fringe", they will tend to be more like the fringe even if the fringe can't win. Case in point: crazy far-right Republican candidates.

It's called strategic voting, the biggest flaw in first past the post voting systems. Basically if you don't vote for a viable candidate you're throwing away your vote anyway. I'm assuming your not American to have this idealistic sense of the value of actually voting for who you "really" want instead of the one that has a chance of winning? Besides I'm not even bother to vote until the next gubernatorial election (2017), the presidential election doesn't matter living in one of the Bluest states in the country.

 

[JollyRoger]

Too many votes for Nader is what got us W.

 

[Zkribbler]

That is not the worst Obama quote. He also claimed there are 57 US states,

If you go back and watch the YouTube vid, he obviously jumbled his words. He'd just completely a whirlwind tour of the country in which "we visited all fifty...we missed three..seven states..." To anyone being fair, it's clear he simply left out the word "forty." Since Obama grew up in the fiftieth and last state, he knows how many states there are.

But far rightist cling to that misstatement as it is a Holy Grail, proving something.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No. Clearly Obama thinks 50 - 3 = 7. That is even far worse. More proof that he can't possibly have been born in the US and should be impeached.

 

[Zkribbler]

I can't imagine Biden not torpedoing himself with some half-baked comment

the man is George W Bush with hairplugs

I counter with two concrete examples:

(1) In the run-up to the 2008 election, Biden opined that an Iraq built around a central government in Baghdad would not be viable in the long run. He suggests a "federation" [really, a confederation] with the Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shi'ite all controlling their own territories. He was mocked, but now with the Sunni Arabs so disaffected with Shi'ite overreaching they prefer ISIS, Biden is looking prophetic.

(2) In the first Presidential debate in 2012, Romney ate Obama's lunch. The whole Democratic campaign teetered and looked as if it might soon collapse. Then in the VP debate, Biden used facts to nail Ryan in lie after lie after lie. Obama picked up on Biden's handball tactics, defeated Romney in the last two debates, and won the election in a landslide.

 

[KMRblue1027]

That's a good point, despite his complete lack of a filter Biden is still a very skilled politician. He definitely won't be a pushover in the primary if he takes it seriously.

 

[illram]

A fringe candidate can steal the occasional House or Senate seat. I really don't think the Tea Party are "fringe." They are well funded, have a whole news channel supporting them, and I don't think it is a coincidence that they really took off right around Citizens United. They are a sort of amalgamation of bits of the far right wing Christian section of the Republican Party. These bits have always been there. Libertarian, Christian, anti-government, social conservative...these are pillars of the Right wing of the Republican party. They have shifted some Congressional elections and become a nifty foil for some batty candidates to get way more recognition than they deserve (Palin, Cruz, Allen West, Bachmann) but as we saw in all the Presidential elections since their inception, the GOP primaries have eventually settled on the "safe" popular candidates that can pull Independents and Moderates (see e.g. Romney, McCain). These safe candidates ride the crazy train while they have to, knowing that eventually their well entrenched political machines and presence in the "real" GOP establishment will secure them the win.

A better demonstration of the "right wing" fringe is Ron Paul. He is the Republican party's Nader. No chance of ever winning a general, but always runs. Always pulls some supporters and has popularity, but even though the GOP knows he is going to pull some support every time, he has not had a profound effect on party politics. Rand Paul, arguably his successor, is in fact moving more to the "mainstream" than his Dad ever did precisely because he knows he cannot pull the party in the other direction in a Presidential primary.

To get an idea of how utterly impossible it is in the modern American political system for a third party candidate to have any effect whatsoever, look at the 1992 General. Ross Perot took 19% of the popular vote, the highest % of voters for a 3rd party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt. He siphoned off voters pretty equally from Bush and Clinton, thus representing a truer "third" party candidate than most. Guess how many States he actually carried in the electoral college? Zero. How much effect did he have in the 1996 election? Less, actually. He got only 8% that time. NAFTA was ratified even though he was against it during his candidacy, Reform party candidates Buchanan and Jesse Ventura faded into obscurity, and Perot himself later went on to endorse mainstream GOP candidates W. Bush and Romney.

It is a sad fact of American politics that in the General election, if you live in a state that is contested, you have to vote for the candidate who you like the most who also actually has a chance to win.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I doubt I'll be living somewhere where my presidential vote will matter then though.

if you don't vote for a viable candidate you're throwing away your vote anyway

See that is the reasoning I don't get. Is your vote going to change anything?
Of course not. For the individual - voting is an entirely idealistic affair. So for the individual, it is not possible to throw your vote away. Since it will have no bearing regardless.

The only value it has is the idea that one should act as everyone should act. Should everyone vote "strategically"?

Moreover, by such strategic voting you not only - as already said - ignore the inherent power of dissent votes (since popular candidates will tend to want to get them back), you also legitimize and perpetuate a choice you are actually unhappy with.

And I regret having used an insult in the previous post. I can be a bitter angry man when it comes to politics

 

[Antilogic]

You only have to be strategic if you are in a swing state (or the statewide race is particularly close). If you are living in a safe state, you are free to vote your conscience on third parties and independents to your heart's content.

 

[Light Cleric]

I counter with two concrete examples:

(1) In the run-up to the 2008 election, Biden opined that an Iraq built around a central government in Baghdad would not be viable in the long run. He suggests a "federation" [really, a confederation] with the Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shi'ite all controlling their own territories. He was mocked, but now with the Sunni Arabs so disaffected with Shi'ite overreaching they prefer ISIS, Biden is looking prophetic.

(2) In the first Presidential debate in 2012, Romney ate Obama's lunch. The whole Democratic campaign teetered and looked as if it might soon collapse. Then in the VP debate, Biden used facts to nail Ryan in lie after lie after lie. Obama picked up on Biden's handball tactics, defeated Romney in the last two debates, and won the election in a landslide.

For the record when I compared him to Bush I was talking about his filter as KMR referred to it ("3 letters: J-O-B-S!", telling the guy in the wheelchair to stand up, Indians running 7-11s, etc.), not his actual politics. I didn't want to get into a big debate about his policy stuff lest this thread get derailed in the same fashion my thread about Hillary did.

 

[Perfection]

For the Hillarity

 

[Formaldehyde]

A fringe candidate can steal the occasional House or Senate seat. I really don't think the Tea Party are "fringe." They are well funded, have a whole news channel supporting them, and I don't think it is a coincidence that they really took off right around Citizens United. They are a sort of amalgamation of bits of the far right wing Christian section of the Republican Party. These bits have always been there. Libertarian, Christian, anti-government, social conservative...these are pillars of the Right wing of the Republican party. They have shifted some Congressional elections and become a nifty foil for some batty candidates to get way more recognition than they deserve (Palin, Cruz, Allen West, Bachmann) but as we saw in all the Presidential elections since their inception, the GOP primaries have eventually settled on the "safe" popular candidates that can pull Independents and Moderates (see e.g. Romney, McCain). These safe candidates ride the crazy train while they have to, knowing that eventually their well entrenched political machines and presence in the "real" GOP establishment will secure them the win.

A better demonstration of the "right wing" fringe is Ron Paul. He is the Republican party's Nader. No chance of ever winning a general, but always runs. Always pulls some supporters and has popularity, but even though the GOP knows he is going to pull some support every time, he has not had a profound effect on party politics. Rand Paul, arguably his successor, is in fact moving more to the "mainstream" than his Dad ever did precisely because he knows he cannot pull the party in the other direction in a Presidential primary.

To get an idea of how utterly impossible it is in the modern American political system for a third party candidate to have any effect whatsoever, look at the 1992 General. Ross Perot took 19% of the popular vote, the highest % of voters for a 3rd party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt. He siphoned off voters pretty equally from Bush and Clinton, thus representing a truer "third" party candidate than most. Guess how many States he actually carried in the electoral college? Zero. How much effect did he have in the 1996 election? Less, actually. He got only 8% that time. NAFTA was ratified even though he was against it during his candidacy, Reform party candidates Buchanan and Jesse Ventura faded into obscurity, and Perot himself later went on to endorse mainstream GOP candidates W. Bush and Romney.

It is a sad fact of American politics that in the General election, if you live in a state that is contested, you have to vote for the candidate who you like the most who also actually has a chance to win.

That is an excellent analysis.

But you didn't mention one aspect of American politics. The liberals in the US have been estimated to be 21% of the voters, but they seem to have far less political clout than even the Tea Party (which only 12-14% of the population consider themselves to be members even though 24-27% consider themselves to be supporters). Do you think the liberals could be considered to be "fringe" due to such a lack of political power that they are only the majority in a single state and the District of Columbia? Or do they have sufficient political power in population centers in particular to make any real difference?

 

[downtown]

They probably have either majorities or large enough numbers to be kingmakers in most large US cities. Our legislative branch is set up to give extra representation for folks who represent rural areas though, so even if the Tea Party and "liberals" each represent a similar number of people as supporters, the Tea Party is likely to enjoy more legislative clout.

 

[Tarquelne]

The liberals in the US have been estimated to be 21% of the voters

Is that self-identified voters, or voters who tend to support liberal policies?

 

[Hygro]

I dreamed Warren got the nomination in a surprise upset, and everyone lost confidence she could win the general, which was upsetting because I think she could.

 

[Antilogic]

It's probably a NYC/beltway media thing. Remember how Giuliani was supposed to sweep into office, and he got creamed at the start of the primary season? Or how McCain was completely unbeatable but went down in flames? Odds are good the same thing is happening to Chris Christie and Hillary Clinton.

 

[illram]

I don't think a populist or progressive Democrat can win a general right now. The Democrats had a huge opening to go Leroy Jenkins on Wall Street in 2008 and we got Obama, who won with the healthy support of Wall Street and who was extremely cozy with them once in office (thanks Larry Summers!). Many credit his stunning surge in the '08 primary and eventual election win to his insider edge on what was really going on in the financial crisis. This insider edge was the result of coziness with Wall Street.

Warren just will not enjoy that sort of money or coziness with the establishment machine; she would fight a two front war and I think she would lose. Barring another in your face economic catastrophe that can fuel her narrative, however.