Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 333: Biden out The Storm [2020 Edition]

(+) Yeah! (+)

foolm0r0n posted...

They do that but you don't give a shit because you only care about federal elections.

If nobody cares about non-national elections and third parties are so much better, they should be winning a lot of local/state-level elections. They do not, and it's fairly rare to see third-party candidates win any such races. What's going on there?
---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Pretty sure just about everyone here's go to take is to eliminate the electoral college, a far better way to solve this potential issue than yours.

Hmm I dunno, I just filled in a little circle to vote 3rd party. Didn't need 75% state approval for that at all.

But hey if you want to stay asleep until we get rid of the electoral college, I get the appeal in that for sure.

---

Ah, so you're in favor of the easy self satisfying solution that gets to make you feel like you're doing something instead of actual meaningful long term change.

---

Honestly, currently the most effective way to change things with how messed up the US system is seems to be primaries.

Like...AOC is pretty far from a party-line democrat, but she got in by primarying a party-line democrat. Currently the Bernie wing of the democratic party and the classical democrats feel like two different parties TBH.

Similarly some of the candidates for president from the Libertarian party have been former Republican governors; same deal.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

They do that but you don't give a shit because you only care about federal elections.

I'd vote for a local third party candidate if I had any that were meaningfully better than the main two. The independent in my local race sucked. Most of the time there just isn't a candidate. How many state and federal offices do third parties hold again?

---

metroid composite posted...

Honestly, currently the most effective way to change things with how messed up the US system is seems to be primaries.

Like...AOC is pretty far from a party-line democrat, but she got in by primarying a party-line democrat. Currently the Bernie wing of the democratic party and the classical democrats feel like two different parties TBH.

correct post

American primaries are exactly what I'm jealous of as a Canadian

---

metroid composite posted...

Honestly, currently the most effective way to change things with how messed up the US system is seems to be primaries.

Like...AOC is pretty far from a party-line democrat, but she got in by primarying a party-line democrat. Currently the Bernie wing of the democratic party and the classical democrats feel like two different parties TBH.

Similarly some of the candidates for president from the Libertarian party have been former Republican governors; same deal.

Don't forget this is also what the Tea Party achieved to great success within the Republican party

---

Xeybozn posted...

If nobody cares about non-national elections and third parties are so much better, they should be winning a lot of local/state-level elections. They do not, and it's fairly rare to see third-party candidates win any such races. What's going on there?

Duopoly doesn't magically go away at the more local levels. In fact the worst effect is that you have independents who have to run under the duopoly in order to have the money to campaign. More election funding directly helps that. But even without that, there's a decent growth in success among independents at the local levels.

---

And at any rate, the biggest lie of American politics is that your individual vote matters. It doesn't! Votes only matter in large quantities, and so what is actually important is organization. I dont want to hear the "oh, but third parties would be more successful if only people would vote for them!" whining when the onus is still on the party to organize more effectively and make a convincing argument. This is what politicians running in competitive primaries actually understand - they have to organize to win, not just get their name out there.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

maybe if third parties focused more on winnable local seats so they could have a genuine effect and not waste everyone's time going for President just for scraps of publicity, they wouldn't be complete jokes

Pretty much. You need to build a base before going for the top.

There is only one non-Democratic/Republican/Independent member in congress and he wasn't even elected as a Libertarian, he was a Republican who crossed the floor.

At the state level the non-Democratic/Republican/Independent are 11/7383 in both the upper and lower houses. Nine of them belong to the Vermont Progressive Party so it's only a state party. As for the other two, one belongs to the Independence of New York Party (affiliated with the Independence Party) and the other belongs to the Reform Party.

---

metroid composite posted...

Honestly, currently the most effective way to change things with how messed up the US system is seems to be primaries.

Definitely. The problem is that it's still very hard to get to the primary, and it has disastrous interactions with the duopoly. In particular it seems to only work when your party is the underdog. When Trump won the primary, the only choice was for the ENTIRE party to fall in line, or else Republicans would lose. That erased all the different factions in the Republican party, and now there's is no place for conservatism in the party. When you have 1 and exactly 1 opponent, you will eventually fall in line. No small victories are sustainable.

We'll see how the AOC/Bernie crowd survives after this election. Don't be surprised if it goes the way of the Tea Party and gets taken over and neutralized.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I dont want to hear the "oh, but third parties would be more successful if only people would vote for them!" whining

Hey, that's just not fair. Third parties would totally be more successful if they were more successful. In fact, they'd win way more elections than the major parties they could just get way more votes than the major parties. You can't call them unsuccessful just because they repeatedly fail in every way.
---

Update on GOP attempt to reject +100k Harris County votes

https://twitter.com/chucklindell/status/1322969722875502593

BREAKING: Texas Supreme Court DENIES petition seeking to toss out almost 127,000 Harris County votes cast in drive-thru lanes. Denial is without comment.

---

Do I really have to explain why "systemic oppression doesn't exist, you just need to work harder" is wrong to a bunch of Democrats?

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

Update on GOP attempt to reject +100k Harris County votes

https://twitter.com/chucklindell/status/1322969722875502593

BREAKING: Texas Supreme Court DENIES petition seeking to toss out almost 127,000 Harris County votes cast in drive-thru lanes. Denial is without comment.

This was with the heavily partisan R judge right?

Says a lot that he just said fuck off.

---

according to the second tweet.... partisan judge is a seperate federal filing to be heard Monday, so not out of the woods yet

https://twitter.com/chucklindell/status/1322970382740185088

---

I'm all for third parties most of the time but I feel like this is a unique situation. With one side openly setting up to try to rig things, I think margin of victory in non-battleground states DOES actually matter for once, and this is one election where I think the immediate state of the country is more important than a small shift in the long game.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

Do I really have to explain why "systemic oppression doesn't exist, you just need to work harder" is wrong to a bunch of Democrats?

No, but that means the system has to be burnt down if it's that oppressive. Do I really have to explain this to a libertarian?

---

Tom Bombadil posted...

I think margin of victory in non-battleground states DOES actually matter for once

How though? I'm open to this idea, but I can't imagine any scenario that it works. You're talking about a president that already lost the popular vote by 3 million. How many more millions of votes are necessary to erase Trumpism?

---

Also "electoral politics are hard and occasionally pointless" ranks so low on the list of oppressive systems that it's almost insulting.

The bottom line is that third parties in America need a radically different approach to their politics.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

No, but that means the system has to be burnt down if it's that oppressive. Do I really have to explain this to a libertarian?

That's the joke philosophy that people like to prescribe to libertarians. The impossible post-revolutionary utopia. But the reality is that libertarianism is a large spectrum, which you can definitely move down incrementally, and in fact America and much of the world is pretty deep in it already. Most libertarians understand and support that incrementalism (and also support some radical stuff, sure).

The joke ones you're referring to don't actually care about society, they just want to be contrarian, and they are all now devoted Trumpers. I would hope that anti electoral college people are more principles about their movement than that...

---

I don't think we're going to erase Trumpism here. I think that the more obviously he loses and the more votes he has to throw out, the harder it is going to be for him to overturn or ignore a loss.

---

Why would he bother throwing away votes in CA or NY? My question is how does a 100% popular vote in CA and NY make it any less likely that he will try to steal the election in TX, FL, etc?

---

The wider the margin of victory, the fewer people on the fence he will be able to convince he was screwed.

---

I feel like this election needs to be a complete and total repudiation of Trump. Otherwise Republicans will look at the results and say to themselves: "If not for COVID, we were clearly moving in the right direction that the country wants. Trump would've won without that."

---

Dancedreamer posted...

I feel like this election needs to be a complete and total repudiation of Trump. Otherwise Republicans will look at the results and say to themselves: "If not for COVID, we were clearly moving in the right direction that the country wants. Trump would've won without that."

Republicans are going to say this no matter what.

---

Tom Bombadil posted...

The wider the margin of victory, the fewer people on the fence he will be able to convince he was screwed.

Or, a wider popular vote margin proves to those on the fence that Trump is much more necessary to defend against manipulated politics.

Is there any evidence that the 3 million popular votes had a net effect to convince people away from Trump?

Beyond that, I don't see what's more repudiating to Trump than voting for the L in this election, since it's saying you're a conservative that is distinctly anti-Trump.

---

I think that's a reach, and also I am not a conservative so

---

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1322994253660827653?s=21

Is this real?

The fuck?

---

foolm0r0n posted...

Beyond that, I don't see what's more repudiating to Trump than voting for the L in this election, since it's saying you're a conservative that is distinctly anti-Trump.

Wouldn't it be more effective to vote for the candidate who can, you know, actually beat Trump? I don't think it matters what message is sent by supporting a candidate who'd be insanely lucky to hit 3% of the total popular vote.
---

LOL all this time he wasnt slamming them, he was honestly confused
---

https://www.newsweek.com/protesters-trump-flags-william-barr-home-lock-joe-biden-1543842

Let them fight
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Beyond that, I don't see what's more repudiating to Trump than voting for the L in this election, since it's saying you're a conservative that is distinctly anti-Trump.

after years of arguing with muffin, you should know what the actual response is going to be.

"libertarians? they don't even want to build a giant WALL to keep the evil IMMIGRANTS out! they're just a bunch of SJW commies!"

---

Xeybozn posted...

Wouldn't it be more effective to vote for the candidate who can, you know, actually beat Trump? I don't think it matters what message is sent by supporting a candidate who'd be insanely lucky to hit 3% of the total popular vote.

Well like he says, if they get 5% that actually gets them something moving forward as far as access to the mainstream political stage
---

How about we wait for a candidate who deserves that?

Jakyl, in retrospect, how happy would you be if you helped Jill Steins get millions of dollars in funding?

---

And my only beef with what foolmo is saying is that he hasnt defined the battleground state threshold

I say anything closer than Oregon on the left, or Tennessee on the right
---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

How about we wait for a candidate who deserves that?

Jakyl, in retrospect, how happy would you be if you helped Jill Steins get millions of dollars in funding?

It wouldnt be Stein, it would be the entire Green Party! Shes not running
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

"libertarians? they don't even want to build a giant WALL to keep the evil IMMIGRANTS out! they're just a bunch of SJW commies!"

But like Muffin, all those Trumpers do actually have libertarian envy/delusion. They are still in the phase where they are convincing themselves Trump is the libertarian hero they have been waiting for. So after he loses, it would be great for them to legitimately blame the Ls, so they can further disassociate themselves from libertarianism.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Well like he says, if they get 5% that actually gets them something moving forward as far as access to the mainstream political stage

Yes, but they have no chance of getting that many votes this year. Gary Johnson in 2016 was by far the most successful Libertarian presidential candidate ever, and even in a year when most vote thought the main party candidates were both garbage he still only got just over 3%. Jorgensen is so weak that she's not even being included in most polls, but the ones that do suggest she's not going to match Johnson's performance.

Sure, I guess throwing your vote away in a state where the winner's a complete lock isn't an awful thing, but let's not pretend like it's going to accomplish anything either.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Wouldn't it be more effective to vote for the candidate who can, you know, actually beat Trump?

That's what I'm asking - how is it more effective for Biden's CA vote to triple Trump than to just double?

Jakyl25 posted...

And my only beef with what foolmo is saying is that he hasnt defined the battleground state threshold

Up to you really. I'm not going to blame you for voting Biden if you legitimately fear that Biden will lose your state.

That's why I'm using CA/NY/DC as examples. The Ls got 3.5% last time btw, it would just take 1 million more votes to get to 5%. Extremely doable without anyone even noticing, if major states like CA/NY voted 3rd party just a little bit more.

---

Charitably, I think you can claim there's a chicken and egg type argument over which action needs to take place first if your goal is actual power for third parties: Actually voting for them under the current system or trying to reform the system from within first.

I have varied on what I thought was the better answer over the course of my life but if you ask me now I think it's the latter. As has been diagnosed here the ultimate barrier that enshrines the two party system is the Electoral College and FPTP. It is possible to address the latter to some extent locally - Maine has implemented Ranked Choice Voting despite the fit Republicans threw about it (and LePage being ultra petty and handwriting in that a victory under RCV was illegitimate to the winner) However the former is far more entrenched and outright eliminating it is unlikely in the short-to-medium term (by this I mean a Constitutional Amendment. It was almost there under Nixon but obviously these days Republicans will cling to their ability to maintain minority rule with all they have.) You can weaken it with things like the Interstate Popular Vote Compact... provided the courts don't try to strike it down but that's not a lasting fix - lose state governments within the compact at any time to Republicans and they could repeal it and make it fall out of effect again.

Where I fall on this is that as long as those systems are in place, they provide an overwhelming pressure and incentive to maintain themselves. If, for example, the Libertarian Party got 5-6% this cycle and you could conclusively point to it as the reason Republicans lost (big ifs both, especially the former) I rather think that rather than some great questioning of the two-party system, the Republicans would just either ignore it/blame Trump not themselves or at best pay lip service to Libertarians without really changing course. I feel like that's borne itself out pretty well over time from both major parties. The Democrats are more of a "big tent"/coalition style party so you might see them budge an inch or two but you're just as likely to see it backfire and have them run the other way to chase Republican votes.

All that to say I don't really think a third party getting 5 or 6 or hell even 18% really changes much. We've seen it not do that before and there's no compelling reason to think "well this time it'll be different! The change is coming!" So that leaves you with trying to reform the system itself first from within the two-party system and on that point there's not really a debate. Democrats have supported it (RCV in Maine, IPVC, etc.) and Republicans strenuously oppose it. I think there's a fair chance they become a lot more resistant if you get to a point where you're really reforming the system because I'd expect both parties to resist weakening themselves from their preferred status as is in the status quo but I think there's a foothold you can at least start from inside the Democrats to build momentum and get some victories before you get to the point where the fight becomes even tougher.

---

Also foolmos logic is important down ballot as well, possibly even more so
---

xp1337 posted...

All that to say I don't really think a third party getting 5 or 6 or hell even 18% really changes much. We've seen it not do that before and there's no compelling reason to think "well this time it'll be different! The change is coming!"

Yeah but it was the fucking Reform Party
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also foolmos logic is important down ballot as well, possibly even more so

FPTP is still your obstacle there.

Like yeah the EC only matters on a federal level but FPTP is the one you're fighting pretty much at every level. It's definitely a less daunting challenge to overcome at more local levels but you're still fighting the system there which goes back to my post.

---

Yeah you gotta push for ranked choice ahead of anything else


---

xp1337 posted...

The Democrats are more of a "big tent"/coalition style party so you might see them budge an inch or two but you're just as likely to see it backfire and have them run the other way to chase Republican votes.

Both parties have shown some big-tentedness in this case. Republicans with tea party and Democrats with the leftists. The only reason Biden is out here virtue signaling is because of the internal threat that AOC and such have raised, and the threat of independent left voters legit not voting for Biden. Biden has essentially been made to fight for a 3rd party faction in this way. Same thing with Trump and his anti-war anti-establishment rhetoric that won him the election.

Yes, Trump lied about 100% of it, and Biden is also lying, but you have to recognize that the only reason these 2-party candidates even try at all is because of pressure from independents up until the day of the actual vote. (There's the much bigger issue of holding elected officials accountable after they lie, which is way more difficult and and isn't solved by voting reform.)

This is also why it's crucial that Biden isn't seen as a leader or even an ally of progressives. That's how the movement gets taken over and neutralized from the inside.

---

The EC and FPTP shouldn't be in the same conversation here, they are completely different issues. RCV is a direct attack on the 2-party system and is relevant at all levels to weaken the 2-party system. The EC is only a problem to those who think Democrats should be able to ignore small states in presidential elections. It doesn't help 3rd parties at all. From what I can tell, it only hurts them, by eliminating the risk that a 3rd party wins some small neglected state and gets a disproportionate amount of EVs.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Also foolmos logic is important down ballot as well, possibly even more so

But this isn't how it has played out in practice. Seats end up going uncontested. The Democratic party has even lost a bunch of seats over the past decade to Rs or progressive challengers from within the party, because they just have straight up been ignoring local politics. But third parties have failed to capitalize on this (in hindsight) obvious weakness.

Also Foolmo seems to be approaching this from the truly bizarre perspective that both the Libertarian and Green parties are preferable to both of the major parties, but I'm extremely unlikely to vote for any conservative over even a centrist Dem.

I actually did vote for a Green candidate this election, for railroad commissioner, but it's a weird one because it's hard to get anyone to care about these beurocratic positions AND YET this is something I think the Greens are uniquely positioned to sell themselves on being better than the other parties. But I don't ever hear about it.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

xp1337 posted...

All that to say I don't really think a third party getting 5 or 6 or hell even 18% really changes much. We've seen it not do that before and there's no compelling reason to think "well this time it'll be different! The change is coming!"

Yeah but it was the fucking Reform Party

It wasn't. Perot was Independent in 92. He ran as Reform in 96.
---

What are they even trying to accomplish by doing this in New York?

https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1322996649430581248?s=19

---