Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama wins!

Obama wins! (Page 4)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
As a side note: while Googling for the script, I found out that the Language Center of National Central University in Taiwan uses Blazing Saddles for analyzing English language.
It's true! It's true!
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 10:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's all I said too, but was attacked for it. "Durr hurr, you dirty Romney supporter!"
Honestly folks, that shtick gets old after a while.
Well, back to work, those valves aren't going to replace themselves.
It seems to me that your "if Nader ran, this would've been different" argument. I think I get your point (you're suggesting that less people voted Left than previously?)

The problem is that's only ONE of many hypotheticals that could have affected the election, and THAT'S what you're being attacked over.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 10:33 AM
 
This should have gone in the Duh Bates thread, but any attempt to post in it crashes my browser.

     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
It seems to me that your "if Nader ran, this would've been different" argument. I think I get your point (you're suggesting that less people voted Left than previously?)
The problem is that's only ONE of many hypotheticals that could have affected the election, and THAT'S what you're being attacked over.
Actually, what I was eluding to was that someone begged Ralph not to run, and it likely wasn't Obama, since Nader hates him. If he had followed his tradition, and Johnson hadn't personally had it out for the RNC (can't really blame him there), this would have been a real nail-biter, and very likely split (pop and EC), as in 2000. No Ralph, and Gore would have won, no doubt in my mind. I brought up this hypothetical because no one in the media has mentioned it, or really even questioned Nader's withdrawal from national politics. Is it his age? His health? He still looks spry to me. Nothing's damaged his mind, he's still as sharp as a razor. Eh.

As for the being attacked thing, that happens too much on AT. The bitter sarcasm, hatred, and trolling. We've known each other for, what, almost 10 years? Longer in many cases. I knew most of you before I even knew my wife (wives), back when I was going to college full-time and struggling with 2 jobs. There's no reason for it, really. It's a sad commentary on typical Internet behavior.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 11:57 AM
 
You have to admire the man's confidence I suppose ....



Whoops! Romney's 'transition' website spotted by blogger | NBCNews.com

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You have to admire the man's confidence I suppose ....

Whoops! Romney's 'transition' website spotted by blogger | NBCNews.com
OAW
Isn't it good policy to be ready for both outcomes? I don't see what's wrong with the website being prepped.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post


No, just purposely obtuse and argumentative.
And you purposely provocative while stating inaccurate things and getting angry when people question your need to be provocative.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post

I've been following the thread, and several people have been telling you the same thing: the EC matters, the popular vote doesn't.
This.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post

It seems to me that your "if Nader ran, this would've been different" argument. I think I get your point (you're suggesting that less people voted Left than previously?)
The problem is that's only ONE of many hypotheticals that could have affected the election, and THAT'S what you're being attacked over.
and this.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Isn't it good policy to be ready for both outcomes? I don't see what's wrong with the website being prepped.
Oh it is. I'm not saying anything was wrong with it. It's just kind of ironic given the degree to which Romney had his ass handed to him. As evidenced by this ....


While ballots are still being counted in the state of Florida, a senior adviser for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign told the Miami Herald on Thursday that they are effectively conceding the Sunshine State and its 29 electoral votes to President Barack Obama.

"The numbers in Florida show this was winnable," Brett Doster said in a statement to the paper. "We thought based on our polling and range of organization that we had done what we needed to win. Obviously, we didn't, and for that I and every other operative in Florida has a sick feeling that we left something on the table. I can assure you this won't happen again."

Florida would give the president a total of 332 electoral votes. Romney would finish with 206.
Romney senior adviser concedes Florida ] | Yahoo! News

OAW
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You have to admire the man's confidence I suppose ....



Whoops! Romney's 'transition' website spotted by blogger | NBCNews.com

OAW
Do you seriously believe any election candidate who stands a chance of winning wouldn't have a complete website/page ready to go online on the night of the election?
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 12:38 PM
 
@Spheric .... see my post above. It was JOKE! Jeez ....

OAW
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Wouldn't have affected anything in this election, all things being equal. Obama still won the majority.
I know. That's not the point - the point is building a "more perfect union" as the phrase is. Right now Americans basically have two options, and if they don't like either, they have to pick their poison or not vote at all. This is part of the reason that Congress has so low approval ratings year after year - a large part of the population don't feel that they are truly being represented. It is also why lobbyists are so powerful in the current US system - it is VERY hard to unseat a representative, especially if they've been in office a few years, and as a result, they are basically immune unless they're caught in a big scandal. Selling your vote to the highest bidder nets you a big campaign contribution and is likely to not be noticed when you are one of 200+ people voting for an unpopular measure.

With a system like the one above, the chance for independents opens up. A hardcore Republican who really dislikes their current representative is still unlikely to vote for the Democratic alternative because they prefer the GOP ideology in general. With a system like this, they could vote for an independent first and that hated Republican second to be as sure as they are today that the Democrat does not get elected. A few more independents in Congress could be just what it needs to start getting things done and not just digging their heels in.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 12:43 PM
 
More exit polling illustrating the Romney Campaign's flawed strategy ....

A number of factors are winning attention as important to President Obama’s reelection win, among them the Latino vote, a surge in young voters’ share of the electorate, and a surprise no-show by many white voters whom Republicans were counting on.

Here’s one more teensy little thing that might be added to the list: the economy.

A large majority of voters cited this as the top national issue, and the nation’s historically high unemployment rate was the big vulnerability that challenger Mitt Romney hoped to use as a lever to pry Mr. Obama out of office.

But the economy has also been slowly improving, and in the end Obama’s Republican rival couldn’t gain the leverage he hoped for.


Here are some nuggets of insight that voters provided in exit polls Tuesday, which tell the story:

• Even though three-fourths of voters see the state of the economy as “not so good” or poor, they didn’t hold Obama as primarily to blame, the Washington Post reports. When asked if they assigned blame more to Obama or to President Bush, only 38 percent of voters said they saw Obama as responsible for current conditions.

In essence, many voters didn’t buy Mr. Romney’s argument that poor stewardship since 2008 has cost the economy millions of jobs.
How Obama won in a weak economy: Voters didn't blame him | Christian Science Monitor

OAW
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 02:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Right now Americans basically have two options, and if they don't like either, they have to pick their poison or not vote at all.
That's FUD, and I wish you and others would stop perpetuating it. You're making yourself a part of the machine that keeps itself in power, by helping scare people away from voting their conscience.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 02:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You have to admire the man's confidence I suppose ....

Whoops! Romney's 'transition' website spotted by blogger | NBCNews.com
OAW
Why would they not have a site ready for after the election? It took a staffer maybe 10 minutes to make. Companies print up thousands of t-shirts and caps for both teams, days before the Superbowl, and then destroy the ones for the losing team. I have a pretty rare SB XLIV Colts victory cap (they lost to the Saints) and sometimes I wear it just to mess with people.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
And you purposely provocative while stating inaccurate things and getting angry when people question your need to be provocative.
Terribly ironic, coming from you.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's FUD, and I wish you and others would stop perpetuating it. You're making yourself a part of the machine that keeps itself in power, by helping scare people away from voting their conscience.
I wholeheartedly disagree, and would go so far as to claim what you're saying is the FUD.

As a citizen of Illinois, my vote for President was literally meaningless. It was a gimme for Obama. In addition to that, with the exception of who they pick for the SCOTUS, and mammoth foreign policy blunders, who is president has almost zero effect on me. Anybody who tells me to pay attention to that race is wasting my time.

OTOH, we have a local judge who assaulted a deputy sheriff and pleaded she was legally insane.

We voted to retain her. That's the machine keeping itself in power.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
A few more independents in Congress could be just what it needs to start getting things done and not just digging their heels in.
That's why I think voting systems that are not purely simple majority systems are superior: they allow for smaller parties to enter which successfully inject political topics into the main stream (e. g. environmental policies). And it allows voters more leeway: as you say, if there is a, say, conservative alternative (e. g. the Libertarian party) and your vote isn't »lost« (i. e. if the Libertarians obtain a certain number of votes, they will get a proportionate amount of seats), then Conservatives can vote for a different party. As you say, they'd be unlikely to vote for a liberal party. Also, smaller parties can afford to stick to certain convictions, even if it costs them votes in the short term.

I still remember meeting a couple from some Southern state (don't remember which one) in 2008 who were visiting Munich as tourists at the time. They were representatives at the Republican caucus to elect a candidate and I picked their brains about what candidates they did and did not like. To them, supporting a Mormon was out of the question. (I don't claim that this sentiment carries over to a majority of registered Republicans, though.) I imagine they were caught between a rock and a hard place for this election.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That's FUD, and I wish you and others would stop perpetuating it. You're making yourself a part of the machine that keeps itself in power, by helping scare people away from voting their conscience.
I wholeheartedly disagree, and would go so far as to claim what you're saying is the FUD.

As a citizen of Illinois, my vote for President was literally meaningless. It was a gimme for Obama.
Your thinking is totally backwards. If you were in a swing state, you would be terrorized into voting for the lesser of two evils. You would lose your right to a protest vote, your right to free speech in this circumstance. Now you're free to actually vote for 3rd parties with no risk of adverse consequences. You don't have to live with the consequences of an inexperienced or fringe candidate, because they are purely symbolic. And don't whine to me about the electoral college, I have lived my whole life in WA state (until this month), so you've had more pull than I have.

Politicians are wishy-washy, they closely watch the way the wind blows. Your vote for a third party candidate will be noticed (to the extent it's due; you're still only 1 in 300,000,000). Even if neither is afraid of being defeated by that candidate, they still want those votes back, and they will adopt the third parties' values to get those votes.

If I may ask, whom did you vote for and why? Was it one of the two major parties?


In addition to that, with the exception of who they pick for the SCOTUS, and mammoth foreign policy blunders, who is president has almost zero effect on me. Anybody who tells me to pay attention to that race is wasting my time.
This is all the more reason why the "throw your vote away" and "lesser of two evils" is just FUD. They're based on the premise that you must back the winning horse. Why? If your vote doesn't matter to the horse, and the horse doesn't matter to you, then why should you abandon your right to vote your heart? This only further confirms my argument that these are FUD.

Which vote is more "wasted," the one that's for a candidate that doesn't win, or the one that's a lie misrepresenting your support in favor of game theory? I say the latter is a far bigger waste. That's like telling the government "if you don't know what you did wrong then I'm not going to tell you." They're not going to get the message if you put it like that.


OTOH, we have a local judge who assaulted a deputy sheriff and pleaded she was legally insane.

We voted to retain her. That's the machine keeping itself in power.
I don't see the relevance.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 10:29 PM
 
I think we're trying to hit the same target, just from different directions.

The relevance of the judge is she has a much greater potential to have a direct impact on my life than the president.

If I were forced to make a choice to either vote for president or to dump this judge, it would be in my best interest to dump the judge. That interest isn't being served by the media, who focuses the most on the things which affect me the least. If my community's interests were being served, there's no way this judge would have kept her job. She's objectively off her rocker.

That's the first message of "don't vote for the president". It's really saying "don't waste massive amounts of time and energy on a choice which doesn't affect you, spend it on the numerous choices you are given which do affect you".

I think the other end of the message is what you're talking about. "Don't vote for president" is actually trying to make the same argument as you, it's just being crafty about it. You don't get into the mindset of making a protest vote unless you first give up applying your vote to one of the two party candidates.

I agree with you the downside of this argument is in the swing-states. Your use of "terrorized" is apt. However, how much does it matter whether an independent finally gains traction in a swing-state or not a swing-state?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2012, 10:34 PM
 
Oh, I voted for Johnson. For reasons too numerous to list. Liking his platform was gravy.

I would have done so in a swing-state, but maybe not if I was 10 years younger.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 02:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think we're trying to hit the same target, just from different directions.
The relevance of the judge is she has a much greater potential to have a direct impact on my life than the president.
If I were forced to make a choice to either vote for president or to dump this judge, it would be in my best interest to dump the judge. That interest isn't being served by the media, who focuses the most on the things which affect me the least. If my community's interests were being served, there's no way this judge would have kept her job. She's objectively off her rocker.
That's the first message of "don't vote for the president". It's really saying "don't waste massive amounts of time and energy on a choice which doesn't affect you, spend it on the numerous choices you are given which do affect you".
I think the other end of the message is what you're talking about. "Don't vote for president" is actually trying to make the same argument as you, it's just being crafty about it. You don't get into the mindset of making a protest vote unless you first give up applying your vote to one of the two party candidates.
I agree with you the downside of this argument is in the swing-states. Your use of "terrorized" is apt. However, how much does it matter whether an independent finally gains traction in a swing-state or not a swing-state?
Yep, yep, yep, going 100% with you here. The presidential race is a government sponsored version of American Idol.

My road commissioner is more important to me than the POTUS, and definitely my sheriff... maybe the animal control officer too. I donated a decent chunk to his re-election campaign, he's a first-rate varmint catcher. He'd have a heyday in DC.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 03:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Originally Posted by P View Post
Right now Americans basically have two options, and if they don't like either, they have to pick their poison or not vote at all.
That's FUD, and I wish you and others would stop perpetuating it. You're making yourself a part of the machine that keeps itself in power, by helping scare people away from voting their conscience.
That stems from inverse thinking.

Voting their conscience would involve supporting a party/candidate they wholeheartedly agree with. That is pointless if there's absolutely zero chance of representation.

The way it works now, people whose lives will be affected by who wins and wish to vote their conscience have no choice but vote AGAINST the greater of two evils, not voting FOR something worthy of support.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 06:03 AM
 
Asians voted overwhelming for Obama.

I guess Romney's math didn't add up.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 06:53 AM
 
So, would Obama be president with an responsible, unbiased media? I don't think so.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 07:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So, would Obama be president with an responsible, unbiased media? I don't think so.
Keep grasping at those straws.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 07:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Asians voted overwhelming for Obama.

I guess Romney's math didn't add up.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 07:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Keep grasping at those straws.
So, the media had NOTHING to do with the candidates popularity, amount of good vs bad coverage according to you?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So, the media had NOTHING to do with the candidates popularity, amount of good vs bad coverage according to you?
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 07:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think we're trying to hit the same target, just from different directions.
I can't tell, but I still don't think the post I replied to was (P's), nor one which followed (Spheric). They're perpetuating a very common and insidious lie.

The relevance of the judge is she has a much greater potential to have a direct impact on my life than the president.
But is she affected by the "pick your poison" meme? Was she re-elected because the electorate was convinced that they needed her in order to fend off an even greater evil (this is what I'm complaining about)?
You seem to be drawing a false dichotomy wherein you must decline voting for president if you want to vote for other races, which is confusing to me. I object to the conclusion "don't vote for president." You should always vote for someone, even if only a write-in. If you don't vote, your voice is dismissed as "apathy." Your message of disapproval is only received if you vote for someone else.

That's the first message of "don't vote for the president". It's really saying "don't waste massive amounts of time and energy on a choice which doesn't affect you, spend it on the numerous choices you are given which do affect you".
I'm trying to fathom where you're getting the idea that someone's time is competing between voting 3rd party in the presidential race (vs not voting in it at all), and voting in local races.

I think the other end of the message is what you're talking about. "Don't vote for president" is actually trying to make the same argument as you, it's just being crafty about it. You don't get into the mindset of making a protest vote unless you first give up applying your vote to one of the two party candidates.
I'm open to being pointed out where I'm wrong, but I still don't see it. Are you saying "don't vote for president" means do vote for a 3rd party candidate? Or that it means do vote in local races instead? The latter is grammatically correct at least, but still logically inconsistent, because voting nationally and locally are positively correlated, not negatively, since you submit them all on the same ballot after all. So

I agree with you the downside of this argument is in the swing-states. Your use of "terrorized" is apt. However, how much does it matter whether an independent finally gains traction in a swing-state or not a swing-state?
It sounds now like you're falling into the same old trap of thinking that a 3rd party candidate doesn't matter unless they actually win (correct me if I'm wrong about your post). Elections are referendums, exceptional ones because they are strictly administered and binding, so people usually vote earnestly. Since the presidential election is watched most closely (for better or for worse), it carries the most weight; there's a coat-tail effect, and your local politicians will be mindful of the way the winds blow as revealed by the presidential results. We all know how many votes a third party candidate got, even when they don't win any states. I already gave the Perot example: his agenda was incorporated by the very person who beat him. Do you think that would have happened if Perot's candidacy hadn't demonstrated how much support there was behind his ideals? At the end of the day, it matters more that your favorite agenda was implemented than who implemented it (which I concede still matters too, just not as much). The same thing happened to Obama, from the perspective of conservatives: even though their candidate lost, their policies still won, precisely because Obama can see how much support with voters there still was behind the losing candidate**. In summary, your vote lets your voice be heard just as much if your candidate doesn't win as if they do win, but only if you vote your heart.

** Now imagine how stupid all the people feel if they voted against Obama for reasons better represented by 3rd party candidates than by McCain. If they voted for McCain because of this "pick your poison" routine, now everyone thinks they support McCain, and their true voice was lost. If they had voted for who they wanted like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or whomever, then the message received by Obama may have been quite different and he might have acted in service to those ideals instead of the terrorism witch-hunt.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Originally Posted by P View Post
Right now Americans basically have two options, and if they don't like either, they have to pick their poison or not vote at all.
That's FUD, and I wish you and others would stop perpetuating it. You're making yourself a part of the machine that keeps itself in power, by helping scare people away from voting their conscience.
That stems from inverse thinking.

Voting their conscience would involve supporting a party/candidate they wholeheartedly agree with. That is pointless if there's absolutely zero chance of representation.
No, a hundred times no. This is exactly the fallacy that is ruining elections. Your vote absolutely does carry as much weight when you vote for someone who loses as when you vote for someone who ends up winning.

•First of all, the "your vote is pointless" claim is a false standard, because in the majority of states (non-swing states), your vote is already pointless, so there's nothing to lose by breaking free of the chains of the two major parties to vote your heart.
•Secondly, pollsters closely watch results regardless of who wins. You know the whole "mandate" phenomenon, and and that it matters how much voter support is behind the losing candidate. Well that is true for all the losing candidates, not just the one from "the other party."
•Third, and this is the important part, the reason third parties are considered a lost cause is because even in the information age when we all know exactly how many votes they attracted, they still don't win very many votes. They don't even garner the number of votes that would represent the true level of support for their platforms among voters. That's because voters are afraid to vote their hearts, because of what you're doing right now, spreading FUD. If it weren't for the lie that "it's pointless if your candidate won't win," then voters would actually be able to express their will through the numbers gained by 3rd party losing candidates, and to the extent that they actually have actual support, the winning candidates would pay service to those ideals. We already see this happening constantly between the two major (defective) parties, and they call it a "mandate" or "no mandate." We could have so much more if the FUD spreaders weren't poisoning the field of 3rd party candidates.

If you already know you live in a non-swing state, you should be using that ability to make your policy beliefs known, without this fear that you'll inadvertently sink the second-worst in favor of the most-worst. And it's bad advice like you're giving (that votes only matter if they're for the eventual winner) that's preventing this from happening.

The way it works now, people whose lives will be affected by who wins and wish to vote their conscience have no choice but vote AGAINST the greater of two evils, not voting FOR something worthy of support.
The fact that they frequently believe this terrible advice is the only thing preventing them from having this choice. They do have a choice. I didn't realize it for a long long time, precisely because of people like you spreading this exact FUD. This FUD is what keeps the two parties' stranglehold intact. It's brilliant really, for the two parties, because somehow they got it so the people who hate them the most are going around spreading the gospel that keeps them in power: the lie that there are no half-steps into politics, and that election non-winners carry no weight.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 09:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So, would Obama be president with an responsible, unbiased media? I don't think so.
I think this is where this should go:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/06/for-every-minute-of-airtime-fox-news-gave-obama/191170

6586/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

This doesn't show every network or every news source, but I think the chart shows who was most biased.
     
osiris
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Isle of Manhattan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
$20 whores aren't, and don't use, anything pretty. Perhaps that was the rub, tongue in cheek as it were.
Regardless, we don't need to be insulting other members.
It's a quote from Blazing Saddles.

Besides, I adore Dakar.
"Faster, faster! 'Till the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death." - HST
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 09:37 AM
 


For balance.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
This doesn't show every network or every news source, but I think the chart shows who was most biased.
You're engaging in dumb argument anyway. It would be far more enlightening and create a better base to start a discussion from if Badkosh listed why he thought Obama won the election (Or Romney lost).
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 09:53 AM
 
Uncle Skeleton:

Interesting counter-perspective.

Obviously the campaign analysts will be watching very closely where votes are going.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
the lie that there are no half-steps into politics, and that election non-winners carry no weight.
It is not that they don't carry weight (though the weight they carry is extremely abstract and difficult to convey), it's that they don't have a VOICE.

Compare to systems where any vote above 5% guarantees actual representation. Very tangible result: You vote, and if enough people agree, the faction has seats in parliament and represents your views. Depending upon how the seats are assigned, their votes may even be required for a parliamentary majority.

Has its drawbacks, too, of course (see Italy for an example of extremely unstable coalition models).
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/06/for-every-minute-of-airtime-fox-news-gave-obama/191170
6586/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Do either of these charts account for the difference between newscasting and op-ed shows like Maddow and O'Reilly? Because I think bias in the latter is meaningless while bias in the former is serious.
     
raleur
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Do either of these charts account for the difference between newscasting and op-ed shows like Maddow and O'Reilly? Because I think bias in the latter is meaningless while bias in the former is serious.
Well, the first one measures "tone," which can be a matter of perspective, but the results aren't surprising since Fox and MSNBC cater to polarized audiences. The second claims to count 'minutes' only- but notice that it is limited to candidate speeches, which leaves out a great deal of other coverage and commentary.

Anyway, it's a red herring. Dakar's right: BadKosh should list reasons that don't operate on vague or unwarranted assumptions.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
the lie that there are no half-steps into politics, and that election non-winners carry no weight.
It is not that they don't carry weight (though the weight they carry is extremely abstract and difficult to convey), it's that they don't have a VOICE.

Compare to systems where any vote above 5% guarantees actual representation. Very tangible result: You vote, and if enough people agree, the faction has seats in parliament and represents your views. Depending upon how the seats are assigned, their votes may even be required for a parliamentary majority.
That's an interesting point if you're comparing different election systems to each other, and I don't think anyone would disagree that the US voting system could benefit from an overhaul. But I will still point out that we were discussing a different question, the one that asks what should voters do given that they are living in the current US voting system and probably will be for the rest of our lifetimes. These voters don't have a VOICE either way, all they have is one chance every 2-4 years to contribute one byte of data. They do themselves a great disservice if that byte is corrupted, such as voting for Obama when they hate everything about him except for the fact that he's what standing between us and Romney or McCain (or the equivalent local race). Because for the VAST majority, corrupting their byte is pointless, because their electoral vote was not in jeopardy in the first place.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 02:01 PM
 
Fair enough.


What the hell has happened to this place?

You didn't USED TO be able to make more than a post or two before feeling like you'd accidentally sunk your hands into a pool of manure and/or having been told that you're a dumbass by someone sitting cheerfully waist-deep within said pool.

Now all of a sudden people are clarifying their points while agreeing with the general premise, calmly explaining why the issue is a slightly different one…?

I mean…hello?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I can't tell, but I still don't think the post I replied to was (P's), nor one which followed (Spheric). They're perpetuating a very common and insidious lie.
But is she affected by the "pick your poison" meme? Was she re-elected because the electorate was convinced that they needed her in order to fend off an even greater evil (this is what I'm complaining about)?
You seem to be drawing a false dichotomy wherein you must decline voting for president if you want to vote for other races, which is confusing to me. I object to the conclusion "don't vote for president." You should always vote for someone, even if only a write-in. If you don't vote, your voice is dismissed as "apathy." Your message of disapproval is only received if you vote for someone else.
I'm trying to fathom where you're getting the idea that someone's time is competing between voting 3rd party in the presidential race (vs not voting in it at all), and voting in local races.
I'm open to being pointed out where I'm wrong, but I still don't see it. Are you saying "don't vote for president" means do vote for a 3rd party candidate? Or that it means do vote in local races instead? The latter is grammatically correct at least, but still logically inconsistent, because voting nationally and locally are positively correlated, not negatively, since you submit them all on the same ballot after all. So
It sounds now like you're falling into the same old trap of thinking that a 3rd party candidate doesn't matter unless they actually win (correct me if I'm wrong about your post). Elections are referendums, exceptional ones because they are strictly administered and binding, so people usually vote earnestly. Since the presidential election is watched most closely (for better or for worse), it carries the most weight; there's a coat-tail effect, and your local politicians will be mindful of the way the winds blow as revealed by the presidential results. We all know how many votes a third party candidate got, even when they don't win any states. I already gave the Perot example: his agenda was incorporated by the very person who beat him. Do you think that would have happened if Perot's candidacy hadn't demonstrated how much support there was behind his ideals? At the end of the day, it matters more that your favorite agenda was implemented than who implemented it (which I concede still matters too, just not as much). The same thing happened to Obama, from the perspective of conservatives: even though their candidate lost, their policies still won, precisely because Obama can see how much support with voters there still was behind the losing candidate**. In summary, your vote lets your voice be heard just as much if your candidate doesn't win as if they do win, but only if you vote your heart.
** Now imagine how stupid all the people feel if they voted against Obama for reasons better represented by 3rd party candidates than by McCain. If they voted for McCain because of this "pick your poison" routine, now everyone thinks they support McCain, and their true voice was lost. If they had voted for who they wanted like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader or whomever, then the message received by Obama may have been quite different and he might have acted in service to those ideals instead of the terrorism witch-hunt.
I'm going to take this a bit at a time. If at any point you think there's something I'm ignoring, being it up and I'll address it, but I'd like this next exchange to be focused.

You are absolutely correct I am creating a false dichotomy, but that dichotomy isn't my point, it's a thought experiment which leads to my point.

If you were forced to make the choice between voting for president or voting to retain the psychotic local judge, which would you pick? The judge isn't running against anyone BTW. It's a simple retention vote.

It seems to me the clear answer to this thought experiment is you vote not to retain the judge.

Now, the second question is, if you are then allowed to vote for both the president and the judge, does the ranking you were forced to give in the first question change? I'd say no. The vote for the judge still ranks higher, and as such, should be worth more of your time.

The reality of the situation though, is almost everyone does the opposite. They spend their time on considering the presidential race, not the races which immediately affect them. Almost everyone in the county made a choice for president, almost no one made a choice on this judge.


Again, I'm not trying to ignore anything else you wrote, it only seems to me that what you are saying is so far from what I'm trying to express, that I should try to re-explain my basic point.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 02:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Fair enough.
What the hell has happened to this place?
You didn't USED TO be able to make more than a post or two before feeling like you'd accidentally sunk your hands into a pool of manure and/or having been told that you're a dumbass by someone sitting cheerfully waist-deep within said pool.
Now all of a sudden people are clarifying their points while agreeing with the general premise, calmly explaining why the issue is a slightly different one…?
I mean…hello?
It's nice too, because I'd say Uncle Skeleton is in the top 5 analytical minds on the forum, if not the top.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post

It's nice too, because I'd say Uncle Skeleton is in the top 5 analytical minds on the forum, if not the top.
I'm the top, asshole!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 04:41 PM
 
You'll be a bottom when I get done with you.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 04:44 PM
 
What I read
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm the top asshole! 
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2012, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Fair enough.
What the hell has happened to this place?
You didn't USED TO be able to make more than a post or two before feeling like you'd accidentally sunk your hands into a pool of manure and/or having been told that you're a dumbass by someone sitting cheerfully waist-deep within said pool.
Now all of a sudden people are clarifying their points while agreeing with the general premise, calmly explaining why the issue is a slightly different one…?
I mean…hello?
Relax. It's the halo effect of all the liberals being in the post-Obama afterglow, plus all the forum conservatives being AWOL. You ****ing idiot.

Am I Helping remind you of the old forum?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2012, 04:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The reality of the situation though, is almost everyone does the opposite. They spend their time on considering the presidential race, not the races which immediately affect them. Almost everyone in the county made a choice for president, almost no one made a choice on this judge.


Again, I'm not trying to ignore anything else you wrote, it only seems to me that what you are saying is so far from what I'm trying to express, that I should try to re-explain my basic point.
Yeah you're right. So was there a voters guide or any other information available for a last-minute researcher (like me)? I can see myself falling for this trap, as I generally vote for anyone who runs unopposed without questioning them much, and the only thing I can think of to prevent me from doing that would be if I noticed the voter guide actually argue against them. Otherwise they'd have to be pretty big news for me to remember their name on election day. Why didn't anyone care enough to run against her if she's so bad?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2012, 04:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
What the hell has happened to this place?

You didn't USED TO be able to make more than a post or two before feeling like you'd accidentally sunk your hands into a pool of manure and/or having been told that you're a dumbass by someone sitting cheerfully waist-deep within said pool.

Now all of a sudden people are clarifying their points while agreeing with the general premise, calmly explaining why the issue is a slightly different one…?

I mean…hello?
Election season is over for us ugly 'muricans

♪ It's the most, wonderful time, of the year ♫

I'm still getting robocalls though
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2012, 05:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Fair enough.
What the hell has happened to this place?
You didn't USED TO be able to make more than a post or two before feeling like you'd accidentally sunk your hands into a pool of manure and/or having been told that you're a dumbass by someone sitting cheerfully waist-deep within said pool.
Now all of a sudden people are clarifying their points while agreeing with the general premise, calmly explaining why the issue is a slightly different one…?
I mean…hello?
Well, I started reporting certain people, others started reporting them too. My new practice is to not reply to anyone if they're trolling or overtly disrespectful. I use the forum report feature in the way it's intended and let the mods sort it out. We don't have to be like the other 99% of Pol/Religion forums, it isn't too much to expect better from fellow MacNNers whom we've known for up to a decade or more.

Post-conventional morality is possible within an advanced group dynamic, and this forum is going to do it, even if we have to drag the others kicking and screaming.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:22 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,