Bernie's Down But Not Out

[Davin]

This thread is about the presidential elections in the United States. Therefore, discussion of third parties in the United States in this thread takes place within the context of presidential elections, your hyperbole notwithstanding.

I can't tell what your statement here is supposed to address in what I said. Did I say that discussion of third parties should not be in the context of the presidential election? I don't see where I said anything like that. Or is this just another random statement under the pretense of responding to me?

Umm...here, remember?

What weird extreme did I talk about? We've seen the results accomplished by voting for a third party candidate in presidential elections when there isn't any genuine party presence on a local level. Is it unrealistic to look at those results and relate them to the current election?

We went from talking about third party candidates, to you leaping to "Splashing into the presidential elections without doing that work like Perot and Nader did isn't giving a genuine choice[...]" That's a weird extreme.

Yeah, I do remember that. I didn't say that we shouldn't talk about third parties in the context of presidential elections. I was remarking on going from talking about third parties in the presidential elections, to being admonished for "Splashing into the presidential elections without doing work like Perot and Nader did[...]". I never said that we should consider a third party candidate that never put in the work like Perot and Nader did, and yet Recusant replied to me as if I had said something like that. That is what I'm talking about. Right there. You're both not addressing what I said. I'm not sure what you're addressing, but it's not what I said. that's not rational. Pointing out that in this case, you both can't seem to accomplish a rational conversation is not an attack, I'm trying to point out the problem with our "discussion."

That is not a "weird extreme". It's a solid example of why voting for a third-party candidate in a presidential election with the way the current system is set up is self-defeating. Which was the earlier part of the discussion.

Solid... I'm not sure I can trust your assessments of stability. Opinions are not solid things. Opinions are not reliable things. I agree that part of that was part of the earlier discussion, and there are traces in both your responses that look like we are having a discussion, but there is so much in there that I've never said that it looks like you're talking to someone else.

Davin, I  don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me or Recusant or anyone else if you're debating substance, but that's not what you're doing.

I know that's not what I'm doing. Look, I can't make you actually read what I wrote. I can't. I've tried over and over and over again, but you both refuse to actually address what I wrote. I was mentioning my doubts and my uncertainty, but that's not what you treated my statements as. You treated them like they were attacks or arguments against your deeply held political beliefs. You didn't address what I actually said and you expect me to defend things I've never said. That's not reasonable. My pointing it out is not an attack, it's a statement of fact.

As soon as we try to compare your arguments with what happens in the real world, you just put everything down as "weird", "extreme", "unreasonably", irrational", or whatever other hyperbole you come up with on the spot. At some point you have to consider why you're the only one who feels this way.

That's not what you're doing. All you're doing is trying bring up the worst case scenarios, just like Fox News, just like Trump supporters, you're just the other side of the same over exaggerating coin. I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in reality. But that's not what you're presenting. Now I'm sure that you're convinced that that is what you're doing, but the opinion pieces you presented and your opinions, are still just opinions. Opinions are not reality.

[Recusant]

You are welcome. I hope it somehow helps with the problem of people being unable to have reasonable discussions about this. I am doubtful, but it might still help.

I am doubtful as well. Rhetoric such as that is not known for promoting reasonable discussions.

This thread is about the presidential elections in the United States. Therefore, discussion of third parties in the United States in this thread takes place within the context of presidential elections, your hyperbole notwithstanding.

I can't tell what your statement here is supposed to address in what I said. Did I say that discussion of third parties should not be in the context of the presidential election? I don't see where I said anything like that. Or is this just another random statement under the pretense of responding to me?

Perhaps I should have made a point of quoting you before, which might have prevented the apparent confusion. My post was mostly a response to this:

Every time the amount of people that vote for a third party increases, it increases the chances that a third party will have a chance.

I do not agree that more people voting for a third party in presidential elections (and that appears to be what you were talking about) has, during the 20th and 21st centuries, increased the chances that a third party will succeed. I think that what would increase the chances of a third party would be a solid party structure and widespread success in local and state elections. Without that, voting for third party presidential candidates does not improve third party chances.

The most successful third party candidacy in US history was Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party run in the 1912 elections. He didn't increase third party chances, but only acted as a spoiler against Taft.

In the 19th century, it was the splitting of a previous major party that resulted in the birth of the Republican party. This split meant that the new party was able to take advantage of some of the machinery of its parent party, which brought about its success. Ideologues coming at the two party system in presidential elections (even when they have a respectable backing by those of like mind) have historically been shown in election after election to result not in improving the chances of a successful third party, but to merely act as spoilers.

[Firebird]

Yeah, I do remember that. I didn't say that we shouldn't talk about third parties in the context of presidential elections. I was remarking on going from talking about third parties in the presidential elections, to being admonished for "Splashing into the presidential elections without doing work like Perot and Nader did[...]". I never said that we should consider a third party candidate that never put in the work like Perot and Nader did, and yet Recusant replied to me as if I had said something like that. That is what I'm talking about. Right there. You're both not addressing what I said. I'm not sure what you're addressing, but it's not what I said. that's not rational. Pointing out that in this case, you both can't seem to accomplish a rational conversation is not an attack, I'm trying to point out the problem with our "discussion."

Oh please, that was not an admonishment or an attack. If you think that was an admonishment, then you are way too sensitive. Apparently you were offended because Recusant brought up candidates that you feel didn't "put in the work"? Why didn't you just say that instead of getting offended?

Solid... I'm not sure I can trust your assessments of stability.  Opinions are not solid things. Opinions are not reliable things.

No, but opinions backed up with real-world evidence certainly resonate more. Hey, you're welcome to your opinion too. Just don't expect people to listen to it if there's nothing to back it up.

I've tried over and over and over again, but you both refuse to actually address what I wrote. I was mentioning my doubts and my uncertainty, but that's not what you treated my statements as. You treated them like they were attacks or arguments against your deeply held political beliefs.

Again, if that's your definition of an "attack", then you're pretty thin-skinned. I merely responded to your uncertainly and laid out a case for why I felt you should be less uncertain about how much more dangerous Trump was. Nothing more.

That's not what you're doing. All you're doing is trying bring up the worst case scenarios, just like Fox News, just like Trump supporters, you're just the other side of the same over exaggerating coin. I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in reality. But that's not what you're presenting. Now I'm sure that you're convinced that that is what you're doing, but the opinion pieces you presented and your opinions, are still just opinions. Opinions are not reality.

I can't figure out what your reality is if you just reject the real-world examples we showed you already. There's no doubt that the events we talked about occurred (Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, the laws on the books concerning the powers of the President, etc). Why not explain why you have a different opinion based on other examples, rather than throw mud on ours?

Whatever, at this point I'm bored and likely won't respond anymore.

[xSilverPhinx]

Politics...

[Davin]

Perhaps I should have made a point of quoting you before, which might have prevented the apparent confusion. My post was mostly a response to this:

Every time the amount of people that vote for a third party increases, it increases the chances that a third party will have a chance.

That does clear it up a bit, but still doesn't explain why you're response seems to assume that I'm talking about a candidate that hasn't put in work or is party-less.

I do not agree that more people voting for a third party in presidential elections (and that appears to be what you were talking about) has, during the 20th and 21st centuries, increased the chances that a third party will succeed.

I don't understand the statement, more people voting for a third party candidate will never increase the chances of a third party candidate? I don't think that a third part candidate has a chance in this election, I would agree with that, but to say that as more people start voting for third parties, that it doesn't help to eventually lead to a successful third party, doesn't make sense to me.

I think that what would increase the chances of a third party would be a solid party structure and widespread success in local and state elections. Without that, voting for third party presidential candidates does not improve third party chances.

There are third parties that are gaining solidarity in local and state elections. What might help them out, is for people to see that they are at least becoming more serious contenders. So while I doubt that a third party in this election is not likely to become president, I think that if enough people vote outside of the two parties, it will be successful in sending a message not only to the two parties that so many people are fed up with their shit, but will also show more people that maybe those two parties aren't the only options.

The most successful third party candidacy in US history was Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose party run in the 1912 elections. He didn't increase third party chances, but only acted as a spoiler against Taft.

In the 19th century, it was the splitting of a previous major party that resulted in the birth of the Republican party. This split meant that the new party was able to take advantage of some of the machinery of its parent party, which brought about its success. Ideologues coming at the two party system in presidential elections (even when they have a respectable backing by those of like mind) have historically been shown in election after election to result not in improving the chances of a successful third party, but to merely act as spoilers.

Yes, things have played out that way in the past. Fortunately though for all of humanity, people continue to defy the way things things were. I'm not saying that things will change and I can point to those instances to retain my sanity from becoming optimistic, but just because things have only been a certain way, doesn't mean they will remain so or that the old ways are the only ways to do things.

[Recusant]

That does clear it up a bit, but still doesn't explain why you're response seems to assume that I'm talking about a candidate that hasn't put in work or is party-less.

Right now, there is no possible third party that is even close to putting up a presidential candidate that will be anything more than a spoiler. I think the closest right now is the Libertarian party, and they don't appear to me to have a shining future, but maybe I'm letting my disaffection with their ideology color my perception. No other party is even really on the national radar right now, and that includes the Green party. This is an honest evaluation of the current political landscape, in which talk of third party presidential candidates seems unrealistic. I'm not particularly interested in pipe dreams of what might be, someday, if only. . . .

I do not agree that more people voting for a third party in presidential elections (and that appears to be what you were talking about) has, during the 20th and 21st centuries, increased the chances that a third party will succeed.

I don't understand the statement, more people voting for a third party candidate will never increase the chances of a third party candidate?

More people voting for a third party presidential candidate will never increase the chances for a successful third party. Not without serious groundwork and a nationwide presence on a more local level. I'm unaware of any potential third party that has either of those, nor any that show strong potential in that direction.

I don't think that a third part candidate has a chance in this election, I would agree with that, but to say that as more people start voting for third parties, that it doesn't help to eventually lead to a successful third party, doesn't make sense to me.

Again, absent any other factor, more people voting for a third party presidential candidate will not lead to a successful third party. That has been my position all along, and it was a response to your unqualified assertion that more people voting for a third party presidential candidate would improve the chances for a successful third party. History gives us examples of third party presidential candidates who gained a very respectable following. None of them have been responsible for increasing the chances of success for a third party. The most recent was Nader and the Green party. That was 16 years ago, and they seem not much nearer to having a genuine shot now than they did then. Not even one Green member of Congress.

I think that what would increase the chances of a third party would be a solid party structure and widespread success in local and state elections. Without that, voting for third party presidential candidates does not improve third party chances.

There are third parties that are gaining solidarity in local and state elections. What might help them out, is for people to see that they are at least becoming more serious contenders. So while I doubt that a third party in this election is not likely to become president, I think that if enough people vote outside of the two parties, it will be successful in sending a message not only to the two parties that so many people are fed up with their shit, but will also show more people that maybe those two parties aren't the only options.

Perhaps. In presidential elections the only immediate effect is to increase the vote of this or that spoiler.

Yes, things have played out that way in the past. Fortunately though for all of humanity, people continue to defy the way things things were. I'm not saying that things will change and I can point to those instances to retain my sanity from becoming optimistic, but just because things have only been a certain way, doesn't mean they will remain so or that the old ways are the only ways to do things.

Presidential elections operate in a certain way, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. If you're dismissing that as "old ways" then it seems you're not being particularly realistic.

In any case, I'm not talking about "the old ways." I'm talking about lessons from history, including relatively recent history.

[Magdalena]

Politics...

[Davin]

Yeah, I do remember that. I didn't say that we shouldn't talk about third parties in the context of presidential elections. I was remarking on going from talking about third parties in the presidential elections, to being admonished for "Splashing into the presidential elections without doing work like Perot and Nader did[...]". I never said that we should consider a third party candidate that never put in the work like Perot and Nader did, and yet Recusant replied to me as if I had said something like that. That is what I'm talking about. Right there. You're both not addressing what I said. I'm not sure what you're addressing, but it's not what I said. that's not rational. Pointing out that in this case, you both can't seem to accomplish a rational conversation is not an attack, I'm trying to point out the problem with our "discussion."

Oh please, that was not an admonishment or an attack. If you think that was an admonishment, then you are way too sensitive. Apparently you were offended because Recusant brought up candidates that you feel didn't "put in the work"?

Oh please, I can recognize something as an admonishment and not be offended and not be sensitive. I just don't understand why I have to do all the hard work of correcting other people's irrational assumptions. Why do you hold me responsible for the errors made by other people?

Why didn't you just say that instead of getting offended?

I didn't get offended. Why do you continue to assume incorrect things?

Solid... I'm not sure I can trust your assessments of stability.  Opinions are not solid things. Opinions are not reliable things.

No, but opinions backed up with real-world evidence certainly resonate more. Hey, you're welcome to your opinion too. Just don't expect people to listen to it if there's nothing to back it up.

If they had real world evidence to back it up, why was that not provided with the opinion?

I've tried over and over and over again, but you both refuse to actually address what I wrote. I was mentioning my doubts and my uncertainty, but that's not what you treated my statements as. You treated them like they were attacks or arguments against your deeply held political beliefs.

Again, if that's your definition of an "attack", then you're pretty thin-skinned. I merely responded to your uncertainly and laid out a case for why I felt you should be less uncertain about how much more dangerous Trump was. Nothing more.

No, I'm not thin skinned at all, I doubt that anyone here has the ability to offend me in any way. You didn't lay out a case as you seem to think you have, you provided one opinion piece that mentioned only Trump. Now I can understand why you made the error, and I understand why you might think that what you presented was somehow a case for why Trump is worse than Hillary, but in reality the "case" you presented missed one major part of it. I'll let you see if you can figure it what major part was missing in what you pretended was a comparison, but you can go ahead and ask me if you're unable to do so.

That's not what you're doing. All you're doing is trying bring up the worst case scenarios, just like Fox News, just like Trump supporters, you're just the other side of the same over exaggerating coin. I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in reality. But that's not what you're presenting. Now I'm sure that you're convinced that that is what you're doing, but the opinion pieces you presented and your opinions, are still just opinions. Opinions are not reality.

I can't figure out what your reality is if you just reject the real-world examples we showed you already. There's no doubt that the events we talked about occurred (Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, the laws on the books concerning the powers of the President, etc). Why not explain why you have a different opinion based on other examples, rather than throw mud on ours?

Whatever, at this point I'm bored and likely won't respond anymore.

My reality is reality, I'm not sure what yours is because you can't even seem to understand what I write. I threw no "mud." Talk about "sensitive," you silly little thing.

[Davin]

That does clear it up a bit, but still doesn't explain why you're response seems to assume that I'm talking about a candidate that hasn't put in work or is party-less.

Right now, there is no possible third party that is even close to putting up a presidential candidate that will be anything more than a spoiler. I think the closest right now is the Libertarian party, and they don't appear to me to have a shining future, but maybe I'm letting my disaffection with their ideology color my perception. No other party is even really on the national radar right now, and that includes the Green party. This is an honest evaluation of the current political landscape, in which talk of third party presidential candidates seems unrealistic. I'm not particularly interested in pipe dreams of what might be, someday, if only. . . .

That is your opinion, and I'm quite familiar with the mentality, but I still don't think that either of those falls into doing no work and having no party. Except in extremist terms that exaggerate reality. And it's that kind of exaggeration that I'm not interested in.

I do not agree that more people voting for a third party in presidential elections (and that appears to be what you were talking about) has, during the 20th and 21st centuries, increased the chances that a third party will succeed.

I don't understand the statement, more people voting for a third party candidate will never increase the chances of a third party candidate?

More people voting for a third party presidential candidate will never increase the chances for a successful third party. Not without serious groundwork and a nationwide presence on a more local level. I'm unaware of any potential third party that has either of those, nor any that show strong potential in that direction.

So if 60% of the country voted for a third party, that wouldn't affect the success of that third party? That doesn't make sense. And in an optimum case of an evenly split vote, they might need as little as 33%. The idea that no matter how many votes a third party gets, they will not be successful is quite bizarre to me.

I don't think that a third part candidate has a chance in this election, I would agree with that, but to say that as more people start voting for third parties, that it doesn't help to eventually lead to a successful third party, doesn't make sense to me.

Again, absent any other factor, more people voting for a third party presidential candidate will not lead to a successful third party. That has been my position all along, and it was a response to your unqualified assertion that more people voting for a third party presidential candidate would improve the chances for a successful third party. History gives us examples of third party presidential candidates who gained a very respectable following. None of them have been responsible for increasing the chances of success for a third party. The most recent was Nader and the Green party. That was 16 years ago, and they seem not much nearer to having a genuine shot now than they did then. Not even one Green member of Congress.

And yet the amount of people willing to support a third party and the amount of people voting for a third party keeps going up. I mean that the historic trend is upward even if it drops a few times, it also spikes a few times. Take into account that the last few elections without where voter turn out has only been around 50-60%. Not the lowest, but certainly not the highest. Also take into account that both Trump and Hillary are not the most liked candidates according to numerous polls. Also take into account that the want for a third party is higher than it's ever been. Also, look into the spike of voter turnout that occurred when Perot first ran.

I think that what would increase the chances of a third party would be a solid party structure and widespread success in local and state elections. Without that, voting for third party presidential candidates does not improve third party chances.

There are third parties that are gaining solidarity in local and state elections. What might help them out, is for people to see that they are at least becoming more serious contenders. So while I doubt that a third party in this election is not likely to become president, I think that if enough people vote outside of the two parties, it will be successful in sending a message not only to the two parties that so many people are fed up with their shit, but will also show more people that maybe those two parties aren't the only options.

Perhaps. In presidential elections the only immediate effect is to increase the vote of this or that spoiler.

I wouldn't call it a spoiler, if that's how people vote. I'm sure that it feels like spoiling coming from some angles. I think it's people voting the way they want. There were some serious changes in both political parties when Perot ran, because both parties saw that people were not only upset with them, but willing to not vote for them to show it. I think it's weird that you think that nothing happened from the third party candidates at all.

Yes, things have played out that way in the past. Fortunately though for all of humanity, people continue to defy the way things things were. I'm not saying that things will change and I can point to those instances to retain my sanity from becoming optimistic, but just because things have only been a certain way, doesn't mean they will remain so or that the old ways are the only ways to do things.

Presidential elections operate in a certain way, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. If you're dismissing that as "old ways" then it seems you're not being particularly realistic.

In any case, I'm not talking about "the old ways." I'm talking about lessons from history, including relatively recent history.

I don't think you understood what I wrote. I'm far too exhausted with this whole thing to plead for another ten posts to get you to actually listen to me. But don't worry about it, have fun.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

He's out.