|
Musicmystery -> RE: The Clinton Legacy (4/3/2017 2:17:00 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
quote:
ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
quote:
ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
BOTH of you are ignoring that the majority of voters are Independents.
So you're saying there are more independents than Democrats and Republicans?
I find that hard to believe.
You really don't think the small turnout last November makes a case for that argument?
It's possible in the last election maybe but I would even doubt that.
Look at it this way: a big chunk of the faithful on both sides found their party's nominee repulsive and either stayed home or made a protest vote. In that case the independents (and whatever you can say about the biovating orange fucktard in the white house, he did a much better job of targeting the non-republican/alt right voter than a decade of Koch funded teaparty nonsense ever managed) became a much bigger factor than they would have been in a race between Sanders and Bush.
This is, as mm says, something that the party faithful are wont to overlook, for a variety of reasons, and the reason for the whole "a third party vote is a vote for whoever wins this time rather than their opponent", which is drivel as an argument: the whole point of a protest vote is that it isn't a vote for either of the two parties. I suppose it empowers some people to spin abstaining or voting none of the above as tacit support for the winner, but it's no such thing in practice.
This last election EASILY could have been an election where Dems and Reps were minor players. The only reason it wasn't is that the sheep have been conditioned to believe that only the two "major" party candidates can win. That may have once been true, but it's only true today if people keep behaving as if it were true.
We could end the reign of Dems/Reps in 2018 if we had the will to vote that way. Let the Libertarians, Conservatives, and Greens fight it out.
Or let an Independent waltz away with the election.
|
|
|
|
