The deck was certainly stacked against Bernie. That much we do know. I think long-standing, basic rules of the Democratic primary so ridiculously favored an establishment candidate that there wasn't even a need for "rigging". Hillary Clinton being perhaps the biggest "establishment" candidate that has ever run for office was almost an inevitability given the format, even without the dubious extracurriculars that took place. The DNC was set up like a corrupt oligarchy, and the primaries reflected that. I'm not sure Bernie would be a great executive either, but the more time passes, the more we see the Presidency morphing into a "cheerleader-in-chief" or CEO type role anyway.
The way I see it, there's a duopoly in town. Company A sucks. Company B sucks more. There's three choices. I can give my business to Company A -- thereby removing the incentives for Company A to change. or I can give my business to Company B -- thereby removing the incentives for Company B to change. or I can withhold my business altogether -- thereby incentivizing Company A (and even Company B) to change in order to earn my business. Would I be more motivated to give my business to Company A if Company B were making my life a living nightmare? Almost surely. But even as they are, I'm putting short-term thinking aside for the long-term goal of moving the goalposts from "sucks" to "does not suck" or perhaps even "actually good".
I understand the logic, but it doesn't quite work and you are also missing one choice. The logic is that if you withhold your business with the two companies that existed (and if enough of others people do this), at least one would start to change. Where this breaks down is you actually can never withhold business with either of the companies. Whichever companies win out, you are doing business with that company, on a daily basis. You are paying a part of your salary to it. You are using the services they are providing. You can't really step away (well, you almost could if you go up to some remote place, hidden and outside of reach of the company... but that's not you, I don't think). Therefore the missing choice is actually the 3rd choice redefined as... you are giving your business to BOTH "company" A and B equally. They both will march on their merry way, happy. Personally, I think the more logical choice is to pick one or the other that you think best align with your long term goal (even if you are putting your short term goal on the shelves).
A complete aside related to surveys posted earlier about Medicare for All. I'd urge people to avoid a public option inside of Obamacare. My industry has a model like this and it is a recipe for disaster. You have the market setting the price for the competitive product, and regulators setting the price for the other. Either the public option will be too expensive (because they can't control their costs, for example), but will set the price for the market to rise to (thus generating excessive profits), or it will be too cheap and the market will wither and be unable to create any efficiencies. Pick an approach and be all in -- either make it a government function or make it a market function. This comparison doesn't work for reasons similar to what @txtony describes. A company would always want more revenue. A candidate is only interested in market share. Maybe it'd help him if he can get you to actually come out and vote (though he might lose votes elsewhere as a result), but he can also execute his strategy just fine by counting on you to not vote and fight for the votes of people who will be coming to the polls. This is a hostage situation. You can refuse to participate, but you will still receive product and you will still be invoiced.
I don’t enjoy criticizing you because i usually enjoy your posts, but with all due respect, you are making no damn sense at all. The nonsensical comparison of our country to a corporation is ludicrous. Does a corporation appoint lifetime CEO’s that make decisions that impact the lives of over 300,000,000 people? Hell no. Does a corporate CEO make decisions that install lifetime judges who deal with an appeal you’ve made because of a defective purchase? Hell no. I can’t believe I’m even bothering to make a comparison that can get through to you. These are lifetime appointments! Who is president matters for decades long after they are gone! I’ll never understand the shortsightedness of people like you when it comes to politics. Oh, you’ll think you’re “right” when you sit at home if the nominee doesn’t fit your self-imposed guidelines. Meanwhile, the rest of us will be trying to end the grip a minority of far-right extremists currently have on our country, but hey. At least you can be smug and self-satisfied. You tick me off because of who you represent. A group of liberals that would rather the country self-destruct than compromise their principals. You aren’t great in number, but in an election decided in a handful of states by tens of thousands of people, those like you can make a difference. Mr trump and his friends are counting on it.
It's totally insane to me. The time for principled stands is during the primary. The election is about the good of the country.
What you have described is not an alternate scenario, but rather considerations I have already factored into my decision making (I'm aware I will have a government one way or another). The analogy I put forth merely stripped away all of that because it has no effect on the conclusion that the only way you can signal a need for change in what is essentially a two-party election is to withhold your vote.
Standing by your principles and doing what you feel is best for the country should be synonymous. Unless your principles suck.
This makes zero sense. How does it help the country if the party that continues to hurt the country keeps getting elected due to you not voting.
Nader '00 Stein '16 Nobody actually cares that much about YOU PERSONALLY doing a protest abstention Donny or that YOU PERSONALLY must agree with whatever tactics or strategy they think are the best. People care about the millions and millions (most of whom are not white males, such as most people on this board including you) who suffer because of it.
Exactly. I hope he doesn’t take my criticism personally, as what I’m criticizing is what his attitude towards politics represents. People like Donny simply make no sense, certainly not to me. It’s an attempt to have a nebulous impact on our political system based on flawed logic. All he is doing is removing himself from the collective decision making that is our system of government. By not voting if his “perfect “ candidate doesn’t get the nod, he is contributing to the election of a dangerous individual who’s proven actions go against everything I’m assuming he supports. I’ve been a voter for several decades now and have seen my own “perfect “ candidate murdered after winning the California primary in 1968. Others simply couldn’t garner enough support to get the Democratic nomination. No 3rd party has come remotely close to supplanting either major party. I’ve seen this fantasy play out and fail over and over and over again. It’s why I decided to become a Democrat. Better to work within the party closest to my own beliefs and attempt change that way, rather than sit at home doing nothing but complain while the party I’m ardently against wins. People like Donny simply take themselves out of the system and accomplish nothing, in my humble opinion.
I thought protest votes were just a fad for 19 year olds? I hope that's not the case for people that have things to lose. You may not agree with everything the Democratic candidate stands for but kneecapping millions of americans for "feels" is disingenuous and you are complicit with the actions of this tyrannical regime. You might as well walk up to those kids in cages or women seeking to choose what they do with their bodies and tell them "sorry, my hands are tired"
The 2016 election was the first time I have ever voted thanks to my privileged life and the knowledge that Texas would be conservative regardless. However, it was obviously apparent the danger Trump represented so voted to voice my concern on where the Republican party was heading. I voted in 2018 to do the same. I will vote in 2020 to continue voicing my displeasure of one party continuing shifting to the right.
There's an element of collective action/sacrifice taht is currently being lost (accelerated) in the age of winner-take-all markets, massive income inequality surveillance capitalism etc and the ability of technology to sort us into self-interested algorithmically motivated units rather than part of a larger whole You don't just see it here but you see it in things like climate change, public schools, anti-vax nutjobs etc. Technology was promised to bring us together but in actuality it has unleashed frightening power to funnel people into silos of self-interest, for profit.
Depends upon millennials, they turn out he gets crushed they stay in we have a horse race. The old and dying racist folks will always turn out but they are dying off, as will the ignorant and uneducated left behinds too stupid to vote for their own self interests. This is the last ride of the angry white man. DD
True again, Sam. Increasingly, instead of greater freedom, it seems to be leading to more constraints on individualism, often self-imposed without the individual realizing it. It's a tool that is being used by China to control their population and crush any dissent, which they see as a threat to their oligarchic rule, with the same happening in Russia, who has been innovative in using it to influence our politics. They helped install the perfect tool in the White House, who denies there's any problem at all with foreign attacks on our democracy, even cracking jokes about it when meeting Putin. Meanwhile, as Mueller told the American people today, if they were listening, the Russian assault on our democracy, welcomed by trump, is continuing. People like Donny don't seem motivated beyond self-interest to fight it. If the candidate running against trump isn't perfect, he'll stay home, along with those like him. It's rather frightening.
