Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
You want to hang your hat on one possible gotcha in my argument, then go LALALALALALA, because you didn't like the way the rest of it went.
I'm not hanging my hat on anything. Clarify your position if you want to make a point. You started with an analogy that conveniently eliminated everything that gives value to abstaining from a vote, then acknowledged that yes, if your proposed scenario was more like an actual US election there's a logical connection between abstaining leading to better candidates, then turned back around by asserting your underpants gnome theory again (a South Park reference that ridicules the lack of a connection between initial steps and the desired result), now you're claiming to "concede the concept of a protest vote" again but doubling down on the validity of your nails vs goat meat decision, which again, is a scenario that strips a protest vote of all value. You either don't understand why this is a problem or you're arguing in bad faith, either case makes answering your questions a pointless exercise. Once we're on the same page regarding the theoretical value and mechanics of withholding a vote I'd be happy to discuss where the practical limits of that strategy are.
Also, at a minimum, I've already posted some insight into how I would respond to your questions so it's not like I'm ducking them because I'm afraid to answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
LOL.
You've pretty much admitted that voting for an idiotic third party candidate does not send the right message.
Yes. I also never advocated voting for an idiotic third party candidate. If we're in agreement here I don't see what there is to lol about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
You have never explained who the intended recipient of your "don't vote" message is, other than to say it is "the party", or why you believe that the recipient would interpret the message in the way you intend, much less act on the message in the way that you hope. (As an aside, if Trump learned anything from Romney's campaign, it was that the Republican candidate needed to be more racist, not "better" in some intrinsic sense.)
This is false: "Plenty of posters in here have already identified the key to winning campaigns. Don't waste time trying to flip your opponent's votes, work on getting out your own voters. The more that becomes true, the more candidates we'll see who want to work for the average citizen."
If you'll get out to vote for the least ****ty candidate, nobody is going to put any effort into getting your vote. You are not the key to any election strategy. I am, and people like me. 2p2 knows this, campaign strategists probably know it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
You have never explained what policies this theoretical better candidate would espouse, or why they were superior (at least on the Democratic side) to the actual candidate's positions.
I don't need to. My personal policy preferences are irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
If more charismatic, compelling, and electable candidates than HRC were out there, you have not explained why those candidates willingly screwed themselves and the country by not sitting out the primary.
Also irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
You complete ignore the short term consequences -- real lives, real suffering -- of facilitating the election of people like Trump.
You completely miss the point. It's YOU who facilitated the election of Trump.