I posted a cap on my other blog and in the comments couldn't resist a call to go out and vote. And once I stated down that path, I also let out that I'd be voting for Biden/Harris. I should have left politics out of it as I'd like my other blog to be a friendly loving place for those wanting to see the wretched transformation and feminization of unwilling men into sex slaved women. :) But seriously, politics is it's own thing and doesn't belong as a tag on for another post. The perfect example is a comment I got over there that I want to respond to, but who is going to read it and maybe even respond to it when its attached to a post about a guy getting transformed unwillingly then willingly into a woman to the tones of "OMG What's Happening" by Ava Max and "I Will Survive" by Gloria Gaynor. So, instead of responding there, I'll write up my post here as a fully political post.
The comment that I found troublesome is "Vote Libertarian. If everyone who says "voting Libertarian is throwing your vote away" would vote Libertarian rather than Actually throwing their vote away, the Libertarian Party would be a serious contender."
On it's surface, this isn't a false statement. BUT, our political system doesn't have a second place, let alone a third or fourth or fifth place. Especially not when it comes to the presidential election system where you're dealing with electors separated by states. Except for Nebraska and Maine, all of the state's electors will vote for the winner of the popular vote. The popular vote can be a blowout (The District of Columbia is 77 percent Democrats and 13 percent Republicans) or a real squeaker (My home state of Michigan in 2016 voted Trump 47.6 percent, Clinton 47.3 percent), and all the electors still go to the winner.
When we look at third partys or third party candidates, they're generally variations on a theme. For the most part, at least since the 1960s, we have a conservative party and a liberal party. While there are very few conservative democrats, I don't know of a single liberal republican. This conservative/liberal lean goes across all areas of politics. Economy, foreign policy, social issues, healthcare, immigration... you name it and you have the R and D stances.
So when I think of a third party like Libertarians, I see Republican Lite. They share the Republican's dislike and distrust of government control but don't share the Republican's conservative stance on social issues. So picture that in Michigan's close election from 2016. The standard liberals (mostly democrats) still vote mostly with Clinton. The Libertarians eat into a few percentage points for the Dems that want less government but are strongly liberal on social issues. Say Clinton gets 42%. The Libertarians eat a bigger proportion of the Republican's electorate though as most Republicans that can't stomach Trump CAN stomach the Libertarians. So the Libertarians end up with 30% (I'm probably dreaming on this huge of a portion, but go with me). That leaves 28% for the staunch Republicans and Trump supporters. In this instance, yes voting Libertarian is throwing your vote away. The voter absolutely didn't want a Democrat but pulled their support from the primary candidate.
There's several posterchilds for third party candidates ruining a candidacy. I think the best is Ross Perot in 1992. He was, by far, the most successful third party candidate as he garnered almost 20 million votes. 19%!! I read articles that say he pulled votes from Clinton and Bush equally, but he was a conservative businessman running on a platform of reducing the federal deficit, against the North American Free Trade Agreement, and was running with a Vietnam War Medal of Honor recipient that was a Vice Admiral. If that doesn't look and smell like a Republican candidate in any other year, then I don't know what a Republican candidate looks like. He was also running against Bush after Bush raised taxes (yes, after saying "Read My Lips: No New Taxes!"). What did we get in that election?
The first time since 1968 that a candidate won the white house without winning over 50% of the popular vote. Clinton got 43% of the popular vote against Bush's 37.5% and Perot's 18.9%. That looks close, but where those votes hit were more important as Clinton ended up with 370 electoral votes vs Bush's 168. That's what we call an electoral landslide. You see, Clinton won where Democrats were supposed to win with votes to spare, then won where Republicans are supposed to win because Perot and Bush battled out over the rest leaving that slim margin for Clinton and then he just takes ALL of the electoral votes.
So no, on the presidential elections, I don't believe that third party candidates can win. But where does that leave those people who don't like their candidate? In 2016 some Democrats voted for Trump while a few others voted for third party candidates. But most just didn't vote. Clinton lost, Trump won, and we've had 4 years of this shitshow.
Something to consider are the coalitions that each party represent. Democrats are liberal as a block, but some are liberal on social issues and moderate to conservative on fiscal policy. Some are liberal on immigration but moderate to conservative on social issues. For the most part that means the party as a block moves slightly more liberal. Universal healthcare? There are some that want it and want it now, but the party as a whole will generally move slowly toward it and let the momentum gain speed. Just look at the ACA (Obamacare). It was most certainly NOT a move for universal healthcare, but it set precedents that even conservative republicans now show support for. Or at least SAY they support. Coverage for pre-existing conditions, coverage for 'children' under their parents plan into their 20s and a few other precedents. Now, if the Dems win the whitehouse and the senate, they can push a little more and add a public option. An option to buy into something just like Medicare. Give that 4 or 8 years to steep and maybe THAT will become engrained as a good thing.
I think this slow movement toward liberal ideals is a good idea. It feels slow and sometimes even backwards to many of the liberals but it allows those that are less liberal on that particular subject to go along with it.
Republicans seem, at least to me, interested in having power. Follow me for a moment on this. Their fiscal policy of tax cuts are the meat of financial side. Sometimes its for everybody, most often its targeted to the 'Job Makers' (the rich). But tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. They all seem to love tax cuts. They also seem to love conservative judges. This is more modern, maybe only over the last 10 or 15 years, but they seem to get a real hard-on for conservative judges. I might make a post later one why I don't think liberalism or conservativism matter when it comes to judicial philosophy, but for now Republicans want conservative judges. Supreme Court justices and on down.
And that's all they seem to be interested in. To get those two things they have to be in power, so whatever gets them into power is fine by them. Look at all the republicans that ripped into Trump because of his crass nature. They rarely hit him on policy as Trump doesn't talk about policy... he attacks those that aren't him or against him and praises those that are him or are with him. 'They' didn't do good and only he can clean it up. Rubio, Cruz, Graham, Ryan, Toomy, Murkowski, Haley, Christie. They all railed against him, then ended up supporting him. Sure, sometimes one of them steps out of line and says hesitantly that maybe the President has gone to far... and then they stop doing that and fall back into line. You see, Trump gets them tax cutes. Trump gets them judges. Do you honestly think Trump knew who Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Barrett were? Someone else made those picks for him and he just went with it. He also said that they were part of the witch hunt against him when they voted against him turning over his taxes.
So I get the impression that many, if not most, republicans will vote for someone they actively dislike to keep power where democrats will decide to not vote or actively vote for their opposition when they dislike their nominee. I think that says a LOT about what will happen to the republican party.
You see, I've been sniffing around this idea for awhile. I don't think the republican party can hold. Their demographic is small and getting smaller. Their general policies haven't changed in decades. The biggest thing they did during President Obama's term was to be against everything he did. Remember Senator McConnell saying he just wanted Obama to be a one term president? Let's not even get onto the hypocrisy of denying congressional hearings (let alone a vote) on Merrick Garland then pushing through Amy Coney Barrett.
And now with as many republicans actively stating that they'll be voting for Biden/Harris or abstain from voting whatsoever, you'd think the party was about ready to split. Maybe Libertarians on one side and social conservatives on the other. I don't know. But if they split, then the Democrats will win the presidency until one side becomes the new 'other' party. There isn't room for one liberal party and two conservative parties. The same would be true if the dems were likely splitting, but they aren't. Even with the Bernie Sandars, AOCs, and Elizabeth Warren's all going for ultra liberal ideals, they still vote for the moderate candidate. They're all supporting Biden/Harris.
I find it disgusting that a Biden presidency isn't a foregone conclusion. Not that I think he'll be the best President, but because everybody should rally against the hate and vitriol that President Trump personifies. But its still close enough. If President Trump wins a second term there won't be too many people surprised by it. What exactly does it take to peel away good honest people from trash even if it means they won't get their tax cuts and conservative judges?
I think the only way I can end this post/rant is to share this wonderful political ad I found about a week ago. It's a targeted ad for Michigan for Biden/Harris. It's Jeff Daniels, who as you'll hear in the commercial lives in Michigan, talking about how American needs Michigan and Michigan is hurting. BUT it doesn't attack Trumps policies or tout Biden's policies.... it talk about how Trump is a low life and Biden is a man with integrity. Vote for integrity. I honestly believe that voting for Mitt Romney in 2012 and McCain in 2008 and John Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000 and Bob Dole or Ross Perot in 1996 and George Bush or Ross Perot in 1992 were all votes with and for integrity. In 2016 we didn't vote for integrity and got Trump. In 2020.... please, just vote for integrity!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ufw0TYfmRk
No comments:
Post a Comment