the most important election of your lifetime: 2012 american general election thread

True, but one candidate is going to limit access women have to healthcare, mammograms, and birth control, whereas the other isn't.

OTM. If you think that the government is going to do evil, rob the poor to fatten the rich, and trash civil liberties no matter which of the "electable" parties is in office, then by all means work for change, take to the streets in protest, write a blog or w/e. But that shouldn't prevent you from at least considering that there mgith be a lesser between the two available evils, and that if so, then some real good might be served in the sort run by at least grudgingly supporting it. That's the spirit in which I'll be voting for Omaba, fwiw.

xp oh okay you're not following this - that's pretty much what we were talking about.

If you think that the government is going to do evil, rob the poor to fatten the rich, and trash civil liberties no matter which of the "electable" parties is in office

At what point does the factor that the civil liberties situation has gotten worse (because it has) from Dubya to Obama offset the grudging support?

when you genuinely believe that mitt romney would be a better president

at the point where, practically, you have a pretty good notion that Obama is not going to send teams of assassins to pick off citizens in the streets of New York, but you know for certain Romney is going to cut programs that have very real (even life or death in some cases) affects on this country's citizens. At least that's where that line exists for me. xpost

If the #1 issue is climate change -- because pretty much fucknothing has been done on that front in 3-1/2 years -- the social-budget cuts (there will still be Democrats to block those, right? sadlol) are sort of thrown into relief by We're All Gonna Die.

"Hey single mother on a low income working three jobs, I'm sorry that the cause of your recent illness turns out to be cancer that could have been caught early had the government not cut funding, but I couldn't vote for Obama because I didn't agree with him. Still, I had to make a stand, even if it was just for my own piece of mind. Don't worry though, I did it for all of us!"

Well yes, we should definitely vote for the candidate that is going to do something about climate change. What's that name again?

At what point does the factor that the civil liberties situation has gotten worse (because it has) from Dubya to Obama offset the grudging support?

Good question. As a lifelong liberal supporter of the Democratic Party, I've never really had to ask myself that question. Like, Clinton might not have been much better than Reagan or Bush Sr., but he sure as hell wasn't worse. Same goes for Obama, IMO. I don't think that he's worse than Bush Jr. when his administration's actions are taken on the whole, though with regard to civil liberties and executive power, yeah, he's expanded on Bush Jr.

If one believes that Romney could not possibly be any worse than Obama, or to put it another way, that it is the same as a choice between Papa Doc and Baby Doc, or between Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, then you should definitely toss aside any thought that one's vote could possibly be signifigant.

At which point, if you dare, you go to the streets, or form an underground resistance cell, or smuggle news items about your oppression to outside journalists. Anything but vote or participate in legitimizing your oppressor.

I think that things are presently dim and the outlook is dismal for effective social enlightenment taking hold of the US government. But I also think that elections can still make a difference in outcomes and to conclude otherwise is premature and somewhat over-dramatizing the situation.

Has it really gotten worse? Haven't there been some rays of light, like the Supreme Court ruling that warrantless GPS tracking is a no-no.

xp

it's gotten more codified

If the #1 issue is climate change -- because pretty much fucknothing has been done on that front in 3-1/2 years -- the social-budget cuts (there will still be Democrats to block those, right? sadlol) are sort of thrown into relief by We're All Gonna Die.

well, the fact that a congress that already had passed multiple historically large bills, w/ sinking approval ratings, in the middle of a historic recession attempted a comprehensive bill but eventually failed isn't the same thing as 'fucknothing has been done' - lots was done politically, it didn't pass. I mean, the #1 issue def is climate change and if there were a reason to believe that romney were going to be a better president w/r/t climate change, or that 'having more democrats in office and fewer republicans' was gonna be correlated w/ worse climate change legislation, it would def make things more complicated. but it's not, it's pretty straight-forward, the only way there will be real climate change legislation is w/ a 'even bigger than 2008' type democratic sweep.

you don't have to love the democratic party or even have any feelings towards the party to hope for that event to happen.

Also, if things like gay rights count as civil liberties (I think they do) then dropping DADT and not defending DOMA should be counted as victories too. xp

I've yet to hear an argument for not voting (short of plans for revolution) that isn't sophomoric and that doesn't smack of privilege. "The world will blow up either way"...yeah and if it doesn't, your life probably WON'T be affected either way, lucky you.

because pretty much fucknothing has been done on that front in 3-1/2 years

lol as opposed to the 8 preceding years amirite

I'm sympathetic enough with the frustrations of our political system, that I won't even play the "lesser of two evils" game. vote for mickey mouse, nader, whatever, it's the simplest way to be accounted for as an active citizen in the country you pay taxes in and to avoid it is simply lazy.

da croup otm. if you're an american liberal, i figure it's better to work to make the democratic party what you want it to be than just to sit in the corner and sulk because it isn't. otoh, if you're expended all the effort you can manage on the former and still don't have it it in you to vote for anyone, then i figure you've earned the right to take a powder.

let's be honest here. no one on this thread refusing to vote is setting the world on fire resisting the government. i know, i know, you guys are all secret revolutionaries affecting change on the ground roots level and who the fuck am i i don't know u.

i'm lazy as fuck about political engagement so I'm not going to say "if you don't like it, get involved." But if everyone too fucking moral and glorious to add to the democratic party's mandate went and did a third party/write-in vote, the dem party may well bug the fuck out and try to win you back from mickey mouse.

anyway, i've contracted a van to drive ppl without transportation to the polls all day this november to cast votes for our satanic lord obama and i'm painting "Morbz4Bammers" on the side and my vanity license plate is gonna read 'ILXDemCrew."

Or, if you had a political system where a vote for a third party wasn't half a vote for the other party...

they have those systems in much of the world, centrist parties still run the show

and the third parties that you vote for end up either 'compromising' or having no political power

but you get to feel better about your vote I guess?

I don't think the argument against voting (maybe just in an abstract way, though) is sophomoric. If enough democrats are upset with the state of the party and they show it by not voting, it will make a difference. The problem is that to make that point you're going let it in something worse for 4-8 years, and the reality is there aren't enough of those democrats to make a significant change anyway. Even if they could, they're still a minority within the genreal population. The sad fact is that Americans aren't terribly progressive or well-informed on issues like Climate Change and the specifics of what "the war on Terror" is and what we've given up in order to fight it.

As I've said before, if a groundswell movement like OWS can really sway public opinion (they got income inequality into the national discussion, but they'll need to do A LOT more), then I'd rather have Obama or a Dem in office who might be happy to change things if it becomes politically expedient than Romney or a Republican who is ideologically opposed to such changes.

Or, if you had a political system where a vote for a third party wasn't half a vote for the other party...

well yeah, that's the thing

Or, if you had a political system where a vote for a third party wasn't half a vote for the other party...

Yeah i don't buy this line, true or not.

sound like a Republican

you're conflating the argument against voting and the argument against voting for the democratic party, Gubke. Because the enlightened true liberals are such a minority, they might stand out more as thirdparty/write-in voters than as part of the couchbound/disenfranchised.

Well, they're the same thing though. Or at least have the same outcome.

Yeah i don't buy this line, true or not.

lolwat?

one suggests a group willing to engage, one doesn't xpost

you should start buying stuff that is true. good habit to get into.

I wish we could have a third party, but the unlikelihood has been argued to death.

Arguably the Republican Party is closer to splitting off into two at the moments, but when this was being discussed some months ago (tea party threats and all) I was wishing it would happen because it would means the collapse of Republican power for a while.

Yeah i don't buy this line, true or not.

I would very much like to not buy it, but I find that I can't glue enough fairy wings to my outfit to overcome reality's drag coefficient

no one on this thread refusing to vote is setting the world on fire resisting the government.

again, has anyone on this thread said he wouldn't vote at all?

Well it isn't actually true that by voting for Nader I am actually voting half a vote for W.

I told people not to vote I think

actually vs. effectively

I realise that one suggests a group will engage and the other will not, and maybe they'll work a little harder to get that group, but realistically that group isn't big enough to enact fundamental change unless there's some sort of Tea Party organization-like takeover, but that would probably only alienate the "moderate" Democratic voters - the majority, I would say. The American people just aren't with it.

xposts

Your vote only adds to the total of the party you vote for.

Whatever you think of Nader's policies, he was certainly a more progressive candidate than Gore, and despite him getting a pretty decent voter turnout, it didn't push the Dems to the left because they had to combat the Republican machine.

yes well if george bush is ahead by one vote, your 'not vote' is what wins him the election therefore it is not a neutral act, but again, it doesn't really matter

Imagine all the not votes Nader missed out on.

Gukbe, I'm suggesting an alternative to couch-riding on November 6th for people won't sully themselves with the Democratic Party. Your cynicism about the chance of real third party change is neither here nor there.

like its all fine and dandy for the norms to spend weeks on end contemplating who they will vote for but honestly everyone itt is pretty up on things, everyone itt knows that things will be 'marginally better' with dems in charge and that their individual vote is not 'a particularly important thing'. most people live in places where the chances that their individual vote affects the election is not just statistically unlikely, but statistically *pretty much impossible*. don't overthink it.

there are lots of cool things to argue about, this just isn't one.

If, as an American, you're depressed about the way your party is tending, the Tea Party provide a great example of how best to deal with it. Don't disengage. Don't endorse Quixotic third party candidates that only disempower the major party you might otherwise vote for. Band together in little cells and work like fucking CRAZY to get candidates you actually can support into the process at the local level. Rally and protest and organize tirelessly to force your party in the direction that suits you. I mean, I'm not an activist, so I'm not telling anyone that this is what they have to do, but it clearly can work. Tea Party activism had a significant impact on the fortunes and philosophies of the Republican party.

And I'm saying that the people who stay at home or go and vote for a third party aren't able to enact change that way, so in the end the result is the same, except of course that the person who goes out and votes for that third party will have a sense of self-satisfaction (assuming they're too ignorant to realise the actual damage their decision might have on the people by allowing Romney in).

xposts

well we're already talking about a group of people who are in it for self-satisfaction, gukbe. and i still like them more than people who don't engage at all.

contenderizer otm re: Tea Party activisim within the Democratic Party, even if I'm not as hopeful about the results.