Seriously, my fellow lefties...

[they don't love you like i love you]

Uh, why? I don't see how voting for a bunch of fringe kooks could ever be the "right thing to do" especially after Bernie Sanders has already caused the Democratic Party to adopt a truly progressive platform and direction with workable solutions, unlike Stein's incoherent proposals such as that quantitive easing for student debt thing. I also don't see how anyone voting Hillary is doing so for the sake of feelings or an identity payoff when we're voting for her simply because she is the candidate running closest to our views.

Here's the AAD quote by the way:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[they don't love you like i love you]

But what is the reasoning behind voting for a ticket of two crazy people and an incoherent platform?

[Хahar 🤔]

For the record Averroes has stated on AAD that he is not voting for Stein due to her anti-vax pandering and even kookier running mate.

And Nathan think of how often jfern got thrashed here for an example of someone else.

Let's not put Nathan in the same sentence with jfern, OK?

Their position is the same.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

For the record Averroes has stated on AAD that he is not voting for Stein due to her anti-vax pandering and even kookier running mate.

And Nathan think of how often jfern got thrashed here for an example of someone else.

Let's not put Nathan in the same sentence with jfern, OK?

Their position is the same.

Not necessarily. Jfern is just anti-Hillary zealot, who'd vote for David Duke first. Nathan would probably vote for her if not for living in a safe state (on which I disagree with him, as you can see above).

[Antonio the Sixth]

For the record Averroes has stated on AAD that he is not voting for Stein due to her anti-vax pandering and even kookier running mate.

And Nathan think of how often jfern got thrashed here for an example of someone else.

Let's not put Nathan in the same sentence with jfern, OK?

Their position is the same.

No it's not.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Part of the reason I have no problem voting for Hillary is I'd be f[inks]ing embarrassed to be in the basket of deplorables that make up most of her "leftist" critics. People like H.A. Goodman, the "Sane" "Progressive", Lee Camp and jfern are such awful Horrible People and I want NOTHING to do with any of them.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Part of the reason I have no problem voting for Hillary is I'd be f[inks]ing embarrassed to be in the basket of deplorables that make up most of her "leftist" critics. People like H.A. Goodman, the "Sane" "Progressive", Lee Camp and jfern are such awful Horrible People and I want NOTHING to do with any of them.

A legitimate criticism from the left is one thing (and I see no reason why Hillary should be immuned from criticism). Being a delusional idiot like those you've named above is diffrent.

I mean, you can be critical and at the same time be able to see there's no better option at the table.

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK, can we stop with this now? It's clear no one is being convinced and I don't think more holier-than-thou posturing and creative name-calling is going to change things. It's especially silly considering that, if you want to argue for voting on purely rational grounds, you will lose. Pretty much everybody who has studied the issue agrees that the only "rational" vote is not to vote at all. So we've got to accept that anyone's reasons for voting are fundamentally emotional. That doesn't mean there isn't a right choice to an election (and yes, in 2016, this choice is clearly Hillary), but it means it makes no sense to call people "selfish" or "special snowflakes" when they are just doing what they think is right.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OK, can we stop with this now? It's clear no one is being convinced and I don't think more holier-than-thou posturing and creative name-calling is going to change things. It's especially silly considering that, if you want to argue for voting on purely rational grounds, you will lose. Pretty much everybody who has studied the issue agrees that the only "rational" vote is not to vote at all. So we've got to accept that anyone's reasons for voting are fundamentally emotional. That doesn't mean there isn't a right choice to an election (and yes, in 2016, this choice is clearly Hillary), but it means it makes no sense to call people "selfish" or "special snowflakes" when they are just doing what they think is right.

The truth is, most of those who vote (one was or another) aren't doing it based on a rational analysis. It's hard to remember for us, political junkies.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Part of the reason I have no problem voting for Hillary is I'd be f[inks]ing embarrassed to be in the basket of deplorables that make up most of her "leftist" critics. People like H.A. Goodman, the "Sane" "Progressive", Lee Camp and jfern are such awful Horrible People and I want NOTHING to do with any of them.

A legitimate criticism from the left is one thing (and I see no reason why Hillary should be immuned from criticism). Being a delusional idiot like those you've named above is diffrent.

I mean, you can be critical and at the same time be able to see there's no better option at the table.

Except I've never read any legitimate criticisms of Hillary from the left. Pretty much every attack on her is just shouting "CORPORATIST NEOLIBERAL IMPERIALIST WARMONGERER" over and over.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Part of the reason I have no problem voting for Hillary is I'd be f[inks]ing embarrassed to be in the basket of deplorables that make up most of her "leftist" critics. People like H.A. Goodman, the "Sane" "Progressive", Lee Camp and jfern are such awful Horrible People and I want NOTHING to do with any of them.

A legitimate criticism from the left is one thing (and I see no reason why Hillary should be immuned from criticism). Being a delusional idiot like those you've named above is diffrent.

I mean, you can be critical and at the same time be able to see there's no better option at the table.

Except I've never read any legitimate criticisms of Hillary from the left. Pretty much every attack on her is just shouting "CORPORATIST NEOLIBERAL IMPERIALIST WARMONGERER" over and over.

I'd say criticizing Hillary from the left for her Iraq vote, among other things, is valid, but that's not extremely relevant in this contest (and I'm saying this as someone who strongly believes we should never forget about that chapter).

In present day contest (issues that are at hand now), I actually agree with you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK, can we stop with this now? It's clear no one is being convinced and I don't think more holier-than-thou posturing and creative name-calling is going to change things. It's especially silly considering that, if you want to argue for voting on purely rational grounds, you will lose. Pretty much everybody who has studied the issue agrees that the only "rational" vote is not to vote at all. So we've got to accept that anyone's reasons for voting are fundamentally emotional. That doesn't mean there isn't a right choice to an election (and yes, in 2016, this choice is clearly Hillary), but it means it makes no sense to call people "selfish" or "special snowflakes" when they are just doing what they think is right.

The truth is, most of those who vote (one was or another) aren't doing it based on a rational analysis. It's hard to remember for us, political junkies.

Nobody who votes does so based on a rational analysis, at least not one that doesn't include reference to irreductible moral principles such as the categorical imperative. The purely rational choice is to stay home and do something else with your time.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I'm still just very legitimately curious how one can consider the Greens insane but still think voting for them is the right thing to do. It's a very unique position and one I've never encountered before. Like I don't even understand what good could come from a Green vote even if their ticket and platform wasn't ridiculous, but basically saying you'd personally rather vote for Hillary than Stein but think doing so would be more of a "special snowflake" thing is a rather sue generisis way of thinking.

[muon2]

I just imagine how dumb any of this reasoning would look in the future. I'm sure there were people who voted for Hitler because Hindenburg had health issues or the Social Democrats had the wrong tax policy or their faith prevented them from voting for a Catholic party or whatever.

But in retrospect that was dumb and so is any reason you come up with for not voting Clinton.

I'm not sure which post this responds to. If it was mine, are you saying that tactical voting should not be pursued in any situation?

[All Along The Watchtower]

OK, can we stop with this now? It's clear no one is being convinced and I don't think more holier-than-thou posturing and creative name-calling is going to change things. It's especially silly considering that, if you want to argue for voting on purely rational grounds, you will lose. Pretty much everybody who has studied the issue agrees that the only "rational" vote is not to vote at all. So we've got to accept that anyone's reasons for voting are fundamentally emotional. That doesn't mean there isn't a right choice to an election (and yes, in 2016, this choice is clearly Hillary), but it means it makes no sense to call people "selfish" or "special snowflakes" when they are just doing what they think is right.

I think there's a quite a bit of room between "voting on purely rational grounds" and "not voting for the only candidate who has any chance of stopping a psychopathic admirer of despotic regimes from gaining power", but that's just me.

Regardless, the world doesn't revolve around me, you, or anyone else's concept of an ideal candidate. Sometimes, we have to suck it up and do something that we may not necessarily want to do for the greater good - or, in this case, so that the entire world isn't burned to the ground. This isn't hard thing to figure out.

And for those who say "the lesser of two evils is still evil": even if that applied in this case (and I'm not convinced that it does; Clinton may be immensely frustrating but Trump is unambiguously horrific to the point of being unthinkable) the principle of triage demands that the more urgent wound/danger/threat to the body (or in this election, the world) that can potentially be successfully treated ought to take priority. And the priority in this election is recognizing that the world cannot survive a Donald Trump Presidency and act accordingly. I'm not joking.  He's absolutely unprecedented in American history, and seeing as the United States is the most powerful country in the world, and the President of the United States is the single most powerful person in the world...well, the conclusion draws itself.

America and the world can (and in all likelihood, will) survive a Clinton Presidency, even if either or both suffer to one degree or another. And even granted all of that, there will still likely be some undeniably positive things about a Clinton Presidency. None of this can be said about Trump, certainly not with any degree of confidence.

What I'm saying here is that I'd rather vote for the person who at least attempts to put out the fire - regardless of how ineptly or corruptly - rather than the person who has repeatedly promised to pour gasoline on it. But apparently a lot of people disagree. *shrug*

[afleitch]

Most people on this forum can afford to vote how they want; white, male, educated and generally well off voters of course have a choice because you can mitigate against a Trump presidency. You might be lucky enough to live in a Democratic bolthole, protected from all but the deepest reaches of federal government. But others do not. It's a privileged position to have and smacks of 'I'm alright Jack', just a little bit too much.

[dead0man]

You can almost smell the desperation in here.  It was the GOPs fault Trump was nominated, it will be the Dems fault if he wins.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You can almost smell the desperation in here.  It was the GOPs fault Trump was nominated, it will be the Dems fault if he wins.

Of course it will be. If Hillary blows what was supposed to be a winnable race over a vulnerable opponent she'll go down in history as a pathetic joke, no matter how her hacks are going to spin it.

Desperate? No. Worried? Every sane person should be.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As a follow-up to the question of whether voting for a third-party candidate in a safe state is justified, here's a nice map of where one could vote third-party and have no qualms about how that might affect the outcome even in a close race:

That's most of the country.  And if you have an election where even the third-party candidates are unacceptable (as we do now), then obviously the write-in option is available in, I think, just about every state.

I don't expect this to affect anyone's position either way, but it does speak volumes about how absurd and outdated the electoral college system is.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's quite telling there are just a few states with a candidate leading with over 50% No, I don't predict a 1992-style situation, but it's weird to see Rhode Island as "barely democratic" on the electoral-vote.com.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Fwiw, I'm now re-considering a Hillary vote, not because of any of the hullabaloo that's gone on in this thread but because of the realization that I had last night that all the things I don't like about Hillary and think would be bad about her presidency are entirely predictable and the sorts of things that can be cogently prepared for and opposed. Which, in a way, means that she isn't as unacceptable (to me) a candidate as she appears on the surface. One can't say that for Trump, with whom more and more depths of unacceptability appear vertiginously the more one looks at him.

I'm not convinced by the 'rationality' of voting for her to signal something in particular. I did that in the primaries and was emotionally dissatisfied with the result. I need to try to justify voting for someone I strongly dislike and think will do horrible (albeit not as horrible as Trump) things in power to myself emotionally, and being constantly shrieked at that not wanting to vote for Hillary makes me a terrible person hasn't been helping with that.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm under impression some people are most offended not with Nathan considering not voting for Hillary (under special circumstances, like MA being safe D), but because he's openly unenthusiastic about this. I'm unenthusiastic about this too (not American voter, but it's not like only the U.S. is going to be affected), so you guys can f** you.

[Figueira]

As a follow-up to the question of whether voting for a third-party candidate in a safe state is justified, here's a nice map of where one could vote third-party and have no qualms about how that might affect the outcome even in a close race:

That's most of the country.  And if you have an election where even the third-party candidates are unacceptable (as we do now), then obviously the write-in option is available in, I think, just about every state.

I don't expect this to affect anyone's position either way, but it does speak volumes about how absurd and outdated the electoral college system is.

ME-1 should be gray, since people's votes there still affect the at large EVs.

[afleitch]

I need to try to justify voting for someone I strongly dislike and think will do horrible (albeit not as horrible as Trump) things in power to myself emotionally, and being constantly shrieked at that not wanting to vote for Hillary makes me a terrible person hasn't been helping with that.

I don't think people think that. As I said a little further up thread, most people on here, by virtue of who most of our posters are, have the leisure of voting how they wish and it will have little to no effect on their wellbeing. Trump isn't going to 'intentionally' f-ck up the lives of fairly well to do (or in the position to make good) white males. Other groups are not so lucky. Their vote matters because of the impact a Trump presidency through policy, or enabling rhetoric against them will have on their wellbeing. As Trump if he wins is on the ballot in 2020. And his proxies will be standing in town halls and for congress in 2018. I've never been one to think of my vote as my vote, so perhaps I just can't see reasons to be precious about it, or to make it reflect my will exclusively.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I need to try to justify voting for someone I strongly dislike and think will do horrible (albeit not as horrible as Trump) things in power to myself emotionally, and being constantly shrieked at that not wanting to vote for Hillary makes me a terrible person hasn't been helping with that.

I don't think people think that. As I said a little further up thread, most people on here, by virtue of who most of our posters are, have the leisure of voting how they wish and it will have little to no effect on their wellbeing. Trump isn't going to 'intentionally' f-ck up the lives of fairly well to do (or in the position to make good) white males. Other groups are not so lucky. Their vote matters because of the impact a Trump presidency through policy, or enabling rhetoric against them will have on their wellbeing. As Trump if he wins is on the ballot in 2020. And his proxies will be standing in town halls and for congress in 2018. I've never been one to think of my vote as my vote, so perhaps I just can't see reasons to be precious about it, or to make it reflect my will exclusively.

Eh, maybe I'm being hypersensitive. I've been feeling pretty crummy about things lately.