Seriously, my fellow lefties...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Honestly if you want to be enthusiastic about voting for Hillary, just watch some H. A. Goodman videos.

Your first reaction will be "What the f[inks] is this sh!t?"
And then "OMG is this f[inks]ing moron actually serious about what he's saying?"

And then you'll be willing to walk over broken glass to vote for Hillary just out of spite. I'm dead serious. It reminds me of how if jfern still posted here I'd want to take a picture of my ballot after voting for Hillary (which I looked up, is legal in Minnesota) and PM it to him because he did far more to improve my opinion of her than IceSpear or any of her ardent fans did.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honestly if you want to be enthusiastic about voting for Hillary, just watch some H. A. Goodman videos.

Your first reaction will be "What the f[inks] is this sh!t?"
And then "OMG is this f[inks]ing moron actually serious about what he's saying?"

And then you'll be willing to walk over broken glass to vote for Hillary just out of spite. I'm dead serious. It reminds me of how if jfern still posted here I'd want to take a picture of my ballot after voting for Hillary (which I looked up, is legal in Minnesota) and PM it to him because he did far more to improve my opinion of her than IceSpear or any of her ardent fans did.

Most people don't let spite dictate their actions that much, you know?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Honestly if you want to be enthusiastic about voting for Hillary, just watch some H. A. Goodman videos.

Your first reaction will be "What the f[inks] is this sh!t?"
And then "OMG is this f[inks]ing moron actually serious about what he's saying?"

And then you'll be willing to walk over broken glass to vote for Hillary just out of spite. I'm dead serious. It reminds me of how if jfern still posted here I'd want to take a picture of my ballot after voting for Hillary (which I looked up, is legal in Minnesota) and PM it to him because he did far more to improve my opinion of her than IceSpear or any of her ardent fans did.

Most people don't let spite dictate their actions that much, you know?

So the very stupid and/or hateful and bigoted things Trump supporters often say don't make you all the more proud to oppose him?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honestly if you want to be enthusiastic about voting for Hillary, just watch some H. A. Goodman videos.

Your first reaction will be "What the f[inks] is this sh!t?"
And then "OMG is this f[inks]ing moron actually serious about what he's saying?"

And then you'll be willing to walk over broken glass to vote for Hillary just out of spite. I'm dead serious. It reminds me of how if jfern still posted here I'd want to take a picture of my ballot after voting for Hillary (which I looked up, is legal in Minnesota) and PM it to him because he did far more to improve my opinion of her than IceSpear or any of her ardent fans did.

Most people don't let spite dictate their actions that much, you know?

So the very stupid and/or hateful and bigoted things Trump supporters often say don't make you all the more proud to oppose him?

Not really more proud, no, although they do convince me of the absolute necessity of doing so.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Honestly if you want to be enthusiastic about voting for Hillary, just watch some H. A. Goodman videos.

Your first reaction will be "What the f[inks] is this sh!t?"
And then "OMG is this f[inks]ing moron actually serious about what he's saying?"

And then you'll be willing to walk over broken glass to vote for Hillary just out of spite. I'm dead serious. It reminds me of how if jfern still posted here I'd want to take a picture of my ballot after voting for Hillary (which I looked up, is legal in Minnesota) and PM it to him because he did far more to improve my opinion of her than IceSpear or any of her ardent fans did.

Most people don't let spite dictate their actions that much, you know?

So the very stupid and/or hateful and bigoted things Trump supporters often say don't make you all the more proud to oppose him?

Not really more proud, no, although they do convince me of the absolute necessity of doing so.

Well this applies here as well, since both jfern and H.A. Goodman make horrible cases for NOT voting for Hillary.  Keep in mind that Goodman once wrote an article critical of Trump for saying the crazy things he does...on the grounds that by doing so he was making people scared of him and thus MORE likely to vote for Hillary. That's right, in H.A. Goodman-world the worst thing about Donald Trump is he makes people comfortable to vote for Hillary. After hearing that the odds that I would vote for Hillary in the General Election hit 100% (granted they were >95%) prior since I decided there was no way I could take the same political position as this guy.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

Um, no? Why would someone who found Sanders too far left vote for the Green Party instead?

Try not to associate everything with the Green Party for just one moment.

So...Hillary supporters would be considering to vote for Trump then? Obviously not, so Johnson? Not sure what you mean. Also virtually no Hillary supporters had any issues supporting Obama in 2008 (those dumbass "PUMAs" were irrelevant.)

When will you understand "not enthusiastic" =/= "I'm voting for Trump/Johnson/etc."?

[muon2]

That makes sense.

Since the very last points that you bring up aren't really relevant to the vast majority people, would you then agree that the reasons why people vote are fundamentally emotional in nature?

This, in turn, preempts any attempt to lecture people about how they ought to vote based on strict consequentialist logic.

I think what I learned from my introspection is that whether or not someone votes for most people is based on an emotional utility such as community pride. However, I think I may have convinced myself that the act of voting is different for most than the act of casting a specific vote once one has determined that one would vote. That seems consistent with polling where after an election many more people claim to have voted than actually did, but they are sure about whom they voted for even though some didn't actually vote. That separation between voting and for whom to vote for makes me think that consequentialist logic might have little effect generating turnout, but it could influence support for candidates among those who did vote.

I'm really not sure how such a process would work. So, voters are first moved by emotional motivations to go vote, but once they reach the polling place, they switch back to assessing the probabilistic consequences of their vote? I mean, some might. I guess that, if you have no emotional stake in any of the candidate, then it makes sense to use consequentialism as a guide. However, I think most people do have a very strong emotional stake in their vote - which could be positive ("I feel good after having voted for this candidate") or negative ("I would hate myself if I voted for that candidate"). Then, if a voter's consequentialist reasoning and their emotional commitment clashes ("I know I should vote for Hillary to make sure Drumpf is defeated, but I really can't stand her, and I really like Johnson/Stein/whoever"), then the emotional component should once again prevail, since the probability of one's vote actually being decisive is so low.

That's where the argument that Hillary's going to win the state anyway and has a 15% lead in the polls. Johnson/Stein are on the bubble to qualify for easier ballot access, so why not help insure more choices for next time. The emotional concern about the actual winner is addressed and the relative utility of the vote can come into play. I'm not saying that it will always work, but it has sometimes.

On the larger question of decoupling, I think that the fact that voting typically involves many separate races comes into play. If there was only one race on the ballot then the act of voting is more coupled to the specific choice. I've seen that reaction to special elections with only one question.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That makes sense.

Since the very last points that you bring up aren't really relevant to the vast majority people, would you then agree that the reasons why people vote are fundamentally emotional in nature?

This, in turn, preempts any attempt to lecture people about how they ought to vote based on strict consequentialist logic.

I think what I learned from my introspection is that whether or not someone votes for most people is based on an emotional utility such as community pride. However, I think I may have convinced myself that the act of voting is different for most than the act of casting a specific vote once one has determined that one would vote. That seems consistent with polling where after an election many more people claim to have voted than actually did, but they are sure about whom they voted for even though some didn't actually vote. That separation between voting and for whom to vote for makes me think that consequentialist logic might have little effect generating turnout, but it could influence support for candidates among those who did vote.

I'm really not sure how such a process would work. So, voters are first moved by emotional motivations to go vote, but once they reach the polling place, they switch back to assessing the probabilistic consequences of their vote? I mean, some might. I guess that, if you have no emotional stake in any of the candidate, then it makes sense to use consequentialism as a guide. However, I think most people do have a very strong emotional stake in their vote - which could be positive ("I feel good after having voted for this candidate") or negative ("I would hate myself if I voted for that candidate"). Then, if a voter's consequentialist reasoning and their emotional commitment clashes ("I know I should vote for Hillary to make sure Drumpf is defeated, but I really can't stand her, and I really like Johnson/Stein/whoever"), then the emotional component should once again prevail, since the probability of one's vote actually being decisive is so low.

That's where the argument that Hillary's going to win the state anyway and has a 15% lead in the polls. Johnson/Stein are on the bubble to qualify for easier ballot access, so why not help insure more choices for next time. The emotional concern about the actual winner is addressed and the relative utility of the vote can come into play. I'm not saying that it will always work, but it has sometimes.

On the larger question of decoupling, I think that the fact that voting typically involves many separate races comes into play. If there was only one race on the ballot then the act of voting is more coupled to the specific choice. I've seen that reaction to special elections with only one question.

I'm not saying that these logics are invalid, far from it. All I'm saying is that they cannot work based purely on utilitarian, consequentialist calculations. There has to be some emotional weight put behind then: not just emotional stakes in who the winner is, but emotional stakes in how I, personally, vote. I think that's the key distinction here. You can integrate probabilistic calculation in your voting decision in any way you want, but they will never be sufficient to motivate you, either to vote at all, or to choose a candidate over another. There has to be something else.

[Arturo Belano]

To the white, middle-class liberals with the savior complex in this thread, are your self-righteous, sanctimonious cries about others having a different voting preference supposed to ENHANCE support for Clinton??? HOLY SH*T are you people insufferable.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

To the white, middle-class liberals with the savior complex in this thread, are your self-righteous, sanctimonious cries about others having a different voting preference supposed to ENHANCE support for Clinton??? HOLY SH*T are you people insufferable.

lmao i'm mexican son. half of my family lives in mexico. if i'm trying to cajole people to vote for clinton, it's for this reason.

worth noting that xahar is muslim and his parents are from bangladesh.

don't make stupid assumptions!

[dead0man]

Indeed, everything about the comment is true except the white part.

[Arturo Belano]

To the white, middle-class liberals with the savior complex in this thread, are your self-righteous, sanctimonious cries about others having a different voting preference supposed to ENHANCE support for Clinton??? HOLY SH*T are you people insufferable.

lmao i'm mexican son. half of my family lives in mexico. if i'm trying to cajole people to vote for clinton, it's for this reason.

worth noting that xahar is muslim and his parents are from bangladesh.

don't make stupid assumptions!

Yeah, two out of how many in this thread? My point still stands.

[Gustaf]

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?

I wasn't directing it at you, no, and I have nothing against tactical voting.

I just think this is an election where the stakes are a lot higher than usual so other considerations appear petty in comparison. 

[Gustaf]

That makes sense.

Since the very last points that you bring up aren't really relevant to the vast majority people, would you then agree that the reasons why people vote are fundamentally emotional in nature?

This, in turn, preempts any attempt to lecture people about how they ought to vote based on strict consequentialist logic.

I think what I learned from my introspection is that whether or not someone votes for most people is based on an emotional utility such as community pride. However, I think I may have convinced myself that the act of voting is different for most than the act of casting a specific vote once one has determined that one would vote. That seems consistent with polling where after an election many more people claim to have voted than actually did, but they are sure about whom they voted for even though some didn't actually vote. That separation between voting and for whom to vote for makes me think that consequentialist logic might have little effect generating turnout, but it could influence support for candidates among those who did vote.

I'm really not sure how such a process would work. So, voters are first moved by emotional motivations to go vote, but once they reach the polling place, they switch back to assessing the probabilistic consequences of their vote? I mean, some might. I guess that, if you have no emotional stake in any of the candidate, then it makes sense to use consequentialism as a guide. However, I think most people do have a very strong emotional stake in their vote - which could be positive ("I feel good after having voted for this candidate") or negative ("I would hate myself if I voted for that candidate"). Then, if a voter's consequentialist reasoning and their emotional commitment clashes ("I know I should vote for Hillary to make sure Drumpf is defeated, but I really can't stand her, and I really like Johnson/Stein/whoever"), then the emotional component should once again prevail, since the probability of one's vote actually being decisive is so low.

That's where the argument that Hillary's going to win the state anyway and has a 15% lead in the polls. Johnson/Stein are on the bubble to qualify for easier ballot access, so why not help insure more choices for next time. The emotional concern about the actual winner is addressed and the relative utility of the vote can come into play. I'm not saying that it will always work, but it has sometimes.

On the larger question of decoupling, I think that the fact that voting typically involves many separate races comes into play. If there was only one race on the ballot then the act of voting is more coupled to the specific choice. I've seen that reaction to special elections with only one question.

I'm not saying that these logics are invalid, far from it. All I'm saying is that they cannot work based purely on utilitarian, consequentialist calculations. There has to be some emotional weight put behind then: not just emotional stakes in who the winner is, but emotional stakes in how I, personally, vote. I think that's the key distinction here. You can integrate probabilistic calculation in your voting decision in any way you want, but they will never be sufficient to motivate you, either to vote at all, or to choose a candidate over another. There has to be something else.

I think it's a bit different in this context where you're publicly arguing about your vote. Then your decision to vote a certain way can influence others.

It should also be noted that the paradox of voting is hard to generalize since no one voting is obviously not an equilibrium either.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Thx for the s/o.