Does your vote matter?
One man (or woman), one vote.
So how can your vote matter? Especially in predominantly red or blue states, where the results might seem to be (and usually are) a foregone conclusion.
Well, ask the Democratic voters who stayed home in the 2010 special election in Massachusetts:
Voter turnout in the 2010 special election was significantly lower than in the 2008 election. The drop in turnout was smallest””around 25%””in areas that supported Obama in the 2008 election by less than 60%. Turnout fell 30% among towns that supported Obama by over 60%. In Boston, which supported Obama by almost 79% in 2008, the decrease in 2010 voter turnout was even more pronounced, at about 35%.
The result was the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate, which but for the trick of reconciliation might have stopped Obamacare in its tracks. Each voter’s decision to stay home didn’t matter all that much, but they mattered because they mattered in the aggregate. Very few elections are decided by one vote, of course, but one plus one plus one equals many.
When people say that one vote does not matter, they are almost always correct in a technical sense. But that’s not the way I look at it, because each person is part of a trend. It is true that each individual vote taken alone does not determine anything, but taken to extremes that sort of argument would mean that no one should vote because no votes matter.
Which is absurd, of course.
It’s somewhat like saying that the odds against any particular individual being born are astronomical. True; and yet we have all been born, so we all defy the odds.
Voters vote as individuals, but trends are aggregates. It’s somewhat paradoxical. Each voter’s decision stands for and is similar to the decisions of many. We are all unique individuals with one vote each. But we act as parts of groups, the individual members of which are all doing the same thing, and it adds up.
[NOTE: The song is from the 1959 musical “Fiorello,” which I saw as a child in the original Broadway production. I loved it. Its songs about politics are just as relevant today, if not more so.]
[NOTE II: The math whizzes among you will no doubt have something to say about this post, some of it critical.]
” It is true that each individual vote taken alone does not determine anything, but taken to extremes that sort of argument would mean that no one should vote because no votes matter. “ – Neo
That is the flipside of what I’ve been arguing…
That if we ALL wait for some signal to move off these two unacceptable candidates, we will wait forever, and not having a “viable” alternative becomes self-fulfilling.
We each have to make our move independent of some such “signal”.
Either of the two main party candidates are either acceptable, or they are not. Why block ourselves in to those two choices, when there are other choices available?
“It’s somewhat like saying that the odds against any particular individual being born are astronomical. True; and yet we have all been born, so we all defy the odds.” [Neoneocon]
It is also like the odds of winning Powerball or Mega-Bucks. The odds might be hundreds-of-millions to one that you will win, but not one single lottery in this country has ever gone un-won. Someone always eventually wins.
“Why block ourselves in to those two choices, when there are other choices available?” [Big Maq @ 2:20]
Because the historical record shows that those other choices simply cannot win. The Republican and Democrat parties, in part because of their longevity, have the ability to coalesce votes; the Libertarians and the Greens do not. It’s really that simple. To vote, even in protest, for a non-Republican or non-Democrat is a useless theoretical exercise.
Voting alternate candidates in this election is like buying an electric car; virtue signaling and feeling good about one’s principles while in reality putting more demand on a primarily coal fired electrical system.
In 1992 Ross Perot came the closest to winning as a third party candidate of any candidate in my lifetime. That could have been a significant first step to a viable third party, but Perot disappeared after the election and so did any serious third party movement. BTW I voted for Perot and the net result of my vote, even with his strong showing, was a Bill Clinton presidency.
There is no question in my mind that the more Johnson or Stein draw votes, the only power they have in this cycle is to act as spoilers throwing the election to either Clinton (enough Gary Johnson votes) or Trump (enough Jill Stein votes).
In a Republic where the representatives are elected democratically, it is the aggregate that counts, the consensus of individual votes on each side.
At present, on the divided left, those inclined to vote for a Sanders are in a minority. On the balkanized right, consensus is as absent.
Which is why the only viable ‘choice’ is between 1) an egotist, whose intellect and personality are entirely unsuited for the Presidency but whose instincts correctly identify some of the major threats to America and 2) a progressive/marxist in sheep’s clothing.
If America, elects the progressive/marxist, it will learn that it has “chosen poorly”… as there will effectively be no future choices.
“On the balkanized right, consensus is as absent.” [Geoffrey Britain @2:56]
I’m not sure that consensus is as strong on the left as it appears. Never dismiss the MSM’s propensity to spackle over the fundamental structural problems of Democratic contenders.
Just sayin’.
T,
I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. The Left is divided on tactics but agreed upon the goal. Sanders and Hillary only differ on how to get to the same place.
I also should add that the Left is made up of various victim and special interest factions. That necessarily leads to friction and is the primary barrier to consensus on the left.
The math whizzes among you will no doubt have something to say about this post, some of it critical.
I’m not exactly a “math whiz,” but I studied the subject and am still interested in it. Anyway, the math I’m thinking about is a technical analog to your argument that individual votes, each of which seems to mean nothing, add up to a trend that means a lot.
In calculus, you can compute the area under a curve by slicing it into an infinite number of infinitesimally-small rectangles, and then totaling up the areas of these rectangles (a process called integration). The result of adding these extremely tiny areas can be a huge area.
I think the analogy is obvious. IMHO, calculus bolsters your argument rather than critique it.
“If America, elects the progressive/marxist, it will learn that it has “chosen poorly”… as there will effectively be no future choices.” – GB
Both do not get past the minimum threshold of what we need in leadership for this country.
Both will ultimately deliver us to the same end so many claim is the exclusive domain of clinton.
Both are unacceptable.
America will have “chosen poorly” if either gets elected to office.
.
To give trump even a nod towards having “correct instincts” gives him too much credit, as he is yet to outline a consistent and cohesive governing philosophy.
Had he not been so mutable on policy (and all else), one could plausibly make that argument, but as it stands, that is more a wish projected on trump than a fact.
If this “correct instincts” argument sounds familiar, it is because it is… We hear similar from the left all the time – only they use the cover “good intentions”.
It does not follow that that person will deliver what we want, even if we were to agree with their instincts/intentions.
Rather than “instincts” or “intentions” we need some evidence that our leaders have a well thought out plan based on principles we agree with.
We are so far from that we are left to debate “instincts” as that is all we have on the GOP side.
Every day and in every way Trump reinforces my revulsion at the thought of voting for him. I may have to vote for the pot smoker.
I mentioned this here before (on July 22):
“… my main question is, If Trump is going to lose California, don’t I want it to be in a landslide so that he and his enthusiasts are thoroughly defeated?
The comments today are on the assumption of a close election. Most states are either red or blue, not purple. Regardless of who wins, I would like my California vote to be a tiny statement of neither of the above. If I lived in a purple state I would hold my nose and vote for Trump. The only hope for California’s Republican Party is a revolutionary re-invention. I would hope that it would not be modeled on Trumpism 2016.
I live in California, which is the bluest of blue states. We’re so far left that we CELEBRATE voter fraud, so the Democrat generally wins. (The high-population San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles basins have as many people as the rest of the state combined.) Yes, the mountain districts are more conservative, but there aren’t enough people who live in the foothills or mountains or the agricultural Central Valley to make up the difference.
So my vote doesn’t count at all; I can vote for anybody I please. My vote for Trump or Johnson is irrelevant.
On the other hand, it might be possible that Hillary would anger enough of even the uber-lefty crowd in California so that my vote MIGHT sway the balance. But if that were to happen, then all the “swing states” in the East and Midwest would also have been “in play” – and the November election results would have been final long before the California polls would close.
Society is what the people choose to believe in. If they think voting doesn’t matter, it won’t. If they choose to lie, cheat, and steal then the society will be corrupt.
P.S. That’s why Reagan said something like he “would act as if the fate of conservatism rested on his shoulders alone.”
If everyone shares that sentiment and does their duty, we’ll be fine. It’s when people give up that disaster happens.
As I’ve said before, I think Trumpkins are cynical burnouts.
Ken Mitchell:
That’s why I used Scott Brown of Massachusetts in 2010 as an example. Massachusetts is every bit as blue a state as California, perhaps even bluer. And yet he won, because of turnout—he won to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat, running against a Hillary Clinton figure in Coakley.
Big Maq,
“Both do not get past the minimum threshold of what we need in leadership for this country.”
Couldn’t agree more. Tragically, what we need and what we have are entirely different. The country has decided, through the primary process, that we may have one or the other… with no ‘substitutions’ allowed.
“Both will ultimately deliver us to the same end so many claim is the exclusive domain of clinton.”
That posits that there is ultimately no difference between a fascist dictator like Franco and a Marxist revolution. Ask any Eastern European, old enough to remember life under Stalin, if they agree.
“America will have “chosen poorly” if either gets elected to office.”
America has already “chosen poorly” with these two nominees. What counts now is which of the two is the republic more likely to survive…
“To give trump even a nod towards having “correct instincts” gives him too much credit, as he is yet to outline a consistent and cohesive governing philosophy.
Had he not been so mutable on policy (and all else), one could plausibly make that argument, but as it stands, that is more a wish projected on trump than a fact.”
Instincts are not logic or reason. They are perhaps the premises from which reason and logic extend. Lacking the inclination to think deeply, Trump’s mutability is inevitable.
A “consistent and cohesive governing philosophy” is greatly to be desired, acting much as a ship’s rudder but the absence of a consistent and cohesive governing philosophy is much less dangerous than, a consistent and cohesive governing philosophy that is fundamentally antithetical to liberty.
“It does not follow that that person will deliver what we want, even if we were to agree with their instincts/intentions.”
Given the forces on both the left and the right in opposition to constitutional governance, there is zero chance that any person can “deliver what we want”, much less what we need. Ultimately, the problem is not a lack of leadership, the problem is an electorate so depraved that it could leave us with this ‘choice”.
“Rather than “instincts” or “intentions” we need some evidence that our leaders have a well thought out plan based on principles we agree with.”
Therein lies the truth you resist; instincts VS those with an intolerance of liberty, who also have a well thought out plan based on Marxist principles…
That like it or not is what we have and denial of that reality won’t change it in the least but denial may well lead to the worst of the two paths we face.
Matt_SE,
Reagan’s proscription rested upon the presumption that enough people exist who share that sentiment and are willing to do their duty. Certainly it was true then but is it true now?
What better proof of that no longer being the case can you ask than the elections of 2008, 2012 and now, the choice of Trump or Hillary?
Even if Trump should win in a landslide, it would not necessarily be proof of the majority’s desire for constitutional governance but rather an indication of how desperate people are in the face of the threats we face. I point to the low voter turnout for Cruz as confirmation of that assessment.
Vote your conscience. Its all you have to guide you. Iowa is a purple state, but has been growing more red since the messiah was anointed. If polls show it is extremely close come November I will vote for the crazy orange man. If not I will write in Cruz/Fiorina.
IMO it will not be close, and the democrats will become the senate majority and the republican house majority will be reduced. Actions have consequences. The DC gop feared the nomination of Cruz, they embraced djt. I think clinging to their rice bowls will lead to their eventual demise.
Mid-term and special elections are different than presidential year elections. Even though this is known, people like Limbaugh don’t get it and always seem surprised that smaller turn out favors Repubs and larger turnout favors Dems.
Anyway, I think whether one vote matters and whether you should vote are actually two different arguments. I think informed citizens SHOULD vote. But they may feel if they are faced with two disgusting choices, they CAN’T vote.
“The sanction of the victim…” –Ayn Rand
Big Maq – Hillary has a consistent and cohesive governing philosophy, that’s why I’m voting against her. Whether you like it or not, either Hillary or Donald WILL be the next President of the United States. It’s a “Lady or the Tiger” situation.
Which one will do the least harm. Which one’s harm will be repairable, which one’s irreparable?
Matt_SE – if Trumpkins are cynical burnouts, what are we Trump nose-holders?
When asked why he bothers to vote in a blue state, my 92 year-old Dad says fiercely “I’m gonna make them count my vote.”
Richard Saunders,
You nose holders are optomistic voters who believe djt is in some way less dangerous than hrc. I get it, but can not count the angels dancing on the head of the pin…. they move so fast its all a blur.
I think James Buckley proved that third party candidates can win. Republicans and Democrats in NY both nominated liberals for the senate. James Buckley won on the Conservative line as conservatives, lower case “c” voted for him en masse, and Republicans, Democrats, and Liberals split their vote for the major party candidates.
The libertarians, PRES and VP, running this time are Democrats in all but name. They’re not conservative, and they’re not libertarian. But the Green Party candidate fits what Sanders supporters want in a candidate to a “T”. I think they should all unite behind the Greens.
I have a hard time understanding those who say that they’re making a statement by not voting.
That puts them on the same level as the average crackhead on the street.
Nice statement.
If you want restraints restored on presidential powers, vote Trump.
If you want rulings by presidential decree, higher taxes, continued economic drag and suppressed wages through unrestricted immigration (legal and otherwise) and an expansion of the Visa 1-B program, vote Hillery.
Everything else is just noise.
I’m not sure that consensus is as strong on the left as it appears. Never dismiss the MSM’s propensity to spackle over the fundamental structural problems of Democratic contenders.
T, experience has taught me to avoid underestimating the power of the fundamental fear of Progressives … that a non-Progressive might gain the credibility to harsh their mellow about their own choices in life with credible criticism … when it comes to unifying the Left.
It is that fear that drove the support behind the anti-Bush, er, anti-war movement that eventually undermined him.
Mrs. Clinton.
Four, probably five Supreme Court slots to fill.
That’s an easy call.
Remember: the 2000 Presidential election was decided by 537 votes out of nearly 6 million cast in Florida. The Wikipedia entry on the issue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000) does not mention that the media called the state for Gore after the polls closed at 7, but the polls in the panhandle, which was more conservative, but in Central Time, were open for another hour. An unknown number of people in the panhandle went home without voting upon hearing this; we will never know how that might have affected the election and subsequent recriminations.
I have never understood why Americans don’t want to vote. Millions have served in our Armed Forces so that we can cast a ballot.
Not voting dishonors their sacrifice.
I can understand, however, someone not wanting to vote in one, or even some, of the individual contests on a ballot.
In 2008 we did have to stand in line for about half an hour waiting for a voting position to open. Including drive time it took maybe an hour.
A very small price to pay when compared to the hundreds of thousands men and women “who gave their last full measure devotion …” so “… that government of the people, for the people, by the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Neo:
“It’s somewhat like saying that the odds against any particular individual being born are astronomical.”
Looks like you were almost plagiarizing the philosopher kings of the 20th Century:
“So remember, when you’re feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space
‘Cause there’s bugger all down here on Earth.”
The Galaxy Song
That is why this a crying shame. Men probably didn’t give their lives so that I could vote for Trump. How far we have fallen.
“It’s the SCOTUS, Stupid.”
My vote certainly wouldn’t count in Philadelphia where there was miraculously not one republican vote cast for Romney.
I should have said, “That we know of.”
Vote for the Supreme Court if nothing else.
Ed Bonderenka – I don’t know how you can put Philly down like that. Why, in Philadelphia, people love to vote so much they vote after they’re dead!
There are some interesting state primaries coming up. One of these is on August 30th, in Florida, where Marco Rubio wants to get the GOP nomination for the Senate. He lost his home state in the Presidential primaries, but is favored to do well for the Senate race.
Another possibly dramatic one is also coming up on August 30th, this time in Arizona, where John McCain (at 79 years old, and with almost 30 years in the Senate, and now running for his sixth term), is facing a strong challenge from Kelli Ward, for the GOP nomination. Basically, they’re getting tired of him.
And what about the Senate race in California, with Barbara Boxer retiring this year? Because of that state’s non-partisan blanket primary law, only the top two candidates in the June 7th primary will get to advance to the general election in November, regardless of party.
Guess what? There is no Republican candidate for the Senate seat in California. The top two finishers were both Democrats, the state Attorney General Kamala Harris, and U.S. Rep, Loretta Sanchez. By law, the Republican party cannot run a candidate in November, because of those primary results in June.
All that comes from Proposition 14 in 2010, with 54% of support from voters. California may become even more of a one-party state. So, sometimes your vote counts, and sometimes it doesn’t.
Vote – we have a lot at stake including a few SCOTUS seats.
And, if Trump wins, the press will keep him in line. If Hillary wins, they’ll continue to give her a pass on everything.
Richard Saunders Says:
Matt_SE — if Trumpkins are cynical burnouts, what are we Trump nose-holders?
Survivors of a natural disaster.
parker @ 7:35,
No need to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. History has repeatedly demonstrated that the half life of fascist regimes is far less than the half life of Marxist regimes.
Need I remind anyone then no less a thinker than Hayek, in his seminal “The Road to Serfdom” demonstrated that socialism leads to Marxist totalitarianism? As it must, simply because socialism is unsustainable without ever greater suppression of liberty.
Trump is many things but a Marxist he is not, whereas Hillary has never renounced her thesis extolling Saul Alinsky’s ‘virtues’.
Vote djt because SCOTUS? That is in trumpspeak sad. bad. The donald nominating conservative or ‘moderate’ judges…. what are any of you thinking? The democrats will control the senate because djt will be a disaster down ticket. The orange one will go full Schumer NYC values on SCOTUS nominees.
Next you dreamers will be humming John Lennon’s Imagine.
I’m going to vote Trump, and insult him while I’m doing it. I like to have my cake and eat it.
GB,
I see the Shrew Queen as a greedy, grasping nasty disaster. She wants to go down in history as the first POTUS with ovaries. Yes, she leans towards the hard left, but she is a child of the msm ‘mainstream’ as is Slick Willy. Its all about $$$. Yes, she will nominate ‘progressives’ to SCOTUS but so will djt.
Half-lives? So djt is CO-60 and hrc is CS-137? Wow, what a persuasive rationale. In either case better stand far away or wear a lot of lead. I have stated if it is extremely close in Iowa, I will vote for the orange man. Not because I see him as the lesser evil, but because heads will explode on the left if the Shrew Queen is denied a second time.
But I still see no path to 270 for the orange man. Thus, its all ljust chatter signifying more chatter.
One man, one vote, one time, if Hillary wins. The Leftists will have reached their zenith.
When the Algerian Islamists won, the Algerian army reversed the election and took power. Cost tens of thousands of lives. It was worth it.
We do not have the military command corps on our side. Obama has weeded out the good guys.
The US Army will not rescue us.
Pray for The Donald.
parker: Trump can just leave SCOTUS 4-4. When Ginsburg withers, it will be 4-3. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR 9 JUSTICES. Get it?
Ed Bonderenka:
The facts about voting in Philadelphia in 2008 and 2012:
More:
What did Larry Norman say?
The politicians all make speeches
And the newsmen all take notes
They exaggerate false issues
And they shove it down our throats
Is it really up to them
If this country sinks or floats
I wonder who would lead us
If none of us would vote…
Neo,
Yes indeed. Too many Great Minds (acknowledged by the Intelligentsia as such!) are completely unaware of the cumulative effect of tiny increments.
I have devoted much breath and many pixels to trying to disabuse people of this notion. It seems hopeless.
And even if the Great Brains can’t get their heads around that simple fact, the fact is that somebody or some initiative on a ballot WINS. So somebody’s vote did count. (Which point you make very nicely; I’m just pointing out that the counter-evidence to the claim of inconsequentiality is immediately obvious.)
Also, each vote has an effect beyond “win-lose.” “By how much?” is often a question of moment.
Apologies if I’m just repeating what’s already been said some 48 times above. The posting socked me between the eyes, because it’s a hobby-horse of mine. (Is a posting a hobby-horse? Or can it sometimes be a professional horse?)
Thanks, Neo. I didn’t realize the research had been done.
Sounds like an Onion article, though. Not that it is…
“That (both deliver same end, ultimately) posits that there is ultimately no difference between a fascist dictator like Franco and a Marxist revolution. Ask any Eastern European, old enough to remember life under Stalin, if they agree.” – GB
No. You do not understand.
BOTH will extend the power of the executive branch, regardless if trump is more like a fascist dictator or just some bumbling idiot. That point is irrelevant.
What is relevant is how he views the limitations of the office and how his character (and philosophy) would deal with opposition to “getting things done”. So far, from his rhetoric, he is not bound by limitations, nor Constitutional boundaries. We see what he does to even the smallest of challenges.
Bottom line is he all but promises to kick the door wide open on executive over-reach – making Obama look like a chump in comparison.
Unless you are hoping that trump IS some kind of “fascist dictator” and abolishes any further elections, there will undoubtedly be the opportunity for a fresh new Dem president to make use of those new powers. How helpful is that against the march to “marxism”?
And this is not even considering that trump is hardly a conservative. Going by his history he is left on most issues. So, how “fascist” is that, really? Wouldn’t that put us that much further down the “marxist” path?
.
“America has already “chosen poorly” with these two nominees. What counts now is which of the two is the republic more likely to survive… “
So now you are changing it up. Didn’t you say, “If America, elects the progressive/marxist, it will learn that it has “chosen poorly””? If we now agree that BOTH candidates are beyond the threshold of “acceptable”, that must be because of the harm we expect each to have on the country.
But, what in the Sam H*ll will “survive” of our “republic”, if we get your expected “fascist” government? It won’t be anything like what it used to stand for, what our Founders envisioned!!!
It is rather tenuous to argue a “survivability” with “fascist” vs “marxist” as the standard.
That is a false and twisted argument, as the fact is that BOTH candidates would extend significantly the power of the executive branch.
They may or may not use that power during the next four years to institute either a “fascist” or “marxist” government within that time frame (not likely), but they certainly promise to significantly weaken the structures designed to hold back either of those extremes. The real danger will come afterwards (notwithstanding the risk around trump’s moment by moment judgement on issues big and small). Who is to say what that future POTUS will bring?
.
“the absence of a consistent and cohesive governing philosophy is much less dangerous than, a consistent and cohesive governing philosophy that is fundamentally antithetical to liberty”
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. That argument is along the lines of “what we don’t know cannot hurt us”.
Just because WE cannot discern trump’s governing philosophy, doesn’t mean he is not operating to one – even if it is possibly (probably?) chaotic, jumbled, and incoherent.
But, that is the issue… WE DON’T KNOW (or that it actually may be that messed up!)
Arguing, as you have, about his “correct instincts” is meaningless unless we DO know, or, at least, have much stronger evidence as to his core philosophy.
.
“instincts VS those with an intolerance of liberty, who also have a well thought out plan based on Marxist principles”
Oh, man, seriously! There is so much that trump has flung out there that can be interpreted as “intolerance of liberty”, that it is incredible that this is even an argument.
If we knew his governing philosophy it might have a leg to stand on.
Quite frankly, if trump is not beholding to the limitations of the Presidency, nor to the Constitution, can we even expect him to have any “tolerance for liberty”?
.
“there is zero chance that any person can “deliver what we want”, much less what we need. Ultimately, the problem is not a lack of leadership, the problem is an electorate so depraved that it could leave us with this ‘choice”.”
Think about the implications of that, and the rest of your comments!
We’ve given up on our democratic processes (and on making the case for conservative principles – since the electorate is “so depraved”), so, to “survive” (even if that means abrogating the limits of presidential power, the Constitution, even democracy itself), we need someone who will force (at point of gun, inevitably – since there is no Constitutional means to do so), our will.
Only, it never works out that way – it will be their will (whoever ultimately seizes that power), not ours.
Seriously, taking all your argument in context, that is the end point. Everyone else is deficient in some way, so we need a dictator to get it right.
This is the line of thinking that gets us here in the first place. We think that our principles won’t sell, or are anathema to many groups, so we don’t bother to get involved and make the case to them. We get upset that these “depraved” people still get taken by other arguments, and then vote that way. We lose faith in our institutions because the ones that do get involved then shape it to their own and their group’s benefit. So, now we just need our own authoritarian to set it right.
.
“Tragically, … we may have one or the other… with no ‘substitutions’ allowed.”
Call it conscience or principle. It amounts to essentially the same thing in this election. Accordingly, either trump is acceptable or not. Either clinton is acceptable or not.
If either is truly not acceptable, then why keep arguing so vociferously for one as if it is “tragic”, when the arguments don’t sound like it is such a “tragedy”?
And, there is another choice, whether you want to recognize it or not.
parker,
I can’t agree that for Hillary it’s all about $$$. Money is for Hillary, first a tool and only tangentially her due. It’s true that the purpose of that tool is to make her POTUS.
But even POTUS is a tool, the one needed for her to be the agent who finally accomplishes the fundamental transformation of America into a ‘socially just’ society. That is both the legacy she seeks and the validation of her worth; the greatest woman to have ever lived, one to match any man’s accomplishments.
Hillary Clinton is a true believer whose deepest motivations are ideological, unlike Bill who sought power in order to feed his appetites. It is not accidental that the subject of her thesis was Saul Alinsky. In fact, it reveals all that is needed to see into her soul.
“Vote djt because SCOTUS? That is in trumpspeak sad. bad. The donald nominating conservative or ‘moderate’ judges…. what are any of you thinking? The democrats will control the senate because djt will be a disaster down ticket. The orange one will go full Schumer NYC values on SCOTUS nominees.” – parker
Agree. This addresses one of the questions that challenges the prevailing view that SCOTUS is a differentiator.
Sure, he has agreed to a list of replacements for Scalia, but, what does trump do if he is opposed for that nomination?
What commitment does trump have thereafter for other replacements?
What does his past tell us of who he’d nominate (it’s not pretty)?
He gives every indication he will go full Dem on the nominees beyond Scalia’s replacement, and maybe even that too if he gets push back.
The man is UNPREDICTABLE.
“Hillary Clinton is a true believer whose deepest motivations are ideological, unlike Bill who sought power in order to feed his appetites.” – GB
Come now.
Her motives are all from being an ideologue? Not from being thoroughly corrupt and using ideology to acquire and maintain power?
Donations to Clinton Foundation and speaking engagements have nothing to do with her motivation?
Voting for State Senator is a very different thing than voting for President. Your vote for anyone but Hillary in MA is a waste of time.
Neo,
Interesting question.
While voter fraud and manipulation can exist at all levels, it is my opinion that in local elections you have the greatest chance for your vote directly influencing the outcome. I would further suggest that in voting for state office holders you might have a voice. Even though at that level the ability to ‘manipulate’ the vote becomes greater. Voting the under ticket for your senator and/or representatives, I lump in with state voting.
However, the presidential election hinges not on the direct votes of citizens, but on the electoral college. So technically, regarding that office anyway, our vote does not really count except indirectly.
That being said, there are two things which cast serious doubt on whether your vote counts. The first is electronic voting. We need to return to paper ballots. It has been proven time and again that the voting machines can be easily manipulated. The opportunity to get access to do so has been demonstrated time and again.
The other issue, and this primarily concerns the left and democrats, but I repeat myself. They have demonstrated again and again (remeber Gregiore’s election in Washington and Franken’s election in Minnesota), that they have no hesitation regarding breaking the law and subverting the foundations of a free and fairly elected government.
They subscribe to the Communist slogan that,
We saw our last ‘fair’ election in 2004. 2008, and certainly 2012 were rigged from the get-go. I was in Ohio in 2012 during the election. In Cleveland precinct after precinct in inner- Cleveland, had 100% turn out and 100% for Obama voting. This was repeated elsewhere also. Of course, not a peep from the media whores. Your chances of being struck by lightning twice in one day are greater. Imagine had that happened for a republican?
Further reading regarding the Ohio votes.
here
and this too and lastly that.
“Her motives are all from being an ideologue? Not from being thoroughly corrupt and using ideology to acquire and maintain power?
Donations to Clinton Foundation and speaking engagements have nothing to do with her motivation?” Big_Maq
Did I use the word ALL? or ONLY? Or any categorical qualifier?
I’m sure that Hillary Clinton likes money as much as the rest of us. She’s certainly corrupt, I’m simply arguing that her corruption is in service of an ideological goal. She certainly lusts for power and she revels in dominating others but she uses that power to advance the Leftist agenda that she embraces. She’s not a Stalin nor a Trotsky, she’s a Lenin who embodied Stalin’s ruthlessness with Trotsky’s idealism.
Hey Steve Walsh, Scott Brown won a US Senate race in MA. He did not become a mere “State Senator”.
However, there is a huge difference in the turnout for a presidential race compared to a mid-term election. This is why Obama wins comfortably then two years later Republicans sweep congressional and statehouse elections nationwide. There’s a still larger difference in who turns out for an off-year special election like the one Scott Brown won.
Finally, to all the people thinking of being clever and switching their vote “if it’s close” I point out that in 1980 a lot of polls showed right up to election day that Carter would win comfortably yet Reagan won in a landslide.
steve walsh:
Brown was running for US senator. Not only that, he was running to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. Ordinarily, the Democrat would be highly favored to win, and Brown was a total underdog. He ran on the idea that he could stop Obamacare. Turnout in heavily Democratic enclaves was poor, which accounted for his win.
“She’s not a Stalin nor a Trotsky, she’s a Lenin who embodied Stalin’s ruthlessness with Trotsky’s idealism.” – GB
You make my argument for me.
Your point is that ideology is clinton’s overriding concern.
However, these other issues around her corruption is not merely some side show… it IS the show!
She is simply riding the “car” that gets her to her destination – power and self-enrichment. It is pretty heady stuff to get to be the first woman president, and to be the first wife of a president to become president, etc. in the history books.
bernie sanders was very much an ideologue. clinton had to “move left” to draw off some of the crowd he was attracting – hardly the thing an ideologue would need to do.
Yes indeed my vote counts and is, therefore, precious to me. This is why I can’t give it to any of the “official” candidates. I live in an extremely red state (Idaho) which Big Orange will win in November. Given that, my conscience will be clear when I write in the name of a constitutional conservative (ironically, the Constitution Party candidate does not, in my opinion, fit that description). I feel great sympathy for those conservatives in purple states where they must choose between two evils when there is no obvious lesser.
BTW I voted for Perot and the net result of my vote, even with his strong showing, was a Bill Clinton presidency.
Ross Perot was the Clinton’s stalking horse.