Bernie Sanders- Does He Have A Chance?

[EquALLity]

Are you saying that Trump, who was nearly tied with Hillary Clinton in national polling, had the same chance of winning as a third party candidate with less than 5% of the vote?

I wrote a really good counterpoint to this. Using a series of points, I made the case that it was better to follow morality.....but..... (dammit, I hate admitting I may be wrong ) it conflicted with my belief that the reduction of harm is better than an all/none mentality.

sigh I'll cede the point to you. But...............

What should we (as a society and individuals) do to enlighten others that there is another path?

The entire argument you have made conflicts with the "reduction of harm is better than all/none", which is my point... That's what I was talking about when I said you should choose the lesser of two evils; the lesser of two evils is better than the more evil, so we should choose the lesser of two evils.

I don't know how to fix the two party system... But before you can get a third party president, third parties need to become more mainstream than they currently are, so that people will take them more seriously and they will get into national debates and poll at more than 5% in most states. I think you need third party governors and congressmembers before you get a third party president.

Also, some people make the argument that the two party system is inevitable due to the way we have elections. A third party candidate tends to side more with the left or the right, resulting in two parties needing to dominate to prevent the vote from the left and right being split... For example, in the election of Abraham Lincoln (republican), the democratic party split into two factions due to one of the democrats being seen as not pro-slavery enough. The democratic vote was split, so the republicans won. Similarly, if you have a libertarian candidate, they will likely take votes away from moderate republicans and the republicans who are especially pro-capitalism. This would split the republican vote, resulting in the democrats winning. The two party system prevents that from happening.
What do you think about this?

[PsYcHo]

What do you think about this?

Honestly I'm torn here. The only way to eventually have a third party candidate be taken seriously is if enough people vote third party. And your point about a third party generally taking away from other parties is spot on, thus the dilemma and the question I pose to you;

Is it better to keep siding with the lesser of two evils to be moral (short game) or preferential to "throw your vote away" on more reasonable third party candidates in the hope that eventually enough people will agree with your vote for it to be mainstream and acceptable? The fact that Lincoln (eventually) won his election was a major turning point in history, after all. (Edit)- I know Lincoln wasn't third party, but if enough votes are taken from both Democrats and Republicans, maybe a third party could actually win.

[EquALLity]

What do you think about this?

Honestly I'm torn here. The only way to eventually have a third party candidate be taken seriously is if enough people vote third party. And your point about a third party generally taking away from other parties is spot on, thus the dilemma and the question I pose to you;

Is it better to keep siding with the lesser of two evils to be moral (short game) or preferential to "throw your vote away" on more reasonable third party candidates in the hope that eventually enough people will agree with your vote for it to be mainstream and acceptable? The fact that Lincoln (eventually) won his election was a major turning point in history, after all. (Edit)- I know Lincoln wasn't third party, but if enough votes are taken from both Democrats and Republicans, maybe a third party could actually win.

Voting for a third party candidate and hoping that people will somehow change because of that doesn't make sense to me. I think that if you want a third party candidate to win, you need to support them from the beginning by volunteering for their campaign. Then, in the general election, if they have been successful and it's clear they have a chance of winning, it makes sense to vote for them. But voting for a candidate who wasn't even in national debates and has very low polling and just hoping that somehow you voting will change other people's minds... Nope.

Lincoln was a turning point because of what he did as President, not because he split the democratic party in one election.

Yeah, but for that to happen, they need to have political campaigns that are successful (that get them into national debates and result in them having high support in polls). It's not just going to happen on its own. Also, for it to happen to both parties, you would probably need a relatively equal amount of support for a left-wing third party and a right-wing third party in an election.

[PsYcHo]

Voting for a third party candidate and hoping that people will somehow change because of that doesn't make sense to me. I think that if you want a third party candidate to win, you need to support them from the beginning by volunteering for their campaign.

YESSS!!! (kinda)

I'm not suggesting just voting for someone who has no chance of winning, I'm suggesting picking someone at the onset who is a "decent" person, and supporting them. The problem is at the onset, most people automatically side with one of the "big two", so the other candidates don't have a chance. That's why people like I are trying to rally people now, years before the election, to at least consider the possibility of not voting for a Democrat or a Republican.

Can I ask for your support to at least consider someone for president in 2020 who doesn't have a (D) or (R) beside their name?

[EquALLity]

Voting for a third party candidate and hoping that people will somehow change because of that doesn't make sense to me. I think that if you want a third party candidate to win, you need to support them from the beginning by volunteering for their campaign.

YESSS!!! (kinda)

I'm not suggesting just voting for someone who has no chance of winning, I'm suggesting picking someone at the onset who is a "decent" person, and supporting them. The problem is at the onset, most people automatically side with one of the "big two", so the other candidates don't have a chance. That's why people like I are trying to rally people now, years before the election, to at least consider the possibility of not voting for a Democrat or a Republican.

Can I ask for your support to at least consider someone for president in 2020 who doesn't have a (D) or (R) beside their name?

Yeah, I'll consider it, but I probably am going to support the democrat to prevent Trump from winning a second term if he is the nominee.

[PsYcHo]

Yeah, I'll consider it, but I probably am going to support the democrat to prevent Trump from winning a second term if he is the nominee.

See what I mean? The election's years away, and you've already sided with an as yet unnamed candidate just because they have a (D) next to their name. I'll concede right now that they will probably be better than Trump, but would they be a person you would elect as president if Trump wasn't so bad?

[EquALLity]

Yeah, I'll consider it, but I probably am going to support the democrat to prevent Trump from winning a second term if he is the nominee.

See what I mean? The election's years away, and you've already sided with an as yet unnamed candidate just because they have a (D) next to their name. I'll concede right now that they will probably be better than Trump, but would they be a person you would elect as president if Trump wasn't so bad?

Nope, I said I would probably support them, because I recognize the reality that the election will probably either clearly go to that person or the Trump (if he's the nominee). A third party candidate probably isn't going to have a chance in the election. If they do, then I will consider voting for them, depending on how voting for them would impact the other two candidates.

Although, I live in a solidly partisan state, so I might vote for a third party anyway, because my vote doesn't matter because of the electoral college. So... yeah

[brimstoneSalad]

Although, I live in a solidly partisan state, so I might vote for a third party anyway, because my vote doesn't matter because of the electoral college. So... yeah

Trump might be the independent candidate if he doesn't get the Republican nomination.

There's a historically small but still very realistic chance that Kasich could get it if we have a big mid-term upset, and a good chance he'll try for it.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/15/john-kasich-hints-at-donald-trump-challenge-in-202/

We need a new thread: Kasich- Does He Have A Chance?

[EquALLity]

Although, I live in a solidly partisan state, so I might vote for a third party anyway, because my vote doesn't matter because of the electoral college. So... yeah

Trump might be the independent candidate if he doesn't get the Republican nomination.

There's a historically small but still very realistic chance that Kasich could get it if we have a big mid-term upset, and a good chance he'll try for it.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/15/john-kasich-hints-at-donald-trump-challenge-in-202/

We need a new thread: Kasich- Does He Have A Chance?

He could be an independent, in which case I wouldn't vote for him, but I might vote libertarian, for example (maybe... strong maybe...). It really depends on who is running.

If the republican nominee was Kasich, that'd be a huge relief, even though I'd still probably prefer most democrats to him.

[PsYcHo]

I think Trump will be the Republican nominee. It's one thing for politicians to challenge a sitting president, but to challenge Trump in the election would split the vote, almost certainly guaranteeing a Democrat win. Unless a decent third party candidate also jumps in, in which case it would be a four way race, and maybe there would be a chance at an independent president. (PsYcHo sits back and sighs dreamily at the prospect )