Philosophical Vegan Forum

???

What part of the question do you not understand?

It takes votes away from Trump.

I know in the UK third parties work differently, but the most usage third parties have in America aside from making a statement is just stealing votes from either the Democrats or Republicans. Like Perot was more conservative, right? Therefore he took more votes from Bush, giving Clinton a major advantage.

I don't know which election you mean here.

If you mean in the 2020 election, again, it doesn't matter if the votes are being taken away from Trump as he has no chance of winning in your area anyway. Not very different to what would happen in a British constituency:

Results of a by-election in Ringlington-upon-Gent
SANDERS, Bernie Labour Party - 40,086 votes
TRUMP, Donald British National Party - 6,871 votes
JOHNSON, Gary Monster Raving Loony Party - 4,946 votes

Voting for Gary Johnson as your MP in this hypothetical constituency wouldn't take votes away from Trump, as Sanders is guaranteed to be MP anyway.

If you mean the 2024 election, Trump won't be running in that. The Republicans could very well nominate an anti-nuclear candidate. Or, both parties could nominate pro-nuclear candidates. As well as that, there isn't really any reason to believe that Johnson would take any more votes away from a Republican than he would from a Democrat. He'd just be taking votes from fiscally conservative Democrat voters and socially progressive Republican voters.

Also, I don't know whether Perot was more conservative, but I don't know enough about him. Regardless, exit polls show that he took votes evenly from Clinton and Bush (like Johnson likely would with the Democrat and the Republican in 2024), and in the states where he did best, Bush still won. This was not a major factor leading to Bush losing in the slightest.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:09 pm What part of the question do you not understand?

You are saying voting for Johnson is not going to have any effect on whether or not Bernie or Trump wins.

It might though.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:09 pmI don't know which election you mean here.

Election of 1992.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:09 pmVoting for Gary Johnson as your MP in this hypothetical constituency wouldn't take votes away from Trump, as Sanders is guaranteed to be MP anyway.

He's only guaranteed in the blue states. The Swing States like Ohio and Florida though are not.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:09 pmIf you mean the 2024 election, Trump won't be running in that. The Republicans could very well nominate an anti-nuclear candidate.

If both candidates are anti-nuclear, I'd probably just give up and accept the fact that millions of people are going to die.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:09 pmOr, both parties could nominate pro-nuclear candidates.

After that, the next important issue is the rest of their energy policy, and Free Trade. Both Bernie and Trump are anti on Free Trade.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:09 pm As well as that, there isn't really any reason to believe that Johnson would take any more votes away from a Republican than he would from a Democrat. He'd just be taking votes from fiscally conservative Democrat voters and socially progressive Republican voters.

The Libertarian Party is more like the Republican Party.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:09 pmAlso, I don't know whether Perot was more conservative, but I don't know enough about him. Regardless, exit polls show that he took votes evenly from Clinton and Bush (like Johnson likely would with the Democrat and the Republican in 2024), and in the states where he did best, Bush still won. This was not a major factor leading to Bush losing in the slightest.

It did play a pretty big part. Bush would've won

Perot was running as an independent, so some may have voted, even if they are Democrats, for Perot based on that to express their issue with the two party system, and Perot is more centrist. The Libertarians are more to the right.

Red wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:19 pm You are saying voting for Johnson is not going to have any effect on whether or not Bernie or Trump wins.

It might though.

Not where you live.

Election of 1992.

That's not what I meant. I know when Clinton was running against Bush and if I didn't I would have Googled it rather than asking you. I'm talking about which election you think it would take votes for Trump away from.

He's only guaranteed in the blue states. The Swing States like Ohio and Florida though are not.

And you don't live in either one of those states, so it's pointless bringing them up.

If both candidates are anti-nuclear, I'd probably just give up and accept the fact that millions of people are going to die.

It's better to do something that has a possibility of preventing that than just giving up.

The Libertarian Party is more like the Republican Party.

On fiscal issues, yes. On social issues, no.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:09 pmAlso, I don't know whether Perot was more conservative, but I don't know enough about him. Regardless, exit polls show that he took votes evenly from Clinton and Bush (like Johnson likely would with the Democrat and the Republican in 2024), and in the states where he did best, Bush still won. This was not a major factor leading to Bush losing in the slightest.

It did play a pretty big part. Bush would've won

If every vote that went to Perot in that election went to Bush, would Bush have won? I can't find a map like the one in the 2016 election which shows all votes from Stein going to Clinton. However, the fact that Perot did best in states that strongly favoured either Clinton or Bush shows that he had little electoral impact.

Perot was running as an independent, so some may have voted, even if they are Democrats, for Perot based on that to express their issue with the two party system, and Perot is more centrist. The Libertarians are more to the right.

Many Democrats may vote for Johnson to express their issue with the two party system. As well as that, the Libertarians are more right-wing economically, but this isn't the only issue in elections. They are also more progressive socially, and so make take votes from fiscally conservative Democrat voters.

bump

EquALLity wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:19 pmbump

Well do you think he does?

I'm assuming Trump will be reelected, because incumbents usually win and his approval rating has increased a little... he hasn't really started campaigning yet and he's only losing polling by a little.

In terms of the Democratic nominee, fair bet it will be Biden, Warren, Sanders, and maybe Bloomberg given how he's spending money. There's maybe a chance Sanders will be on the ticket despite other candidates not liking him because he may be able to bring more young voters to the polls.

Trump has been profoundly terrible, beyond all expectation, but I'm not sure if it's worth Sanders if maybe we get a better chance in four years... tough call. Have his policies changed at all? Last I heard they were completely nuts in economic terms, IOW totally unrealistic and will never pass. An impotent Democrat then another Republican in four years, or four more of Trump then a Democrat who can get things done?

I'd have very mixed feelings about Sanders winning. We need Warren.

I was about to say Warren wanted to get rid of Nuclear, but it seems as though she has backtracked on that, thankfully.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... ants-alive

Now I can comfortably support her. She has shown us that she can change her mind.

Red wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:03 am Now I can comfortably support her. She has shown us that she can change her mind.

Right, when presented with evidence she actually changes her position: it's a VERY important quality in politicians. She takes up good positions wherever she finds them.

If I saw that from Sanders I'd support him.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:06 am

Red wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:03 am Now I can comfortably support her. She has shown us that she can change her mind.

Right, when presented with evidence she actually changes her position: it's a VERY important quality in politicians. She takes up good positions wherever she finds them.

If I saw that from Sanders I'd support him.

So why do you think back in September she called for getting rid of it? Was it just an outburst to rally support or a genuine position?

I mean, I would love it if more politicians are willing to change their minds and look at the evidence, but sadly, some people see this as a bad thing. Like when Bush criticized Kerry of being a flip-flopper when it came to the Iraq War (even though the public didn't see how he went from bad to good. Kerry also did the same with Nuclear).

Oh yeah, and if Warren does win, who do you think will be the running mate? Booker maybe? A woman and black ticket may be a good way to balance the ticket.

Red wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:09 amA woman and black ticket may be a good way to balance the ticket.

No, it won't. There is significant overlap between the groups of people who doubt a woman's competence as a president and those who doubt a black man's competence as a president.

Whoever gets the democratic nomination would be smart to choose a moderate republican as a running mate.