Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

"Majority Of Americans want a third party"Follow

#27 Oct 15 2013 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekkk wrote:
You already admitted you were wrong when you conceded that a base needs to be motivated to vote.

You and I have different definitions of "base" in a political sense particularly when discussing a third party. For instance, I'm using it correctly and you're not.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Oct 15 2013 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
I'm thinking Sue Collins is trying to put her name out there as a serious female Republican contender for higher political office .

Really? I don't follow what Collins is up to unless she's making national news but I find that hard to believe. She seems to have found her niche but I don't see her expanding beyond it. At least not electorally -- maybe she could get a cabinet post.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Oct 15 2013 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
You already admitted you were wrong when you conceded that a base needs to be motivated to vote.

You and I have different definitions of "base" in a political sense particularly when discussing a third party. For instance, I'm using it correctly and you're not.


I assume you are using base to reference the 18-23% of people who subscribe to the part ideology rather than the ~40% who get wrapped in via proximity. Regardless of whether or not they vote.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#30 Oct 15 2013 at 8:54 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
I don't know about the majority of the American voting public, but I don't necessarily want a third party. I want the existing parties to be less partisan and more cooperative. I want more compromise and less political hostage taking. A third party will only make the current situation worse in some cases, I think.

What I really want is for our elected government representatives to act like representatives and vote in line with their constituents. Eliminate lobbyists and the idea of partisan loyalty some how. That's the real solution.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#31 Oct 15 2013 at 8:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
I assume you are using base to reference the 18-23% of people who subscribe to the part ideology rather than the ~40% who get wrapped in via proximity. Regardless of whether or not they vote.

Nah, a party's base is really more like 45% or so in a national election*. Romney was somewhat accurate in his infamous 47% remark in that both parties start fairly close to around that number and you lose a few percent due to various factors keeping them from the polls. Of course his delivery of it and his reasoning for why people select one base over the other was disastrous but the math was probably fairly accurate. McCain got blown out during a period of deep resentment towards GOP policies and still scratched out over 45%. Friggin' Michael Dukakis who only won a single state still got over 45%.

So you start with your 45% and you bust *** to try to get that of 2% or so to actually vote. That 2% isn't disaffected voters or voters who hate you, it's just people who are lazy or it's raining/snowing or they had a long day or they support you but support sitting on their couch even more. They aren't saying "I hate everyone!", they're just not voting.

The final 3% is voters who are interested in voting but, for whatever reason, haven't decided on a candidate. THOSE are the people you target. You don't waste your time on people huffing about "Republicrats" and how they're "voting by not voting" when there's actual interested voters out there to target. Swaying an interested voter is better than trying to convince an uninterested voter that they really should be interested and interested in you.

This is also why third parties don't work. They never take evenly from both bases. They just break one base along some sub-ideological line and let the other guy win.

*Geographically, the size of a base can be all over the map (that's a pun, get it?) when discussing state and local elections.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Oct 15 2013 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
You already admitted you were wrong when you conceded that a base needs to be motivated to vote.

You and I have different definitions of "base" in a political sense particularly when discussing a third party. For instance, I'm using it correctly and you're not.


That's so way off mark we might as well start calling you Columbus.

You know, if that wasn't a really stupid thing to do.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#33 Oct 15 2013 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm in the same bracket as you Jophiel, but I'm much further to the left, not as much as Roo, though.

Seems that category has a long tail.

Sometime when I feel like my heart has hardened and not bleeding enough, i go into the bathroom and cut it a little bit. If I'd not have fallen into the bleeding heart category, I'd have been pretty disappointed.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#34 Oct 15 2013 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
The final 3% is voters who are interested in voting but, for whatever reason, haven't decided on a candidate. THOSE are the people you target. You don't waste your time on people huffing about "Republicrats" and how they're "voting by not voting" when there's actual interested voters out there to target. Swaying an interested voter is better than trying to convince an uninterested voter that they really should be interested and interested in you.
During primaries you really care about the 45%
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#35 Oct 15 2013 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,407 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Their quiz at the bottom told me I was on the Bleeding Left and not part of the New American Center. I felt so left out Smiley: frown
They told me I'm not very engaged and torn over the role of government in everyday life.

Meanies. Smiley: bah

And I'd love to see something that made the government act in a more moderate fashion, whether that's a 3rd party or not doesn't really matter to me. This choosing between and left-of-center and right-of-center government is just silliness. I don't see how things change easily though. Neither of those groups seem like they'd want to give up power very easily.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 8:39am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#36 Oct 15 2013 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,380 posts
I'm on the MBA Middle, a part of the new American Center. Live and let live.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#37 Oct 15 2013 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I assume you are using base to reference the 18-23% of people who subscribe to the part ideology rather than the ~40% who get wrapped in via proximity. Regardless of whether or not they vote.

Nah, a party's base is really more like 45% or so in a national election*. Romney was somewhat accurate in his infamous 47% remark in that both parties start fairly close to around that number and you lose a few percent due to various factors keeping them from the polls. Of course his delivery of it and his reasoning for why people select one base over the other was disastrous but the math was probably fairly accurate. McCain got blown out during a period of deep resentment towards GOP policies and still scratched out over 45%. Friggin' Michael Dukakis who only won a single state still got over 45%.

So you start with your 45% and you bust *** to try to get that of 2% or so to actually vote. That 2% isn't disaffected voters or voters who hate you, it's just people who are lazy or it's raining/snowing or they had a long day or they support you but support sitting on their couch even more. They aren't saying "I hate everyone!", they're just not voting.

The final 3% is voters who are interested in voting but, for whatever reason, haven't decided on a candidate. THOSE are the people you target. You don't waste your time on people huffing about "Republicrats" and how they're "voting by not voting" when there's actual interested voters out there to target. Swaying an interested voter is better than trying to convince an uninterested voter that they really should be interested and interested in you.

This is also why third parties don't work. They never take evenly from both bases. They just break one base along some sub-ideological line and let the other guy win.

*Geographically, the size of a base can be all over the map (that's a pun, get it?) when discussing state and local elections.

That's a long way of saying the latter.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#38 Oct 15 2013 at 10:30 AM Rating: Excellent
There really isn't room for more parties unless there is some voting reform, which would disadvantage the current parties, who care more about getting elected than what is good for the country so good luck.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#39 Oct 15 2013 at 10:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
That's a long way of saying the latter.

Well, the focus is on "regardless of whether or not they vote". If you don't vote, you're not a relevant part of any base. You can be a dyed in the wool ideologist through and through but you don't matter unless you're casting a ballot. One "hold my nose and vote Democrat every cycle" voter is worth an infinite number of people spending election day on their couch ************ to Rachel Maddow.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Oct 15 2013 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Personally, I think we should do away with the current representative government. Not completely, but to some extent. It would diffuse some of the parties and their advocates/lobbyists sway power.

We the people have the capability now to be able to vote, from the comfort of our homes, in representative numbers and in a timely secure fashion, on lots of stuff.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#41 Oct 15 2013 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Elinda wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm in the same bracket as you Jophiel, but I'm much further to the left, not as much as Roo, though.

Seems that category has a long tail.

Sometime when I feel like my heart has hardened and not bleeding enough, i go into the bathroom and cut it a little bit. If I'd not have fallen into the bleeding heart category, I'd have been pretty disappointed.


My "bleeding heart" positions aren't driven by selfless respect for my common man. The're driven by cold efficiency, and economic reality. I support poorly implemented social programs because the lack of such generates greater maladies. The GOP leadership is built on idiots, lunatics, and opportunists and is unwilling to create a credible plan to move the country forward. Their best plans are akin to a turtle waiting on its back for someone to flip them. They could be the party of industrious technocrats like the Chinese strain, but they choose to rot. They're federal branch has already made the decision to centralize. The US political system is diseased, structurally, and it would take a huge amount of private wealth and time to restructure it in a more coherent manner.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#42 Oct 15 2013 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
That's a long way of saying the latter.

Well, the focus is on "regardless of whether or not they vote". If you don't vote, you're not a relevant part of any base. You can be a dyed in the wool ideologist through and through but you don't matter unless you're casting a ballot. One "hold my nose and vote Democrat every cycle" voter is worth an infinite number of people spending election day on their couch ************ to Rachel Maddow.


You're concentrating too much on the individual voter. They don't matter. What matters is the probabilities of those subfactions voting. Bases on posture, hose numbers are define able. Largely, this is why ground game is important in an election, as it tends to inflate the rates of certain demographics. They are still in your base or the periphery, you just haven't sufficiently motivated them. Especially the big tent definition of base.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#43 Oct 15 2013 at 11:23 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Really? I don't follow what Collins is up to unless she's making national news but I find that hard to believe. She seems to have found her niche but I don't see her expanding beyond it. At least not electorally -- maybe she could get a cabinet post.

Nexa and I know the likely nominee for the Democratic side of that race a little bit. She cried when she wasn't able to offer Nexa enough money to work for the Maine ACLU. Great woman, she'd be a fantastic senator. She's going to lose by a LOT assuming she does win the nomination. Unless someone has photos of Collins eating rock lobster and orange hot dogs hidden somewhere.

As to the three party thing, as probably already stated somewhere I didn't read, basically structurally impossible in the US with elections as currently construed. Were it more structurally possible, basically politically impossible given the existing networks of money and influence.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Oct 15 2013 at 11:25 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,065 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
That's a long way of saying the latter.

Well, the focus is on "regardless of whether or not they vote". If you don't vote, you're not a relevant part of any base. You can be a dyed in the wool ideologist through and through but you don't matter unless you're casting a ballot. One "hold my nose and vote Democrat every cycle" voter is worth an infinite number of people spending election day on their couch ************ to Rachel Maddow.


You're concentrating too much on the individual voter. They don't matter. What matters is the probabilities of those subfactions voting. Bases on posture, hose numbers are define able. Largely, this is why ground game is important in an election, as it tends to inflate the rates of certain demographics. They are still in your base or the periphery, you just haven't sufficiently motivated them. Especially the big tent definition of base.


Don't challenge his delusions, he'll have another 'episode'.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#45 Oct 15 2013 at 11:28 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

Don't challenge his delusions, he'll have another 'episode'.


He's right. I don't think Joph disagrees, though, they're sort of talking past one another. I'd assume TLW is slightly out of phase with out universe. His waveform should collapse back to us shortly.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 Oct 15 2013 at 11:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Largely, this is why ground game is important in an election, as it tends to inflate the rates of certain demographics. They are still in your base or the periphery, you just haven't sufficiently motivated them.

That's the couple percent between 45% and 47%. People who would, if placed in front of a ballot box, certainly vote for you. You just need to convince them to get in front of a ballot box. Hence the GOTV efforts and busing people to polls and all that.

Those people are a lot different than those who refuse to vote as a protest movement. Those "protest" non-voters aren't worth wasting energy on. This whole jaunt was spurred by Alma's claim that:
Quote:
I've been arguing for this for years, but as long as people vote for the sake of voting and selecting a lesser of two evils, it will never happen. As long as you are politically informed, you have the right NOT to vote for someone that you don't support.

Which is true. But if you remove yourself from voting in the two party system, you've pretty much made yourself politically irrelevant at best. Or you can vote for a third party and help the guy you oppose more win the election.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 12:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Oct 15 2013 at 11:34 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Those people are a lot different than those who refuse to vote as a protest movement. Those "protest" non-voters aren't worth wasting energy on

Depends how likely they are to vote if you chase them a little. Targeting those voters is something the Obama presidential team did fairly well in 12. You are correct that it's better ROI to give bags of money to preachers with buses to get poors to the polls, but there's really only so much of that you can do.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#48 Oct 15 2013 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Depends how likely they are to vote if you chase them a little.

True. Based on Alma's description though, I'm envisioning the person who thinks "I'm voting by not voting" is a mantra and that they're sticking it to the man. They don't want to vote, they just want to feel unique by being counter to the system.

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 12:42pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Oct 15 2013 at 11:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Don't challenge his delusions, he'll have another 'episode'.


He's right. I don't think Joph disagrees, though, they're sort of talking past one another. I'd assume TLW is slightly out of phase with out universe. His waveform should collapse back to us shortly.


Before I wink out of existence, I'll prove my point. You could get better increased voter participation rates than the lauded Obama GOTV machine by dropping of early voter cards along with cofee and donuts at major employers and institutions.

That points to a lack of sufficient motivation, rather than "they aren't part of my base".
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#50 Oct 15 2013 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,407 posts
Hey look there's two threads... Smiley: lol

Edited, Oct 15th 2013 10:46am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#51 Oct 15 2013 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
You could get better increased voter participation rates than the lauded Obama GOTV machine by dropping of early voter cards along with cofee and donuts at major employers and institutions.

You don't want general better voter participation. You want increased participation from people who are sure to vote for you.

The lauded Obama GOTV machine could have gotten better general participation rates by taking some of their billion dollars and expanding into red districts. They didn't because they were trying to win, not increase general participation. On the other hand, they did focus on institutions like colleges because those people vote Democratic.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)