Have you ever regretted your vote for a US president?

[itsforthekids]

I know 5 people who are complete Trump supporters that voted for barry in 2008...I brake their balls all the time about it and they all say the same thing, they weren't political people...they just listened to the rhetoric and once they witnessed the wonder that is barry, started paying attention to politics, voting against him and hildebeast after that.

 

[Perotista]

That's a bit of a stretch as an analogy, but I, too, would not drive the car at all.

With the presidency, however, we're going to end up with one of the major party candidates whether or not we vote (drive the car). There's no way around it. So, if we vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning, we've essentially voted against the major party candidate that we thought was the lesser of two evils.

We just need to change the system. See my post above.

I agree, the system needs changing. To what, I'm don't know. Perhaps it is the primary system that needs changing the most. We only entered this modern primary system back in 1976. Is Trump vs. Clinton an aberration or something that will continue from now on out? Reagan, Carter, Mondale, Bush I, Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Dole, Bush II, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney along with Hillary and Trump are the products of the modern primary system. All candidates were viewed positively or favorably by America as a whole, by 51% of Americans or more. The big exceptions were Hillary 38% and Trump 36%.

I would say, at least according to America as a whole, the modern primary system worked until 2016 when it came crashing down into a heap of rubble.

 

[Ikari]

No propaganda -- just pure logic.

If you want a third party candidate -- you have to get him on the ballot in ALL states. The groundwork has to be laid far, FAR in advance, and if it isn't - the scenario I posted is what always happens.

There is no moral high ground in voting for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning. It's counterproductive and and as I pointed out -- it's a vote for the candidate you oppose most.

That's not up for discussion. That's a fact that's accepted in every PolySci class in the nation.

It is not at all. I have taken enough Political Science classes to know that's a lie.

Many third party candidates ARE on the ballot in ALL states, such as the Libertarian candidate.

It's not a "vote for the candidate you oppose most". That's propaganda and fear mongering. You want to scare people away from voting 3rd party, and so long as enough people buy into that propaganda, it will be true. But it's not true because it's innately true about the system. It's only true for as long as people keep believing in that damaging lie.

"No chance of winning" doesn't really matter. There are several factors, one of the biggest being how the system is rigged by the OneParty in terms of campaign finance and participation in the debates. But beyond that, perhaps this is something that people don't quite get. Third parties don't need to actually win to have an effect. At base, if they aggregate enough votes to force on side of the OneParty to lose consistently, then that side will have to change its platform to recapture lost votes. To win would be best, but to cause one side to lose consistently can still push the system in the right direction.

What's not up for discussion in your pedestrian propaganda regarding third party involvement. They are perfectly valid, and if people would quit believing the partisan, OneParty propaganda, we could easily use them as a feedback loop to help control the OneParty.

That's just pure logic.

 

[Ikari]

Is Trump vs. Clinton an aberration or something that will continue from now on out?

If history has anything to say about it, it's something that will continue. Now, I think we'd be hard pressed to find a worse candidate than Trump, but I don't like saying we've hit bottom of the barrel because the OneParty seems to take that as a challenge. But if you look at the Presidential candidate offerings since the OneParty shored up its control of the election process, each year it's gotten a bit worse. It's gotten more partisan, it's gotten more controlled, it's gotten more emotional, and it's gotten more homogenized. To the point we have now where the only real difference between the two faces of the OneParty is the rhetoric they use.

Clinton v. Trump didn't break the system, as it were. They are just a symptom of OneParty control.

 

[HowardBThiname]

It is not at all. I have taken enough Political Science classes to know that's a lie.

Many third party candidates ARE on the ballot in ALL states, such as the Libertarian candidate.

With the position you're trying to push, it's obvious you haven't ever taken a PolySci class. And, while you may get an occasional third party candidate on all state ballots, many are on just a few ballots, and even if the candidate is on all the ballots, if he doesn't have a fighting chance, voting for him will still be a spoiler vote.

It's not a "vote for the candidate you oppose most". That's propaganda and fear mongering. You want to scare people away from voting 3rd party, and so long as enough people buy into that propaganda, it will be true. But it's not true because it's innately true about the system. It's only true for as long as people keep believing in that damaging lie.

I'm not fear mongering -- I don't like the presidential election system -- but I'm not dumb enough to think that a third party candidate will not split the vote and the voter will then (by default) be creating a scenario where he denies the (lesser of the two evils) candidate a vote -- thereby effectually giving the vote to who he views as the greater of the two evils.

"No chance of winning" doesn't really matter. There are several factors, one of the biggest being how the system is rigged by the OneParty in terms of campaign finance and participation in the debates. But beyond that, perhaps this is something that people don't quite get. Third parties don't need to actually win to have an effect. At base, if they aggregate enough votes to force on side of the OneParty to lose consistently, then that side will have to change its platform to recapture lost votes. To win would be best, but to cause one side to lose consistently can still push the system in the right direction.

Of course "no chance of winning" matters -- it's tantamount to whether you contribute to splitting the vote. Your idea that "Third parties don't need to actually win to have an effect," may be true in a theoretical sense where it exposes the dissatisfation with the two-party system, but the outcome is always the same -- equal to vote for the greater of the evils.

What's not up for discussion in your pedestrian propaganda regarding third party involvement. They are perfectly valid, and if people would quit believing the partisan, OneParty propaganda, we could easily use them as a feedback loop to help control the OneParty.

That's just pure logic.

You really don't have a clue, and you've never taken a PolySci class in your life. That's glaringly obvious.

I suggest that you do a little reading by folks that are much more informed than you are.



Why I Will Never Vote for a Third Party Again

 

[Ikari]

With the position you're trying to push, it's obvious you haven't ever taken a PolySci class. And, while you may get an occasional third party candidate on all state ballots, many are on just a few ballots, and even if the candidate is on all the ballots, if he doesn't have a fighting chance, voting for him will still be a spoiler vote.

Don't rely on your intuition then, because it's wrong. I took several, including Elections & Campaigning.

Libertarian candidate was on all 50. That's who I voted for.

I'm not fear mongering -- I don't like the presidential election system -- but I'm not dumb enough to think that a third party candidate will not split the vote and the voter will then (by default) be creating a scenario where he denies the (lesser of the two evils) candidate a vote -- thereby effectually giving the vote to who he views as the greater of the two evils.

The whole "voting third party is supporting the candidate you hate most" is just intellectually dishonest, dumb, fear mongering. That's just a fact. It's dangerous and disingenuous propaganda at that, because it's aim is to remove a tool through which the People can control the government more fully.

Of course "no chance of winning" matters -- it's tantamount to whether you contribute to splitting the vote. Your idea that "Third parties don't need to actually win to have an effect," may be true in a theoretical sense where it exposes the dissatisfation with the two-party system, but the outcome is always the same -- equal to vote for the greater of the evils.

"No chance of winning" is a propaganda line, it's only true for as long as enough people believe it's true. It's self-fulfilling prophecy and nothing more. With all the people that don't vote, and all the people that are disenfranchised with the OneParty, if people quit believing this lie and started voting 3rd parties, they could have a bigger effect. So long as the propaganda is thrown out and believed, it will continue.

Gotta break the cycle sometime, the only way to do so is to do it. So I vote third party, and that's not a vote for the candidate I hate most, it's a vote for the candidate I think is best. I know partisans don't like that, but that's the reality of it.

You really don't have a clue, and you've never taken a PolySci class in your life. That's glaringly obvious.

I suggest that you do a little reading by folks that are much more informed than you are.



Why I Will Never Vote for a Third Party Again

Again, you are wrong. But it seems that you couldn't engage any of my points without resorting to personal insults. Which says a lot about the quality of your argument.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Don't rely on your intuition then, because it's wrong. I took several, including Elections & Campaigning.

Libertarian candidate was on all 50. That's who I voted for.


The whole "voting third party is supporting the candidate you hate most" is just intellectually dishonest, dumb, fear mongering. That's just a fact. It's dangerous and disingenuous propaganda at that, because it's aim is to remove a tool through which the People can control the government more fully.


"No chance of winning" is a propaganda line, it's only true for as long as enough people believe it's true. It's self-fulfilling prophecy and nothing more. With all the people that don't vote, and all the people that are disenfranchised with the OneParty, if people quit believing this lie and started voting 3rd parties, they could have a bigger effect. So long as the propaganda is thrown out and believed, it will continue.

Gotta break the cycle sometime, the only way to do so is to do it. So I vote third party, and that's not a vote for the candidate I hate most, it's a vote for the candidate I think is best. I know partisans don't like that, but that's the reality of it.


Again, you are wrong. But it seems that you couldn't engage any of my points without resorting to personal insults. Which says a lot about the quality of your argument.

I'm not insulting you by saying it's obvious that you've never taken a PolysSci class because you don't know one of the most basic concepts taught.

If your argument is strong, that, alone can win -- without having to resort to claiming "knowledge" that appears incredulous in light of your argument.

I engaged and explained why each one of your points was nonsensical but, as you've done with other posters, you just keep digging a bigger hole.

We're done here.

 

[Ikari]

I'm not insulting you by saying it's obvious that you've never taken a PolysSci class because you don't know one of the most basic concepts taught.

If your argument is strong, that, alone can win -- without having to resort to claiming "knowledge" that appears incredulous in light of your argument.

I engaged and explained why each one of your points was nonsensical but, as you've done with other posters, you just keep digging a bigger hole.

We're done here.

No, you made a claim that I never took a Political Science course and thus must not know what I'm talking about. I merely corrected you. Don't sit there and try to distort now.

You didn't engage in anything above paltry insults and dismissals.

We can be done, because you'v never made a quality argument, all you can come up with is "it's obvious that you haven't taken a political science course". That's it. And the old, beaten, and intellectually weak argument that voting for third party votes for the candidate you dislike most.

It doesn't, that's a lie. That's a lie partisans throw out to try dissuade third party voting. But the only real tool we have to control the OneParty is outside force, and that outside force comes through the use of third parties. The system is stagnate, but you argue for more stagnation. It's slow death. I argue that we should do something about it, and the tool we have for doing so currently is the third party, and thus I vote third party. We can sit around and wish all day that things were better, that the system is different, but it's not. We have what we have. Thus it's either support the Status Quo, don't vote (which supports the Status Quo) or vote Third Party. And it's not until you can aggregate enough into the Third Party system that it can begin to have an effect, but it's what we have to apply force and feedback into the system to exert some amount of control.

Everyone has this insane thought that if we didn't vote third party, oh we would all vote for the candidate that lost and then that candidate would have won, so that voting third party is voting against self-interest. But that's dumb. I'm not voting for either of the OneParty candidates, I'm voting for the candidate I believe is best for the job. And as has been pointed out before:

I'm sure they could have, that is if they voted. The only thing we have to go by is CNN's exit polls of third party voters. That I stated already, according to CNN 19% would have voted for Trump, 16% for Clinton and the rest wouldn't have voted if there hadn't been a third choice on the ballot.

Now, just to make it clear 19>16. It's obvious you have never taken a math course (lol). So no third parties...Hillary still loses. In fact, Trump makes up some ground in the popular vote. So I didn't contribute to Trump winning by voting third party. I merely refused to endorse the OneParty and its crap candidates. So you can piss off with that stupid, intellectually weak, defeated argument. It's nothing more than partisan propaganda. It's tripe. It's lies. I voted for the candidate I thought was best out of the lot, and if only more people would engage intelligently, reasonably, and rationally; than we would have a much easier time controlling the parties and the government.

But keep voting Status Quo, keep voting stagnation; that's really going to improve our lot.

lol

 

[Perotista]

If history has anything to say about it, it's something that will continue. Now, I think we'd be hard pressed to find a worse candidate than Trump, but I don't like saying we've hit bottom of the barrel because the OneParty seems to take that as a challenge. But if you look at the Presidential candidate offerings since the OneParty shored up its control of the election process, each year it's gotten a bit worse. It's gotten more partisan, it's gotten more controlled, it's gotten more emotional, and it's gotten more homogenized. To the point we have now where the only real difference between the two faces of the OneParty is the rhetoric they use.

Clinton v. Trump didn't break the system, as it were. They are just a symptom of OneParty control.

There's no doubt that both parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, lobbyist, wall street firms, special interests, mega, huge money donors. That where they get their hundreds of millions to run their campaigns, organizations, get out the vote etc. Neither party is about to bite the hand that feeds them.

Where does someone like Hillary Clinton get 1.4 billion dollars to run for the presidency. Trump spent 968 million. You're not going to get that chunk of change from five or ten dollar donations.

 

[Ikari]

There's no doubt that both parties owe their hearts and souls to corporations, lobbyist, wall street firms, special interests, mega, huge money donors. That where they get their hundreds of millions to run their campaigns, organizations, get out the vote etc. Neither party is about to bite the hand that feeds them.

Where does someone like Hillary Clinton get 1.4 billion dollars to run for the presidency. Trump spent 968 million. You're not going to get that chunk of change from five or ten dollar donations.

Absolutely not. And people think that we have to keep playing into this game because the other guy is so much worse. The truth of the matter is that the other guy isn't actually "so much worse". They are at most ε worse. So the most you could say is that Hillary is ε better than Trump. But ε better than trash is still trash.

But you have to vote for one, else you're supporting the other. This is their tired and defeated propaganda. But if you keep voting for trash, all the OneParty will give you is more trash. Time and time again, we see this happening. And people get so caught up in the partisan ignorance, that they play the same rigged game and claim that you too have to play the rigged game, don't think or act independently. If they cannot get you to believe that playing the rigged game is the only option, they resort to dismissal and insult. The weakest and lowest form of argument.

I think one of the biggest changes we need, and one that will never be made with the OneParty in charge, is this idea that Corporations are People and that they get to contribute, neigh unconstrained. Corporations are property, and should be forbidden from campaign contributions. The CEO can contribute, up to the personal limit. The individual members of the board can contribute, up to the personal limit. But that's it. Individuals only.

 

[Perotista]

Absolutely not. And people think that we have to keep playing into this game because the other guy is so much worse. The truth of the matter is that the other guy isn't actually "so much worse". They are at most ε worse. So the most you could say is that Hillary is ε better than Trump. But ε better than trash is still trash.

But you have to vote for one, else you're supporting the other. This is their tired and defeated propaganda. But if you keep voting for trash, all the OneParty will give you is more trash. Time and time again, we see this happening. And people get so caught up in the partisan ignorance, that they play the same rigged game and claim that you too have to play the rigged game, don't think or act independently. If they cannot get you to believe that playing the rigged game is the only option, they resort to dismissal and insult. The weakest and lowest form of argument.

I think one of the biggest changes we need, and one that will never be made with the OneParty in charge, is this idea that Corporations are People and that they get to contribute, neigh unconstrained. Corporations are property, and should be forbidden from campaign contributions. The CEO can contribute, up to the personal limit. The individual members of the board can contribute, up to the personal limit. But that's it. Individuals only.

Another thing besides corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist etc that needs to go are all these outside groups, super pacs if you will. They can spend millions on negative ads as long as they don't say vote for so and so. This they call advocacy groups. There's no limit to the amount one can give to these super pacs or how much they can spend. But to get it to where corporations and wall street firms aren't people, a constitutional amendment is needed and that isn't about to happen.

Personally, I'd like to see an amendment that basically states that only a living, breathing citizen can donate to political parties and candidates. I would also add that one could only donate to candidates one can vote for. I'm tired of folks in California trying to buy a Georgia senate seat. In 2016, one candidate received 20 million dollars from California in political ads and donations. That has to stop. A Georgia senate seat should be solely up to the folks in Georgia. No buying the seat by people in California.

Super pacs, advocacy groups, outside spending on a candidates behalf or political party's behalf needs to be addressed also. There is no accountability there.

 

[Ikari]

Another thing besides corporations, wall street firms, lobbyist etc that needs to go are all these outside groups, super pacs if you will. They can spend millions on negative ads as long as they don't say vote for so and so. This they call advocacy groups. There's no limit to the amount one can give to these super pacs or how much they can spend. But to get it to where corporations and wall street firms aren't people, a constitutional amendment is needed and that isn't about to happen.

Personally, I'd like to see an amendment that basically states that only a living, breathing citizen can donate to political parties and candidates. I would also add that one could only donate to candidates one can vote for. I'm tired of folks in California trying to buy a Georgia senate seat. In 2016, one candidate received 20 million dollars from California in political ads and donations. That has to stop. A Georgia senate seat should be solely up to the folks in Georgia. No buying the seat by people in California.

Super pacs, advocacy groups, outside spending on a candidates behalf or political party's behalf needs to be addressed also. There is no accountability there.

It's gotten far out of hand, and the money we drop on elections, particularly Presidential elections, is just sickening. But because the OneParty is entrenched in that windfall, it won't be reversed or fixed while they are in charge.

Yet we're supposed to accept that one face of the OneParty is so different (even though its not), that we must vote for it over the otherside or else we're letting the otherside win. But the end result is that the differences are only skin deep, it's the same OneParty at the bone and they both push in the same direction, and it's a direction I don't support.

I think we've seen some absurd "arguments" here revolving around the "otherside is so worse" or "voting third party is a vote for the candidate you hate most" sort of line. Despite the facts that it's nothing of the sort, this is how deep the propaganda has been accepted. Can't think for yourself, vote Status Quo, only the Status Quo can fight the Status Quo.

lol

If it weren't killing the Republic, it would be funny.

 

[Perotista]

It's gotten far out of hand, and the money we drop on elections, particularly Presidential elections, is just sickening. But because the OneParty is entrenched in that windfall, it won't be reversed or fixed while they are in charge.

Yet we're supposed to accept that one face of the OneParty is so different (even though its not), that we must vote for it over the otherside or else we're letting the otherside win. But the end result is that the differences are only skin deep, it's the same OneParty at the bone and they both push in the same direction, and it's a direction I don't support.

I think we've seen some absurd "arguments" here revolving around the "otherside is so worse" or "voting third party is a vote for the candidate you hate most" sort of line. Despite the facts that it's nothing of the sort, this is how deep the propaganda has been accepted. Can't think for yourself, vote Status Quo, only the Status Quo can fight the Status Quo.

lol

If it weren't killing the Republic, it would be funny.

Exactly. Perot once said as you put it, this nation has but one political party, but it has two wings. The Republican wing and the democratic wing. He also said, put ear plugs or cotton in your ears, drown out all the rhetoric from both parties. Just watch how they govern. You'll find out they govern about the same. They only change things around the edges.

There was approximately 2.4 billion dollars raised and spent by Trump and Clinton on their presidential election campaign. Staggering amount. All the money from corporations, wall street, lobbyist, special interests etc. goes to the two major parties. hundreds of millions of dollars. Now all those who run those organizations are good businessmen. They look at their donations as investments, not their civic duty. If all those who donate their millions didn't get a good return on their investments, being good businessmen, they wouldn't make them.

Or as Trump himself when asked why he donated to Democrats, he answered, "I give, they give back." Case closed.

 

[Moderate Right]

Exactly. Perot once said as you put it, this nation has but one political party, but it has two wings. The Republican wing and the democratic wing. He also said, put ear plugs or cotton in your ears, drown out all the rhetoric from both parties. Just watch how they govern. You'll find out they govern about the same. They only change things around the edges.

There was approximately 2.4 billion dollars raised and spent by Trump and Clinton on their presidential election campaign. Staggering amount. All the money from corporations, wall street, lobbyist, special interests etc. goes to the two major parties. hundreds of millions of dollars. Now all those who run those organizations are good businessmen. They look at their donations as investments, not their civic duty. If all those who donate their millions didn't get a good return on their investments, being good businessmen, they wouldn't make them.

Or as Trump himself when asked why he donated to Democrats, he answered, "I give, they give back." Case closed.

If I remember right, Perot received about 20% of the vote and won zero electoral votes. Further proof that both the Republicans and the Democrats have the system rigged so that only one of the two of them can win.

 

[Perotista]

If I remember right, Perot received about 20% of the vote and won zero electoral votes. Further proof that both the Republicans and the Democrats have the system rigged so that only one of the two of them can win.

Perot ran a national campaign, had he been more regional like Wallace 1968 or Thurmond in 1948, he probably would picked up some electoral votes. Perot didn't win any state and thus no electoral votes. Wallace received 13% of the total vote, but won 5 states and 46 electoral votes. In 1948 Thurmond won only 2.4% of the vote nationwide, but won 4 states worth 39 electoral votes. Thurmond was strictly regional, Wallace, semi regional while Perot was national.

I wouldn't say the general election is rigged. It is actually 50 different smaller elections with all the candidates vying for the electoral votes state by state. I have no problem with the candidate of whatever party who receives the most votes in any state winning that states electoral votes. That is as it should be. I'd like to see some changes, but overall, electoral vote wise, Perot received exactly what he deserved. None.

 

[Moderate Right]

Perot ran a national campaign, had he been more regional like Wallace 1968 or Thurmond in 1948, he probably would picked up some electoral votes. Perot didn't win any state and thus no electoral votes. Wallace received 13% of the total vote, but won 5 states and 46 electoral votes. In 1948 Thurmond won only 2.4% of the vote nationwide, but won 4 states worth 39 electoral votes. Thurmond was strictly regional, Wallace, semi regional while Perot was national.

I wouldn't say the general election is rigged. It is actually 50 different smaller elections with all the candidates vying for the electoral votes state by state. I have no problem with the candidate of whatever party who receives the most votes in any state winning that states electoral votes. That is as it should be. I'd like to see some changes, but overall, electoral vote wise, Perot received exactly what he deserved. None.

Kind of reminds me of Trump's critics who state that Hillary won the popular vote. Trump has a valid point that if it were a national vote instead of electoral, Trump would have campaigned differently. Of course we didn't go down that timeline so we will never know what would have or could have happened but, nonetheless, Trump does in fact have a valid point.

 

[Logician Man]

I grew up in the south in the 50's ,60's,70's in an ultra-conservative household.I voted for Nixon 'just because.'....so yes I regret that vote.

 

[Perotista]

Kind of reminds me of Trump's critics who state that Hillary won the popular vote. Trump has a valid point that if it were a national vote instead of electoral, Trump would have campaigned differently. Of course we didn't go down that timeline so we will never know what would have or could have happened but, nonetheless, Trump does in fact have a valid point.

Trump did campaign for the electoral college win. Let's look at the campaign visits/stops in the swing states.
Florida 29 EV Trump 13, Clinton 8
Ohio 18 EV Trump 9 Clinton 6
Michigan 18 EV Trump 6 Clinton 1
Pennsylvania 20 EV Trump 8 Clinton 5
New Hampshire 3 EV Trump 3 Clinton 3 Hillary won this one
North Carolina 15 EV Trump 11, Clinton 8
Colorado 9 EV Trump 8 Clinton 1. Hillary won this one also
Nevada 6 EV Trump 6 Clinton 2 Another Hillary win
Iowa 6 EV Trump 4, Clinton 3

In every swing state with the exception of New Hampshire, Trump out worked and out campaigned Hillary in them. Although it made no difference in Colorado and Nevada, Hillary also won New Hampshire. I omitted Wisconsin since it wasn't considered a swing state, but Trump must have seen he had a good chance in the Badger State. He out campaigned Hillary there 5 stops/visits to none, zero for Hillary.

This doesn't get mentioned as to why Hillary lost in the electoral college. One can easily see Trump put in more time, effort, energy in those swing states than Hillary did. One can see just by looking at the numbers above why Trump won 7 of 10 swing states if one includes Wisconsin which was in the lean Clinton column on election eve. Trump just worked harder at it while Hillary was a bit lazy. Over all, Trump made 116 campaign visits/stops between 1 Sep 2016 and 8 Nov 2016 to Hillary's 71.

That gets over looked by Clinton supporters who are blaming Russia for her loss. This willingness to work harder, campaign harder and longer is in my book, the main reason Trump won.

 

[jet57]

Attaching poll. If your answer is yes, who and why?

Yep: Ronald Reagan 1980.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

No. Can't exactly regret voting for the President when I've never once voted for the winning candidate. There's nothing Donald Trump can do so bad that'll make me wish I'd "done the right thing" and voted for Hillary Clinton, especially considering that Trump beat Clinton two to one in Wyoming.

I regretted voting for the wrong candidate as a superdelegate once, but that was a foregone conclusion anyway.