Gay Forum

Brenden wrote:

rogonandi wrote:Did you honestly think the outcome would be any different? The one with the most money always wins. The only thing that can be done as a serf is vote for the one with ideals most similar to your own.

Amongst the people running for the Democratic nomination, Bernie has consistency had the most money (and Biden has at times had one of the lowest fundraising figures amongst the candidates), and Hillary had the most money in the 2016 general.

It's a good rule of thumb for lesser offices, like House of Representatives and state offices, but it does not hold true for President.

I wasn’t talking about how much money they put into their campaign, I’m talking about net worth.

rogonandi wrote:

Brenden wrote:

rogonandi wrote:Did you honestly think the outcome would be any different? The one with the most money always wins. The only thing that can be done as a serf is vote for the one with ideals most similar to your own.

Amongst the people running for the Democratic nomination, Bernie has consistency had the most money (and Biden has at times had one of the lowest fundraising figures amongst the candidates), and Hillary had the most money in the 2016 general.

It's a good rule of thumb for lesser offices, like House of Representatives and state offices, but it does not hold true for President.

I wasn’t talking about how much money they put into their campaign, I’m talking about net worth.

If the guy with the biggest net worth always wins then we'd all be bitching about Mike Bloomberg being the nominee right now.

rogonandi wrote:

Brenden wrote:

rogonandi wrote:Did you honestly think the outcome would be any different? The one with the most money always wins. The only thing that can be done as a serf is vote for the one with ideals most similar to your own.

Amongst the people running for the Democratic nomination, Bernie has consistency had the most money (and Biden has at times had one of the lowest fundraising figures amongst the candidates), and Hillary had the most money in the 2016 general.

It's a good rule of thumb for lesser offices, like House of Representatives and state offices, but it does not hold true for President.

I wasn’t talking about how much money they put into their campaign, I’m talking about net worth.

There were two billionaires and a 100-millionaire in the Democratic primary and they all lost.

John Kerry is married to a billionaire, but lost to George W.

rogonandi wrote:

Brenden wrote:

rogonandi wrote:Did you honestly think the outcome would be any different? The one with the most money always wins. The only thing that can be done as a serf is vote for the one with ideals most similar to your own.

Amongst the people running for the Democratic nomination, Bernie has consistency had the most money (and Biden has at times had one of the lowest fundraising figures amongst the candidates), and Hillary had the most money in the 2016 general.

It's a good rule of thumb for lesser offices, like House of Representatives and state offices, but it does not hold true for President.

I wasn’t talking about how much money they put into their campaign, I’m talking about net worth.

It's easy to hold an opinion when you hold yourself to no scrutiny whatsoever in having it. Where did you even get this notion? It doesn't carry at all. It's like suggesting the tallest candidate always wins, whilst having no idea whatsoever of any politicians' height.

I stand corrected! This actually makes me feel a bit better about the situation.

So are you guys going to vote for Biden?

No. I’m going to make a tantrum and hope others follow suit to get Trump re-elected so I have something to bitch about next year.

Derek wrote:So are you guys going to vote for Biden?

I make it a policy not to vote for corrupt politicians, let alone senile racist alleged rapists.

Brenden wrote:NEW POLL!

What if I'm not allowed to vote in the election? Technically it seems like I should vote no unless I intend to commit voter fraud. But then that seems like it would screw with the statistics.

René wrote:

Brenden wrote:NEW POLL!

What if I'm not allowed to vote in the election? Technically it seems like I should vote no unless I intend to commit voter fraud. But then that seems like it would screw with the statistics.

Okay, I've added a parenthetical.

As things stand now, I think it's most likely that I'll vote Green. I don't want to vote for Biden, and, while Green has zero chance of winning, maybe they can get enough votes to put them in a better position next election cycle to at least be able to apply pressure on the Democrats. This is probably a dream, but what is life without a dream?

I select "Maybe" above, though, because I suppose it's possible that I'll decide to vote Biden. Maybe I'll have a loss of senses. Maybe Democrats will convince me somehow that Biden is really a good candidate! (That happens, and I should have my head checked...) Or, more likely (although still seemingly unlikely) there will be meaningful concessions (real progressives guaranteed positions of influence, or a commitment--and commitment, not empty promises--to aggressively do push for some positive, meaningful changes (even if they aren't all I'd like).

I might add...my "Maybe" vote is more of "I won't entirely rule the possibility out" maybe, instead of "it could easily be either yes or no. It's the sort of "maybe" that ones for "maybe if I buy this lottery ticket, I'll win ten million dollars!"

The concessions would have to be pretty damn big. I don't think Biden wouldn't dismantle social security if Mitch McConnell said please and gave him a firm handshake.

Basically the argument is Biden or a 7-2 Supreme Court, which isn't a bad argument exactly, but a monstrously infuriating one.

If I could, I would vote for Biden.

Not because I'm excited by him as a candidate. Nowhere close to that, in fact. He wasn't my 1st choice, or my 2nd, or my 3rd, or even probably by 4th or 5th if you include anyone who ran at all in this primary.

It's just that my experience with UK politics has completely desensitised me to being able to get all that frustrated about the 'lesser of two evils' argument for voting. I'm used to voting for people I may not agree with on everything or even like as people just to try in some vague way to stop the objective worse lot from winning.

Plus if Trump wins that's a permanent conservative majority on the Supreme Court for god knows how long so even if a super-progressive Berni-style candidate capitalises on 8 years of anti-Trump anger and wins in 2024, good luck getting any of their progressive legislation to stand when it's constantly challenged by the GOP and ruled against by conservative justices every time.

Severelius wrote:Plus if Trump wins that's a permanent conservative majority on the Supreme Court for god knows how long so even if a super-progressive Berni-style candidate capitalises on 8 years of anti-Trump anger and wins in 2024, good luck getting any of their progressive legislation to stand when it's constantly challenged by the GOP and ruled against by conservative justices every time.

The Supreme Court is a good argument. Although the possibility apparently exists to add judges. Whether or not that is practical or likely to ever happen, though, is something I can't say.

And if Biden wins, there could be another time related issue that would make progressive policy hard. Biden is not a progressive, and his vice presidential pick will also likely be another establishment Democrat. That person will likely be set up to be the next president. So we could be looking at years before there is anyone in the Oval Office who is remotely progressive or even willing to work with progressives. It could well be that Sanders represented the last chance we will have in our life times of anything but a choice between two candidates who are corporate whores, and which is the least crazy and destructive?

It's just that my experience with UK politics has completely desensitised me to being able to get all that frustrated about the 'lesser of two evils' argument for voting. I'm used to voting for people I may not agree with on everything or even like as people just to try in some vague way to stop the objective worse lot from winning.

Trust me, lesser of two evils is something I'm well aware of. It has been the reality more often than not.

And I'm not demanding agreement with every issue. That's not realistic, unless I were the candidate. (And even there, it might be argued that I'd take positions that were not my ideal, but the best that could happen for the time. And it's certainly possible that my views on an issue will change.) The thing that gets frustrating is when it is a candidate that I really don't agree with on much of anything, and who won't do a damn thing for anything I actually care about.

I'm looking at it less as a vote for Biden and more as a vote against Trump. Given that abstention is implicitly to prefer the status quo over a Biden presidency, I really don't see how sitting the election out on account of principle could be done.

Of course I'm also consoled by the fact that my Democratic vote in Illinois is meaningless, that I think most of the nation's problems are systemic and institutional ones unaffected by the simple change of political executive, and that voting for me then ultimately amounts to performative signaling of a certain class and educational status.

Sullivan wrote:I'm looking at it less as a vote for Biden and more as a vote against Trump. Given that abstention is implicitly to prefer the status quo over a Biden presidency, I really don't see how sitting the election out on account of principle could be done.

The way I see it, the status quo has existed for longer than Trump's first term. What did eight years of Obama do to relieve of us imperialism, inequality, or corruption? Fuck all. So what's the point of four years of Biden if President Tom Cotton is waiting for us in 2024?