That makes you an official Ohioan! Welcome to the Swing States!
a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
There was a chance of Colorado going red for a little bit because of Bernie supporters not voting, but since the beginning of the month it's been swinging back blue. My county/district will likely go red anyways, because you don't have to get very far west from Boulder to hit the secession area of the state. -_-
Thanks for your vote, GB!!!!!! I honestly believe it will incrementally help the country as well as your desolate hellscape mad max state
GasBandit
Staff member
Gah, what are you doing, trying to talk me out of it?
I have to admit, on the one hand my heart and conscience tell me not to vote for Trump.
The other hand, though, makes me look at the logical reality of the electoral college and through a lens of "what is the most possible path to get anyone other than trump or clinton " then the math says that here in Michigan I should vote for trump.
That's the only way my vote can possibly push things so neither of them get elected, given the state I live in and its current polling numbers. Denying them both the 270 votes needed means clinton has to lose more states, and Utah has to go third party - still a bit of a long shot. And even then there's no way congress is going to choose the third party, and Johnson won't even be an option in congress unless he gets his home state.
The electoral college really, really sucks.
At any rate, I thought I was decided but it looks like I'm still trying to game the system. Not nearly as much as the politicians game it, but that's hardly a reasonable excuse to play the game as well.
Dave
Staff member
That's the stupidest thing I've ever read. "I can't vote for this guy because my conscience tells me not to, but since I don't want either I'll vote for him anyway."
Seriously? He gets your vote on the off chance that Michigan would be a swing state? That's the same kind of backwards thinking that passed the Brexit vote and you know it.
Seriously? He gets your vote on the off chance that Michigan would be a swing state? That's the same kind of backwards thinking that passed the Brexit vote and you know it.
Either you don't understand my position, or my logical conclusion, or how the political system works.
It's internally consistent and rational, far from "stupid" - and I'm still mulling it over anyway.
If you have something useful to contribute - rational and logical, please, then let me know.
Otherwise you're just ideologically reacting and your argument has no practical value.
It's internally consistent and rational, far from "stupid" - and I'm still mulling it over anyway.
If you have something useful to contribute - rational and logical, please, then let me know.
Otherwise you're just ideologically reacting and your argument has no practical value.
Actually, how about we take it from the other direction.
No matter how unlikely it is, I don't want either Clinton or Trump as my president.
Given the operation of the electoral collage, and my state's current likely trend, how should I vote in order to best increase the chance that neither will become president?
I anxiously await logical analysis that helps me understand how to vote given my desired outcome.
No matter how unlikely it is, I don't want either Clinton or Trump as my president.
Given the operation of the electoral collage, and my state's current likely trend, how should I vote in order to best increase the chance that neither will become president?
I anxiously await logical analysis that helps me understand how to vote given my desired outcome.
The logical solution is realize that your vote doesn't matter, and just stop lying and vote for Trump since it will make you feel great about abortion.
edit: isn't Pence pretty close to your wet dream? Trump also blatantly said that he'd do all the governing. He'll also appoint the proest of pro life SC justices for ya
edit: isn't Pence pretty close to your wet dream? Trump also blatantly said that he'd do all the governing. He'll also appoint the proest of pro life SC justices for ya
The problem is that it doesn't hinder Trump in an circumstance EXCEPT this going to the House of Representatives with ether Johnson, McMullin, or Stein winning at least one state. And even then, that would basically require both a majority of Democrat AND Republican Representatives to forfeit their reelection chances by voting against party. I don't see that happening, unless they think being a Representative who helped stop Trump is more valuable than being a Representative who actually does what their voters wanted (which is elect Trump). And that still requires the Republicans to not go with Hillary and the potential favors (like future help on bills or a more favorable Supreme Court pick) that the Democrats would offer up for them to pick her or the potential favors the Republicans would offer the Democrats.
In all other circumstances, it just helps Trump. Those are long odds. Not IMPOSSIBLE, but long. It's not a bet I would take.
Vote how you want to vote, or don't vote, but you should understand that unless you can gauge each individual in the entire state, you're not going to be able to game the system; your math is working with incomplete information.
EDIT: in fact, extend that to unless you can determine every state's outcome, you are working with incomplete information.
Last edited:
Yes, which is why steinman seems to be treating it as a modified prisoner's dilemma with a dash of newcomb's. By that optic, his decision seems pretty reasonable--he can tell from polls what the rough opinion of the electorate is, so he can make a semi-informed decision to defect or not (instead of going in blind).
Dave
Staff member
You vote for the candidate you would like to see in the office. Voting for a specific person is not hindering them in any way. In fact, it empowers them. Thinking otherwise is just silly.
You want a third party to win? Then vote for the third party. If you vote Trump and at the same time find him morally repugnant, you automatically give up the moral high ground.
If Steinman wants to vote Trump, to elect Trump, he's under no obligation to tell us and I'm calling "not it" on who removes DarkAudit's shock collar.
But if the logic is not to vote third party because third party won't be elected, what's the end game here? Suppose there's a deadlock--we're not just going to have four years without a president.
But if the logic is not to vote third party because third party won't be elected, what's the end game here? Suppose there's a deadlock--we're not just going to have four years without a president.
Between the two candidates, only one has been shown to be working against the voter's will during the last year, and it wasn't Trump.
But perhaps you've forgiven and forgotten already.[DOUBLEPOST=1477660595,1477660046][/DOUBLEPOST]
Should Congress not choose by the end of Obama's term, Biden becomes president until congress, specifically the house of representatives, acts. If the republicans lose seats in the house, then they'll choose a president very quickly. If they don't lose too many seats, they may sit on it and dither while each attempts to work out deals and grease their personal political rails before they settle on a president.
The republicans control the senate right now as well, so the same situation plays out for vice president (which is chosen by the senate).
Remember that the senate consists of two representatives per state, while the house consists of one representative per 733,000 US citizens, so if the election is undecided (ie, neither gains the 270 majority required to win automatically) then the president is chosen by representatives chosen by population, while the vice president is chosen by representatives by state.
You mean that the DNC preferred a lifelong democrat over someone who has been in politics for years but only joined the party less than a year ago just to run for president? Yeah that was supper-shocking. I couldn't believe that.
McMullin winning would be a greater travesty to the electoral process of the US than trump by a country mile.
McMullin winning would be a greater travesty to the electoral process of the US than trump by a country mile.
...the preference of the voters?
Yes, I mean exactly that.
But I'm sure the DNC knows better.
Also, let's not forget that Electors in the Electoral College are not actually obligated to vote the same way their state voted... so a weird situation with neither candidate reaching 270 could be changed at the last minute by faithless Electors. It's very much an unpredictable "X" factor that would spoil any complex "I voted for this person to make this happen, and then..." plans.
Candidate Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders
Home state New York Vermont
Delegate count 2,842 1,865
Contests won 34 23
Popular vote 16,914,722[a][1] 13,206,428[
Some 3,700,000 voters preferred Hillary. How was that not the will of the voters?
But you know, Stienman, it's okay. However you justify voting for Trump is up to you.
Home state New York Vermont
Delegate count 2,842 1,865
Contests won 34 23
Popular vote 16,914,722[a][1] 13,206,428[
Some 3,700,000 voters preferred Hillary. How was that not the will of the voters?
But you know, Stienman, it's okay. However you justify voting for Trump is up to you.
Necronic
Staff member
I dunno sexual assault and reckless foreign policy is kind of against my will.
Perhaps "stolen" is too strong. The DNC clearly was biased towards Clinton, and the fact that they instituted the delegate system in '82 specifically to discount the vote of the people clearly shows that the DNC is only marginally interested in the will of their own voters.
But this isn't the first time we've talked about it, and I've made more than one post about it, so I guess those interested in arguing the point can go back and read up.
Regardless, I still stand behind my main point:
It's ok if you're happy with the way the DNC is set up.
Making claims like this when the DNC is expressly set up to discount voters, though, is really silly:
But this isn't the first time we've talked about it, and I've made more than one post about it, so I guess those interested in arguing the point can go back and read up.
Regardless, I still stand behind my main point:
It's ok if you're happy with the way the DNC is set up.
Making claims like this when the DNC is expressly set up to discount voters, though, is really silly:
Not to mention the email leaks which specifically show insiders possibly working outside the limitations of the DNC charter to ensure a Clinton nomination.
You are better than television. Never change.
Necronic
Staff member
I'll give Steinman credit for voicing these views to an incredibly unfavorable crowd. That's not easy to do and it's something we need more of. Many of us (as humans, not halforumites) recede to safe spaces of choral approval which is not really a good thing as it creates intellectual stagnation.
Re: extrajudicial killings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing#United_States
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/barack-obama-shifting-views-cia-torture-report
But we've had this conversation as well, already. I'm not sure why it's being brought up again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing#United_States
Re: torture:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/barack-obama-shifting-views-cia-torture-report
I'd like someone to please show that Hillary Clinton will be better than Obama in these two regards.
But we've had this conversation as well, already. I'm not sure why it's being brought up again.
My thoughts below, @steinman.
Your desired goal is for neither Clinton nor Trump to win Michigan. In other words, for a 3rd-party candidate to win.
Michigan isn't a blow-out, but is unlikely at this point to be a swing state, based on best info, with the caveat that Michigan is the one state where the polls dramatically fucked up so far this year. Nate Silver explicitly doesn't change his predicting model along the way to maintain its integrity, but that doesn't mean that the polls themselves have or haven't changed their methodology to try and fix it.
As a right-leaning voter who has voted in previous elections (which makes you a "likely voter"; correct me if I'm wrong on any of these, because that changes things), you voting 3rd-party inherently pushes the election towards the probability outcomes that benefit Clinton, who is already in the lead. This defeats your goal.
Voting trump avoids moving further deeper into these outcomes, but it remains in our current grouping of outcomes, where Hillary is leading among likely voters. Among these potential outcomes are a much smaller batch of outcomes where she does not win. In most of these Trump wins, which also defeats your goal. In the outcomes where a 3rd-party wins, your vote for Trump does not help them do it, because you're a right-leaning voter, which means you wouldn't have been voting for Clinton in most circumstances anyway.
Your only real chance to achieve your goal is to vote for a 3rd-party that has enough support to potentially take the Michigan election away from either Clinton or Trump. The problem is that the chances are still poor, and you will likely end up with a Clinton victory. But there is pretty much no way for you to vote Trump and meaningfully contribute towards your desired goal.
EDIT: And for the record, I am voting for Clinton. I'd be a fool to not acknowledge that my thoughts on the matter aren't also contributing in part towards MY desired outcome.
Your desired goal is for neither Clinton nor Trump to win Michigan. In other words, for a 3rd-party candidate to win.
Michigan isn't a blow-out, but is unlikely at this point to be a swing state, based on best info, with the caveat that Michigan is the one state where the polls dramatically fucked up so far this year. Nate Silver explicitly doesn't change his predicting model along the way to maintain its integrity, but that doesn't mean that the polls themselves have or haven't changed their methodology to try and fix it.
As a right-leaning voter who has voted in previous elections (which makes you a "likely voter"; correct me if I'm wrong on any of these, because that changes things), you voting 3rd-party inherently pushes the election towards the probability outcomes that benefit Clinton, who is already in the lead. This defeats your goal.
Voting trump avoids moving further deeper into these outcomes, but it remains in our current grouping of outcomes, where Hillary is leading among likely voters. Among these potential outcomes are a much smaller batch of outcomes where she does not win. In most of these Trump wins, which also defeats your goal. In the outcomes where a 3rd-party wins, your vote for Trump does not help them do it, because you're a right-leaning voter, which means you wouldn't have been voting for Clinton in most circumstances anyway.
Your only real chance to achieve your goal is to vote for a 3rd-party that has enough support to potentially take the Michigan election away from either Clinton or Trump. The problem is that the chances are still poor, and you will likely end up with a Clinton victory. But there is pretty much no way for you to vote Trump and meaningfully contribute towards your desired goal.
EDIT: And for the record, I am voting for Clinton. I'd be a fool to not acknowledge that my thoughts on the matter aren't also contributing in part towards MY desired outcome.
Last edited:
I appreciate that, but the reality is that I'm quite unhappy today and I'm probably only responding due to unrelated irritations. Or, in other words, there's a lot of discussing I'd like to do but know that with this venue it's not going to be productive due to a few bad actors.
C'est la vie.
You guys don't seem to understand McMullins campaign.
He wants to win Utah and have neither candidate get to 270 so the house votes. He hopes that a republican controlled house would vote for him over trump. The house can only vote for people who actually got electoral votes so that's why he needs Utah.
If steinman wants mcmullin to have any chance of being president, voting for trump makes sense, as Michigan is a blue state so if trump were to win it, it could prevent her from getting to 270.
Of course of this happens it means the president would be someone that got 1% of the vote.
He wants to win Utah and have neither candidate get to 270 so the house votes. He hopes that a republican controlled house would vote for him over trump. The house can only vote for people who actually got electoral votes so that's why he needs Utah.
If steinman wants mcmullin to have any chance of being president, voting for trump makes sense, as Michigan is a blue state so if trump were to win it, it could prevent her from getting to 270.
Of course of this happens it means the president would be someone that got 1% of the vote.
Comparing Trump's political enemies (opponents in the primary, general, the press, those accusing him of sexual assault) to Al-Awlaki is certainly something else.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your statement, but my goal is to prevent either one of them from winning the US election. That means that I'd be happy for one or the other to win Michigan if it brings the ultimate goal of leaving both out of the white house to fruition.
Given that Clinton is likely to get 270 votes at this point, Michigan or not, then it appears to me that in order to reduce her chance of 270 votes, then I need to have michigan go to Trump. According to the reasonable analysis at fivethirtyeight.
So if Michigan goes towards trump then the chances of both being unable to attain 270 votes goes up over all, given the current analysis of the overall election. The chance of trump getting 270 votes is already abysmally low. The chance of clinton is very high.
Voting third party won't prevent Clinton from getting 270 votes. If I were in a state where a third party had a chance (say, Utah) then it might make sense. But here in Michigan?
If anything, turning it into a swing state again would give the people more power and more political access. That we've lost swing state status over the last several decades has actually reduced our power in Washington DC.