Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:At this point I wouldn't be surprised if she siphoned off more Trump votes then dem ones.

I would. The hardcore Trumpists aren't going to go away from their man, and mainstream Republicans have determined they're going to sink or swim with him. So I don't there's anywhere else to siphon votes than from the left side of the spectrum.

BurtReynolds wrote:Her positions besides her Syria stance aren't different from the mainstream democrat platform, so there is little reason for a democrat to vote for her as a third party...

It wouldn't take that many otherwise Democratic votes to peel off to wreak havoc. The margin of victory in MI, WI, and PA was all under 1% and under 50,000 votes. Democrats need every vote they can get if you want Trump defeated.

BurtReynolds wrote:...but she might make for an attractive candidate for never-trumpers. Conservatives who are rethinking universal healthcare or who are very anti- interventionist might even view her as a tolerable choice.

If she ran against a dem Sanders, that would not only be suicide, but she'd definitely be a Republican plant at that point. Otherwise, no.

The Never Trumpers, by definition, didn't vote for Trump the first time around, going to either Johnson or McMullin. And guess what, Trump ended up winning. Their strategy was flat out stupid if they thought voting that way was going to ensure a Trump defeat.


Look, here's the cold hard truth: if you want to see Trump defeated, you have no choice but to vote for whoever the Democrats nominate, no matter how disappointed you may be in that candidate. I know that I felt sick voting for Hillary Clinton in 2016, but that's the grim reality of how the US form of government is set up. If you're tired of being presented with giant douchebags and turd sandwiches, you need to advocate for the end of the Electoral College and the implementation of some form of ranked choice voting, not to just vainly vote for a third party. Of course, the former requires much more hard work to do than the latter, so here we are.

4/5 wrote:

Green Habit wrote: But I will say this: I do believe that Romney really wants to be president, and he is positioning himself right now in a way that if Trump were to get tossed, he'd be right there to take advantage of it.

This. He doesn't have the courage to step out and openly lead Republican impeachment support, but he's waiting in the wings for a chance to emerge from the rubble if Republicans do ever turn against him.

BurtReynolds wrote:I'm not talking so much about strategy as being able to stomach who you are voting for, and I think a lot of nevertrump voters will think in those terms.

BurtReynolds wrote:I also think Democrats are extremely motivated by defeating Trump at all costs, so this worry about a third party candidate siphoning off a lot of votes is unfounded.

BurtReynolds wrote:And the idea that a third party is necessarily a plant is pure conspiracy theory nonsense until some proof comes up.

BurtReynolds wrote:I can't understand the insanity of thinking we can stop douchebags and turd sandwiches (or any truly big problem) by voting for douchebags and turd sandwiches--or even by voting at all--but it's an old argument that no one has time for anymore.

BurtReynolds wrote:Obviously, I'm a bit of an outlier here since I don't view defeating Trump as the be-all-end-all of of our current political goals, but most will view this election as only about Trump, and if defeating him is your goal you should certainly vote for whoever has the best chance of beating him.

McParadigm wrote:

Mickey wrote:Is 20+ in a range of 13-27 statistically significant?

For any given 2 year period, 20 is a rare number to reach. But to put the impact of it happening 3 elections in a row into perspective, let’s assume that 6 more retirements are announced in the coming months:

1974-1978: 45 retirements
1980-1984: 32
1986-1990: 31
1992-1996: 50*
1998-2002: 45
2004-2008: 49
2010-2014: 43
2016-2020: 64


* 1992 happened to be a year with 50+ retirements total, and then a lot of swing state Rs retired in the face of Clinton scandal backlash. Those retirement numbers helped end Newt’s career.

McParadigm wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Mickey wrote:Is 20+ in a range of 13-27 statistically significant?

For any given 2 year period, 20 is a rare number to reach. But to put the impact of it happening 3 elections in a row into perspective, let’s assume that 6 more retirements are announced in the coming months:

1974-1978: 45 retirements
1980-1984: 32
1986-1990: 31
1992-1996: 50*
1998-2002: 45
2004-2008: 49
2010-2014: 43
2016-2020: 64


* 1992 happened to be a year with 50+ retirements total, and then a lot of swing state Rs retired in the face of Clinton scandal backlash. Those retirement numbers helped end Newt’s career.

We’re at 22 now, which puts the 2016-2020 total at 68.

tragabigzanda wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote: Why don’t we just cut Russia off from the internet altogether? It could be done.

Because it would be barbaric to punish their citizens for the crimes of the oligarchs.