Anyone here voting Biden/Harris...

[ricco]

I was curious about the 1992 vote totals

Clinton - 44,909,806
Bush - 29,104,550
Perot - 19,743,821

A cousin (a Republican) told me that she voted for Perot to send a message to the Republicans. After a few years under the Clinton regime she told me how much she regretted sending that message. Lessons learned.

 

[TedKennedy]

As for a vote for her NOT being a vote for Biden, I'd have to differ. 2016 was the latest instance where the popular vote total and the electoral vote total were different. I tend to believe that continued "differences" like that in the future might lead many to decide that the Constitution "must" be changed. Many already do, but I'd prefer that we not add to the numbers that believe in that change.

Perhaps a liberal would state "a vote for Jo is a vote for Trump".

I'm gonna vote for Trump, and I hope it's a landslide. He's still a piece of crap, he ain't gonna restore the constitution, but maybe the losers will set the country on fire and we can this ball rolling. Ought to be fine entertainment.

 

[TedKennedy]

I was curious about the 1992 vote totals

Clinton - 44,909,806
Bush - 29,104,550
Perot - 19,743,821

A cousin (a Republican) told me that she voted for Perot to send a message to the Republicans. After a few years under the Clinton regime she told me how much she regretted sending that message. Lessons learned.

Just think - if those voters that voted for Bush had the courage to vote 3rd party, how much better off we would have been.

 

[Gringobandito]

For anyone considering voting for Biden...If you have ever laughed at CA politics and scoffed at the gun laws, that is what Kamala will bring to the administration. It’s real and it’s insane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ricco]

Just think - if those voters that voted for Bush had the courage to vote 3rd party, how much better off we would have been.

Never gonna happen

Roosevelt tried it, and if he couldn't pull it off no one ever will
Wallace tried it
Perot tried it

They all had some success but ultimately failed

It's not a matter of good and bad or right and wrong it's matter of perception and third party candidates will always be perceived as unelectable by the majority of voters.

We should always vote our conscious but that decision has to be tempered with the understanding that voting our conscious might make the outcome worse rather than better.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

For anyone considering voting for Biden...If you have ever laughed at CA politics and scoffed at the gun laws, that is what Kamala will bring to the administration. It’s real and it’s insane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And just like that, the right adopts the lefts virtue signaling.

 

[donner]

She is running for a chance to be an agent of the government, and thus, if she follows through with what she has stated in campaigning, then it might not be "fine."

Considering that the founders of Black Lives Matter are avowed Marxists and that their website has previously shown that (and may still), then I'd say that if she is supporting that movement, then she is a Marxist herself.

As for a vote for her NOT being a vote for Biden, I'd have to differ. 2016 was the latest instance where the popular vote total and the electoral vote total were different. I tend to believe that continued "differences" like that in the future might lead many to decide that the Constitution "must" be changed. Many already do, but I'd prefer that we not add to the numbers that believe in that change.

But she isn't an agent, nor did she say that she would use the power of law to make it a 'must' if elected.

And again, no, supporting the same things does not immediately mean you support the same ends. That old 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' adage comes to mind. Just because both BLM and Libertarians see value in ending things like qualified immunity, does not mean that both groups immediately support the same ultimate goal politically.

Both members of right wing militias and members of the new Black Panther party can agree that the government is infringing on our 2A rights and both can want the government to stop. It's common ground. What happens after that is likely vastly divergent for each group. But recognizing that the same obstacle exists for both groups does not require each to endorse the entirety of the other group's values.

There will certainly be calls for ending the electoral college, but how third parties perform in an election doesn't immediately contribute to that. For one thing, you cannot say that people who voted for gary johnson would have otherwise voted for Trump. They could have simply not voted for President at all. And Clinton's total also suffered from those that voted for Jill Stein, so without the green party candidate, perhaps Clinton's total in the popular vote would have been greater.

 

[O4L]

The argument that your vote doesn't matter if you vote "red" in Oklahoma because Oklahoma is guaranteed to be "red", doesn't hold any water with me.

First of all if enough "red" voters have that attitude and don't show up to vote it can cause the results to go the other way, especially down ticket.

Secondly, it could eventually cause this state to turn "purple" then to "blue" at some point. I don't think most of us here ever want to see that.

I was born here, lived here all my life, and I will most likely die here. I never want to see a "blue" or even "purple" Oklahoma. I can barely stand how liberal things have gotten here already.

 

[donner]

The argument that your vote doesn't matter if you vote "red" in Oklahoma because Oklahoma is guaranteed to be "red", doesn't hold any water with me.

First of all if enough "red" voters have that attitude and don't show up to vote it can cause the results to go the other way, especially down ticket.

Secondly, it could eventually cause this state to turn "purple" then to "blue" at some point. I don't think most of us here ever want to see that.

I was born here, lived here all my life, and I will most likely die here. I never want to see a "blue" or even "purple" Oklahoma. I can barely stand how liberal things have gotten here already.

whether you believe it, or not, is somewhat irrelevant. The reality is that a small number of voters who choose a third party presidential candidate in oklahoma are insignificant to the outcome and probably will be for a long time to come. And the same is true for deep blue states, as well.

Now, how that affects down ticket elections is a consideration, but it presumes the person votes straight ticket. Nothing keeps someone from supporting a republican senate candidate, or mayor or such. And there is also the fact that party matters less the more local an election.

It wont turn blue over night, so it oklahoma does go purple then a lot of things would likely have had to change in terms of demographics. Well beyond republicans voting libertarian.

 

[Gringobandito]

The argument that your vote doesn't matter if you vote "red" in Oklahoma because Oklahoma is guaranteed to be "red", doesn't hold any water with me.

First of all if enough "red" voters have that attitude and don't show up to vote it can cause the results to go the other way, especially down ticket.

Secondly, it could eventually cause this state to turn "purple" then to "blue" at some point. I don't think most of us here ever want to see that.

I was born here, lived here all my life, and I will most likely die here. I never want to see a "blue" or even "purple" Oklahoma. I can barely stand how liberal things have gotten here already.

Early voting results show more dems voting that republicans in OK. FYI 37K to 27K