OPDENY270.ORG
Submitted by the_poorly_educated on Wed, 10/05/2016 - 7:22am
Time to stop talking and start organizing our voting strategy. We all know the faults of both candidates and finding new faults is a waste of time and energy. More faults is not going to change our minds. The website opdeny270.org has the plan. Go there and read the plan and spread the word. Convince HRC supporters in states like California to vote Jill Stein because we need more political parties to choose from. HRC doesn't need their vote in California. Get as many people as you can to vote Jill Stein in states like CA. Read the plan , it's a good one.
Comments
Time to *start?* This is my voting strategy: #JillNotHill
I don't think writing in Bernie anywhere in any state is the best use of a vote. http://caucus99percent.com/content/word-about-voting-november-okay-many-...
I ask again that you not tell fellow posters what to do or what not to do. If you think that is going gather support for your cause, please think again. However, I am grateful that you did an OP on this, rather than spamming.
Denying 270 elctoral votes to both HRC and Trump is a good plan
Vermont is in play for Bernie. . If every Bernie supporter votes Jill Stein in all the states except the ones where they should write in Bernie, she will get the Fed. funding. If Bernie denies either candidate 270 then it goes to the House for a public vote. The key here is that HRC won't win that vote. This is also a middle finger to the DNC which is even more important.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
You are doing nothing but helping the duopoly.
Hillary is going to get 270 and then some. Thinking anything else is a pipe dream. As I posted down thread IF IF IF is all you seem to have when it comes to hurting the Green's chances of getting 5% of the popular vote. NOT GOOD ENOUGH. And, having the Greens get automatic ballot access in 2020 will hurt the DNC a lot more than any pipe dream ever will.
A Simpler Plan - Just Vote Green Regardless
1) Vote Green in any state where Jill Stein is on the ballot or has write-in access.
2) In the 3 states where Stein is not on the ballot, write a letter to the Secretary Of State saying "Thank you for subverting Democracy and F**k You!" Then write in Jill Stein anyway.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Heh.
I like your Step 2.
I live in none of those states, but might write such letters just for the hell of it.
I do too. WTF.
This whole ballot-access thing reeks of the House of Lords--well, of course you can run, but only if you're the right sort.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Oklahoma, Nevada, South Dakota
...... MOVE!!! (And vote for Jill wherever in civilization you end up moving to!)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I laughed, kudos, but you should vote Stein there, too AND
write the letter.
While write in votes are not reported anywhere, presumably they are counted. So, voting for Stein in a write in state should still help with the 5% target. Writing in Bernie will do nothing for no one, including Bernie.
Good point. I updated the comment.
These OPDENY270 people just can't let go of Bernie. I guess it is an emotional attachment.
Bernie has turned. He's on team Hellery now. That's just fact.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
The plan has nothing to do with Bernie. It's STRATEGY.
Get on board. Pass the word around.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
So correct me if I'm wrong
The OPDENY270 plan is to:
- prevent any candidate from reaching the magic 270 electoral votes
- forcing the House of Reps to select the president. And this plan thinks they will select Bernie.
Here's my problem with this. The House of Reps is virtually filled with 100% corrupt politicians who make tons of $$$ off corporate donations. Why on gawd's green earth would the House select Bernie?
If I have the plan wrong, please spell it out for me.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
Who the house elects is immaterial....
The victory is forcing the election of the two most unpopular candidates ever to the House and getting Green enough votes for public funding.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Ok, fine.
>> forcing the election of the two most unpopular candidates ever to the House
I don't see the victory in that, but whatever.
>> getting Green enough votes for public funding.
If OPDENY270 is what it takes to get Berniecrats motivated to support Stein, then yes that's a huge victory.
Question: If everyone voted for Stein in ALL states, rather than writing in Bernie, wouldn't that achieve the same objective?
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
No because a VT loss for HRC would be a major message to the DNC
eom
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
You don't think the DNC already got that message
with Bernie's VT primary win with 85% of the vote?
I think the DNC knows. Hahaha.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
VT has to finish the deal. We will see. Anything less will dissa
disappoint.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
DNC does not care about any message other than from mega donors
DNC strategy is pretty much 'where ELSE can they go?' They've launched Bernie and other surrogates to claim that third party votes are wasted. (IMO Bernie complies b/c that was the agreement if he was going to run for the party's nomination - Bernie's a man of integrity and is keeping his word. I believe his obligation is up on 11/8.)
I'm not advocating any action, but it is clear to me that losing states which have been a lock for the party would send the message that their strategy is bogus.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
So DWS was fired because of mega donors?
Are you sure?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Nah she was fired
because she was the one who had to fall on her sword for the Clinton campaign when the shit hit the fan about the voter rigging and the DNC's proven bias including the corporate media's complicity. She had become the focal point of the righteous anger of the Bernie and Democratic voters. Good lord she out and out admitted all over the place that she was working for the Clinton campaign. I think it was a PR move, damage control from the Clinton campaign. Did you read the Wikileak DNC e-mails starring Debbie What Kill List Wasserman.
Same difference. She was fired for illegal activities by DNC.
Whether it was HRC or her is irrelevant.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Yeah, right. As long as Hillary wins, the DNC will clap and spin
the rest.
And Jill has only 15% in
And Jill has only 15% in Vermont, so she won't get that one anyway. This plan does not in any way harm Jill's campaign or I wouldn't be pleading for it.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
It seems that Gary Johnson may force such a vote by his lonesome
I think he stands a good chance of winning New Mexico, where he was a not unpopular, 2-term governor. The only previous time that's happened is with John Quicy Adams in the early 1800s. Adams was never quite considered the legitimate President, according to the Wikipedia page.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Gary Johnson's existence is
Gary Johnson's existence is being officially admitted because he supports the TPP corporate coup.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Confusion
Constitutionally, the House can't elect Bernie. Its choices are limited to the 3 candidates who receive the most electoral votes. Bernie won't be among them.
See 12th Amendment.
Yeah, he probably will
But it makes no never mind.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
How?
I live in VT. If people plan to organize a write in campaign for Bernie they should probably start soon.
Because Stein and Johnson won't win any states. Bernie has a 87%
approval rating in VT and could win a write in victory. He will be the 3rd most with 3 electoral votes.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
If Bernie wins VT he will be in the top 3.
Who else will win a state?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Gary Johnson has a shot at New Mexico
At last report he was only 5 points behind The Rump and 12 behind Her Heinous. That's enough to make both of 'em sweat.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
They cannot elect Sanders.
The only choices the House will have are the top three candidates who garnered electoral votes:
So Sanders won't even be an available choice (It is also more likely that Stein or Johnson would take a state with more electoral votes). The House will choose HRC as she best represents the Republicans who are currently the majority.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
If Bernie wins VT he will be the 3rd top candidate. eom
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
It does not matter.
The House will never choose him over HRC. His issues are not theirs; HRC's policies are. The House will go with HRC if there is any choice for them to make.
VT has only has three electoral votes. It is more likely that Johnson will take New Mexico with five electoral votes or Stein take Oregon with seven or Washington state with 12. See above sentence in regard to what the effect would be.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Bernie is not the real issue
because in what universe can you imagine the house choosing Bernie if they also have the options of Hillary and Trump? Or, if something very weird happens, Hillary and Johnson?
Can you imagine a situation in which the House does not choose Hillary? And if you can, can you imagine a situation in which they did not, alternatively, choose Trump?
They are the establishment; they will return us to establishment choices.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
All politics are local. The vote will be PUBLIC. eom
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Either that or hurting the Greens is the goal. Because that is
all this plan might have a chance of doing.
Getting Bernie electoral votes works against us
He will just release them to Her Heinous
When I was a kid, Republicans used to red scare people, now it's the Democrats. I am getting too damn old for this crap!
This is the exact thinking why we will lose.
You have no idea what will happen and sending a message to the DNC is the bigger picture. If Bernie wins Vermont, that would be HUUGE. I notice now all of a sudden we have more HRC slanted opinions than Bernie slanted opinions.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Not a HRC slanted opinion
If you must, this is a Jill slanted opinion.
#JillNotHill
When I was a kid, Republicans used to red scare people, now it's the Democrats. I am getting too damn old for this crap!
OPDENY270 is a more thought out approach.
It's a strategy to take advantage of the rules of the game and try and win fron a position of weakness. Blindly voting #jillnothill regardless of what state you live in is not as smart as opdeny270.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
I don't know about thought out, but
at least it is organized to do something to push back. Instead of taking our vote and walking off in a huff to vote for Stein, this is an organized push and plan that includes voting for Stein.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Ugh, no. God, I think Hill is more hated here than Trump.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You got to be kidding me.
If you don't understand the strategy, do the research. It has nothing to do with hating Jill Stein. Please stop spreading that.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
I didn't say it did. Are you responding to someone else?
I was saying that Hillary is hated more on this site than Donald Trump, so it's unlikely that there's going to be "Hillary-slanted" opinions in a great number here.
Who's talking about hating Stein?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes, I misread your post. Sorry.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
No, it's not that--at least not for me.
It's because I don't think there's a chance in hell the House of Representatives will actually, well, represent us. Or the Republican voters of the country, for that matter.
They care much more what the donors think, and most of the Republican donors prefer Hillary to Trump. And if the party leadership also supports Hillary over Trump, the Republican congressmen will have no problem getting re-elected. They'll just deny their electorate menu choices.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
IF we lose, it's because we go in 30 different silly directions
instead of sticking to one realistic plan, namely doing all we can to ensure that Jill gets at least 5% of the popular vote. Write in votes for Bernie are a vote for a Democratic candidate that does not want them and that will accomplish squat other than helping the duopoly.
I don't see this as going in 30 different silly directions.
I live in Vermont. I will likely write in Bernie. I was leaning this way long before I first heard of OpDeny270, which was yesterday. I am actually happy to see what looks like a serious, organized effort to disrupt the course of inevitability. I am reading all over this thread that you believe the goal of C99 is to get the Greens to 5%. Really? Is there a mission statement somewhere about that?
I can respect that goal and root for you to achieve it -- I do, and am. But -- and please take this in the spirit in which it's offered, which is as constructive feedback -- you might consider backing off the bullying. It smacks a little of the Hillbots elsewhere. As far as I recall, C99 is a non-partisan community where each of us remains free to support whomever and whatever we want, so long as we keep it civil.
If I lived in a state where my write-in would not count, I would vote for Jill. But it does count, so I will vote for Bernie. Why? Because he remains the candidate who most closely matches my own personal values and vision. And what this train wreck of an "election" has taught me is that I will no longer be forced into choosing anything less when given the option.
HRC will "win" anyway, but at least I can go to bed at night knowing I exercised my right to protest. And if that includes HRC not attaining 270 before the coronation, even better.
Peace.
How about subjective, blanket, negative characterizations?
I googled "constructive" and got
So, "constructive" might be something like "That's a worthy goal and you may be able get a lot of support for it if you do X." Also, if I have something potentially embarrassing to say to a poster, I have been known to go private message. However, posting on a leftist board that someone's posting behavior is bullying, Hillbot-like, and (implied) uncivil does not any definition of "constructive" of which I am aware.
Your assumptions seem to be not only that your thinking I am a bully means it's so by some objective standard, but also that I am intentionally bullying and therefore I will know exactly which behaviors of mine you mean why you say I am bullying. However, neither is so. Ideas about improper posting behavior are subjective. I've read most of the posts on this thread, including the OP, and find many more personally insulting, harsher, "bossier," etc. than mine--including some of the posts made to me.
In my first reply to the OP, I linked to my OP on strategic voting which I wrote well before the OP starting posting all over this board for days, telling posters it was to stop talking about whatever they were talking about and think about voting strategy, something I consider improper posting, as well as condescending. Anyway... IMO, strategic voting is important, no matter whom you want to win or lose, or why. If (emphasis on if) you are objecting to my posting persistently about something in which I strongly believe, you may want to look at the google-provided definition of bullying, too. It's about using superior strength to force someone weaker to do something, not persistence.
To the best of my recollection, without having read the thread again, I didn't tell anyone how to vote and, if I had, I have no reason to assume anyone would feel threatened by that. I commented on statements they made. I am voting for Bernie (implied: rather than Jill) to disrupt" is the kind of comment that, standing alone, makes no sense to me because voting for either disrupts. Also, voting for someone who did not run as either a Democrat or a Republican just may be a bit more disruptive to the duopoly than voting for someone who did run as a Democrat. And I may say so. I see nothing wrong with that. People may not want to do things for reasons that make no sense, especially if it undermines some worthy goal. I certainly don't want to and I am grateful whenever someone sets me straight on faulty info or lack of logic or being unrealistic. However, if someone posts a personal reason like principle, love, "just because" or whatever, I will cheer them on and have done that on this thread:
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/187327#comment-187327
Okay.
I think you might be able to get a lot of support for your position if you can acknowledge that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Everyone voting for Jill because writing in Bernie is a perceived waste of time (your position) is one strategy; most people voting for Jill plus some people writing in Bernie in states where it counts is another (the OP's strategy). You obviously don't agree with the latter, and would live to convince others that the former is preferable, right?
So, instead of saying that "Writing in Bernie will do nothing but prevent Jill from getting 5%" (this is a paraphrase because I'm unable to scroll up for an exact quote), you might say, "I can understand why you prefer writing in Bernie, but let me make the following argument against it" might work better at effecting your ultimate goal.
I'm not here to "start" anything. Taken from a meta perspective, your persistence -- especially outside of real-time -- can appear to be an attempt to stifle others' ideas. That's all. For what it's worth, I very often agree with you. This is a situation in which I don't. That's all.
Peace.
Wow. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I would not have claimed that a post accusing someone of bullying, Hillbot-like and uncivil posting was constructive, non-confrontational, or peaceful. I might even have apologized. But you went another way. Okay.
You trivialized my position. That is not okay.
Wording of a post does matter and so does context, such as the post and the poster to which and whom I was replying and what had already transpired on the board this week and on that thread around this 270 plan. Not knowing which post you are referring to takes all that out of the equation. Your approximation posts seems perfectly civil to me--and totally on topic and substantive.
Claiming posting persistently stifles other adult posters is not okay, either, or true, either in general or on that thread. People on that thread posted whatever they had to say, usually totally unsupported claims or worse, and many things were repeated many times, though often not supported even once. When the admin did note a potential problem with attempts to intimidate posters, he intervened. He did not intervene with me. BTW, isn't telling me posting "persistently" is bullying, etc. not intended to make me post less?
Disagreement per se never bothers me. Disagreement is something like, "No, Democrats were not in the majority in both houses of Congress during all the years of FDR's tenure." It's not taking it upon yourself to judge and insult someone's posting behavior.
Please consider leaving meta and judging and characterizing posting behavior to board admins and/or mods.They are in a better position to observe it and they are better at it.
I never accused you of, nor even suggested that you were uncivil
Please re-read the sentence in which I used the word "civil."
As for me using the word "Hill-bot," I would point you to this:
I'm going to leave this discussion at that, because we are obviously talking past each other. I'll look forward to seeing and conversing with you in other posts where we will likely agree on things.
Peace.
Wed, 10/05/2016 - 8:45am —
Wed, 10/05/2016 - 8:45am — RejectingThe3rdWay
Bernie suggested dumping the rules to select Hillary at the
CoronationConvention because that was the only out where he did not have to concede to Clinton or release his delegates to her. (Not that the DNC/Clintons followed their own/any rules/laws anyway, as had been made appallingly clear to all.) 'Campaigning for Hillary' was the only way to keep before the public eye and in the public mind what could and should be done for the American people involving a government of, by and for the people, rather than draining them for self-interests - because this would otherwise not be mentioned or any of it even continue to be mouthed by either of the corporate/billionaire representatives running.Bernie's strategy has always been that if he can't achieve a good for Americans one way, he tries something else and keeps trying until he gets at least some improvement which was said to have been impossible to achieve. Bernie has always been consistent and trustworthy and always works toward finding a way.
I believe that there's something - some desperate chance - in process of which he cannot speak and so do those initially creating and pushing the meme of 'Bernie sold out' and 'Bernie wasn't organized' and the rest of the character-trashing, supporter-discouraging PR campaign memes which so many have regrettably swallowed in their despair/disappointement - otherwise there would not be such a push on these memes if he did not still present a threat to TPTB even at their approaching moment of triumph over the very concept of democracy.
Remember, Bernie won the Dem nomination, and American democracy, voters and the world were all cheated out of what would have been a landslide electoral victory for all life on the planet.
Hewe could still have a chance, if we work together.Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
What if Bernie doesn't accept a win?
He certainly has to in OR from my read of the summary at ballotopedia. And what's to stop him accepting and instructing his electors to vote for Hellery anyway?
Vote Green everywhere. The goal is much lower (5% for ballot access vs ~40% for electoral votes) and can't be subverted.
If you really want to mess with the electoral college, turn NM gold. Phone bank, hit social media etc. to push Johnson over Trump. That way you get to focus national energy on a small area instead of diffusing your efforts over the whole country.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
I'm with you.
Including on turning NM gold, simply because I want to spit in the eye of the establishment.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
He's not going to win except in someone's dreams. The only thing
this will do is hurt Greens and therefore help the duopoly.
That would be a good problem to have.
If everyone follows the plan it has a better chance of success.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Initially, I was excited by this
but when I thought about it, I'm not sure what good it does to make the House choose the candidate. If Hill, Trump, and Bernie are the top three in electors, will any House--whether the one we've got now or the one we're gonna get in Jan--choose Bernie? Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats will do that. Are we striving for a Trump win via this method? Seriously, what is the benefit?
My guess is we'd get Hillary anyway, because the partisan difference is to some extent illusory; the rank-and-file Republican voters of the country mostly hate Hillary, but the politicians and pundits and donors often support her. There is a split in the Republican party on this matter, and the Bushes are on the side of the Clintons, so I'm guessing all the so-called "moderate" Republicans would vote Hillary anyway, and of course no Democrat would dare to vote against her. Remember when they booed Bernie? So my guess is you'd get people like Justin Amash voting against her--Tea Partiers, libertarian-ish Republicans--and the rest would vote Hillary.
So what's the benefit here?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It denies Hillary a win.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I don't think it does.
Admittedly, I moved from DC last year, so maybe things have changed. But the House I remember would vote Hillary, and take whatever flack they needed to from their angry Republican constituents, because the Republican donors are more on Hillary's side than Trump's.
Even if we're working toward a Trump win--which at this point, I could almost get behind--I don't think we're gonna get one out of the House of Representatives. That's why Hillary has been doing so much outreach to powerful Republicans, why she's touting her relationship to Henry Kissinger, why the Bushes are coming out for her, why Cheney has spoken approvingly of her--those are all signals to Republicans everywhere that it's OK to vote for her.
It's just that the rank-and-file Republicans, bless 'em, are saying "Hell no. She's the same exact person I've been hating for 30 years, and now you're telling me she's OK?" While a lot of them also hate Trump, they are not as vulnerable to the technique of the Trump Boogeyman as Dems are.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
If no one gets 270 delegates, it denies Hillary a win.
Could she win later? Sure. Die now or die later - what difference does it make? The difference is the delay. We win the delay. It sends another message that may be remembered next time. If we don't send it, Hillary kicked our ass and all we could do is lump it.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Please be real. Hillary is going to get over 270 votes, one way
or another.
Hate to throw this in the mix--
but we will likely never know how many electors are "faithless" or how many votes Hillary really garnered.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
And a meteor will hit the earth one day. What's your point?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
The benefit is exposing
the House for what they really are and what they really think of we, the people. We already have an inkling, but a full blown vote by them will be very telling. Just like when the Supremes handed the office to dubya - very telling. How else will people be stirred to rise up. We are a few hundred, here. We need millions to make a difference.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Actually, we're a couple thousand and growing :-)
And I'd argue that millions already know what the House, and the rest of the federal government, thinks of we the people.
What this might do is rile up the Tea Party and activate that portion of the population more than it already is. Which, at this point, is OK with me, but not a goal I'm deeply invested in either.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You'd be surprised how much the Tea Party and the left have in
common. We may be thousands and growing but if we all go off on our own and don't stick together what good is it that we have thousands?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
That is a typical Hillbot comment. BTW, sticking together does
not mean only following you down a garden path. We could stick together on a plan that has a realistic shot of actually happening.
But until those millions rise up,
nothing will happen. That's my point. A couple thousand here? Okay - yes, we rise up everyday and comment our little fingers off. Until millions rise up and take an actual stand, the status quo will remain.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Should the election wind up in The House
this might be one vote where Representatives dare not ignore the wishes of their constituents.
Remember when Obama asked Congress for authorization to send troops to Syria, and Congress was inundated with mail from constituents opposing intervention?
If she can't even steal 270 electoral votes, Dems in Congress might think twice about supporting her.
Mary Bennett
Only if they want to lose their careers.
The Clintons are unforgiving, and it's their party.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I would not be surprised to see
a new party form from people the Clintons have discarded, which is getting to be quite a lengthy list.
Mary Bennett
If she can't hit 270 it's the
If she can't hit 270 it's the Clinton's political career that is over. The moment a Clinton unfriendly FBI director and head of the DoJ are in place, they are done for.
It is not going to end up in the House.
I like it because it is disruptive
Any tactic to disrupt the kabuki is good by me. Let neither clown take power without it.
I am not "on board" with anybody except by coincidence I will gleefully check the box for Jill Stein in California, because she's the one candidate that will pardon Ed Snowden and put him in the cabinet. Plus I kind of love the rolling jubilee idea to forgive student debt, middle finger Wall Street and Clintons two-fer. Not sure this broken economy could take so much fixing all at once but willing to cast FOR some things instead of more war and insecurity. I like Russia and China and Iran, why not try a massive peace build-up over five years? Might be "worth it".
Thanks
Getting Greens on the ballot in 2020 is disruptive.
Imagining Hillary is not going to hit 270 is wishful thinking.
And?
Do you go into a negotiation already lowballing yourself or do you set a stretch goal? Voting Green to get federal matching funds is the realistic outcome, denying 270 electoral votes and forcing a choice in the House is a stretch goal. We probably won't get it, but who does it hurt to try? And more importantly, who does it help to try it?
A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?
"Nothing's wrong, son, look at the news!" -- Firesign Theater
I happen to do very well in negotiations.
However, this is not a negotiation.
In my opinion, it hurts the country to try for something we won't get and, even if we do get, will only result in the Trump or Hillary anyway--and probably Hillary. If we had nothing to lose by going for it that would be one thing. But we do.
I don't think it's going to help anyone. My answers to your two questions are my point.
Let's say some people write in Bernie. I don't think enough people will show up at the polls and write in to make a difference and his votes will not even be reported anywhere. So, I see that as zero gain. But let's say it goes to the House. The House will vote for whoever got the most popular votes which will be Hillary or Trump and much more likely Hillary. Still zero gain--and unlikely to happen at that.
Meanwhile it may cost the Greens ballot access in 2020, further reinforcing the idea that a third party will never be viable in the US and further sticking us with the duopoly. It will also lower this year's Green vote, which will do more of that reinforcing. As the OP of this thread ironically says, "we need more political parties to choose from." I don't want to be stuck with only Thing 1 and Thing 1.2 all my life.More importantly, I don't want all of America and the world to be stuck with them and all the accelerated global warming they bring.
I am not telling anyone how to vote. But I am saying what I believe to be the most productive and strong use of a vote this time around. (I did an OP on it, which I linked in my first reply to the OP.)
We have not a certainty, but a realistic shot to accomplish something that may start giving newer parties credibility. Baby steps, yes, but baby steps are better than no steps. I think if we intentionally throw that away, it should be for very good reason. Instead, we are thinking of ditching that for something highly unlikely. And that is one of my frustrations with the left and, in my mind, one of the reasons the left doesn't get any power outside the Democratic Party, also known (to me) as Thing 1.2. Honestly, if this is the best we can do, I need to give up and declare my love for Big Brother.
Let the House Republicans vote publicly for HRC.
That would be great for destroying the Republican party. It's a good plan.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Better yet, voting for Jill hurts the duopoly.
We're pretty much done with blue team red team thinking. It's about us, not about helping the Democratic Party by destroying the Republican Party. Eff 'em both.
This point is the important one.
"It's about us, not about helping the Democratic Party by destroying the Republican Party." Absolutely. The duopoly needs to die and the best way to do that is to vote for another party. For most of us the Greens have the best platform.
Bernie has done what he could. Voting for him is not helping get rid of the duopoly. Vote Green and give no support at all to the Neoliberal parties. The Republicans and the Democrats are merging now under the Clintons no matter what label candidates use. Forget nuanced voting. Vote Green and try to accomplish something positive.
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
At this point, voting for Bernie is voting for a Democrat, IMO.
He ran as a Democrat and is supporting the Democratic nominee, just as does every Democrat who loses a primary. That IS the duopoly.
Of course.
No argument. That's why I'm voting for Stein. I was a Green before Bernie announced and I'm a Green again now that the crooked primaries are over. I haven't been a Democrat since I voted for Nader except for the time needed to support Bernie. But the left likes arguing. We're like a herd of cats.
When I was in unions back in the 50s, it was a lot less cerebral because we understood what the bosses were like and we knew where our interests lie. Even after I graduated from university and got a job as a boss, I voted Dem because the Republicans weren't on my side. We need to regain our class consciousness to be effective. Clintonian neoliberalism is an atrocious system that must be stopped and the Democratic Party is not the vehicle to do that. I just hope we have the time.
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
You are smarter sooner than I.
Until post-election, 2008, I thought voting Democratic up and down the ticket was the only way to go. And also all I really needed to know. Then I started posting at a message board where some smart people posted--and they had a lot to say about Obama's appointments. I was too embarrassed that I did not know who they were talking about and why, so I would google; and it seems as though every google search produced a revelation/epiphany.
As you know, a lot of Greens did what you did. That's why it was so crooked of crooked Hillary and crooked Debbie to set the first debate for after primary voter registration closed in delegate rich New York State.
About unions: Family story about the 1948 election. Almost my entire extended family was then in New Jersey, including the two speakers. Dewey, of course, was in NY. Most of my extended family members then were union members.
Teen relative to her mom: Please vote for the Republican for President. Dewey is so handsome!
Mom to teen. Republican? Unions. Social Security. No, we don't vote Republican.
End of story. Because of its history, my family is so Democratic that telling this innocuous story at family gatherings is sure to elicit knowing laughter because we all know how our own parents view voting Republican. As my cousin remarked, "They don't even know they can split a ticket," but he isn't being literal. They know. They just wouldn't entertain splitting a ticket.
White union members and their unions, however, were not welcoming to African Americans, who have been a huge factor in Democratic politics since they started moving into cities and more so after the Voting Rights Act. Then, there was friction with law enforcement unions over charges of police brutality from the left; and firefighters sided with them. Meanwhile, private sector unions all but disappeared. Then collective bargaining fees were challenged, which were a good sources of funds for unions. And unions were a chief source of funds for Democratic politicians. It's like a game where you try to move one block without upsetting the entire construction. You can move only so many before it collapses.
Speaking of strategy
I am urging everyone to please not forget the down ballot.
I respectfully suggest to one and all that the likelihood is a Clinton "win". I like the strategy outlined at opdeny270; I just think it is about two months too late. I appeal to voters, the goal must be, if her election can't be denied, then she MUST be denied anything that can be remotely spun as a "mandate". Not that she will care. She will do whatever she wants regardless. BUT, even Killery needs to work with Congress and the permanent members of the executive; those people, Congress and permanent officials, MUST be made to understand that President Mad Bomber does not enjoy widespread public support, that in fact she is widely hated, and that principled opposition to her can and llikely will be good for their careers.
I ask everyone, when you are considering votes for Senate and congress, please, in most districts, reject the conservadems put forward by Schumer's DSCC and the DCCC. I am convinced that most of those are being put in place to provide reliable votes for the Schumer/Clinton/Netanyahu war plans. If you can't bring yourself to vote for the loathsome R, then maybe consider a protest vote for a minor candidate. Consider the moral and intellectual, as in practical intelligence, qualities of the people the DSCC and DCCC spent huge gobs of cash to defeat. Grayson. Donna Edwards, for heaven's sake. And so on and so on.
Mary Bennett
In some states, a write in invalidates the entire ballot.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/187189#comment-187189
The people who originally started the Bernie or Bust write in movement apologized to the left publicly because write ins are a bad idea. Writing in Bernie now that he is campaigning for Hillary is an even worse idea.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/187189#comment-187189
that makes no sense
if a write in invalidated the entire ballot then there would be no provision for a write in on the ballot.
It invalidates the whole ballot
in those states that require a candidate to get certification as a write-in (which is most states by my understanding).
can you name one state?
I want to see that for myself. I can't believe it. Here in Oregon if there's any goofy vote that's not countable (like if I vote for Eugene Debs) it just means that one race doesn't get counted.
Writing in Bernie in VT is a great idea.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Pages