8mo ago

Seeing a lot of this lately...

Via Berkeley Mews

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

487 comments

Running as a third party candidate means doing a political project in which you’re trying to attract supporters to vote for you.
This has always been a stretch goal of any 3rd party candidate, because it almost never ever happens. You run 3rd party to tank the votes of one of the primary candidates, for a book deal, or to spread information and awareness.
If no one voted for a third party, that party would lose relevance and wouldn’t be able to accomplish the goal of spreading ideas like you mentioned earlier.
The strategy is to gracefully step down after you have spread information and before any of the voting happens. You can support a 3rd party candidate and plan to not vote for them unless they get popular.
How can we tell when we’ve reached that point
We won't be able to tell the instant it happens, because it's impossible to track all the voters, but signs will start showing up.
You know we are past the point when the democrat or republican candidate starts getting ignored like 3rd party candidates currently do. Remember how Bernie's run looked? Before the Dems did an op and kicked him out, it was looking very interesting.
For all we know, that could be the situation right now.
Maybe, keep your eye on the polls. If your 3rd party candidate has comparable polling to Biden or Trump then we can start talking about the possibility of that happening. We have to overcome the normies.
By all appearances, it would seem that the third party has no meaningful support, even if the majority supported it,
Disagree, like I said, you can support a 3rd party candidate without planning on voting for them. Everyone knows you have to eat shit on voting day, but before then, you can point out all the good things about a particular candidate, even if you know they are not going to win.
People can’t just all spontaneously decide together to switch, unless you have some means of coordinating it.
Yes, this is why it may happen an election or two after we get critical mass. It's a limitation of the tools we have.
Remember if the 3rd party candidate has the support, they are no longer a 3rd party. People can say they are 3rd party, but they would be wrong or coping.
- Yes, this is why it may happen an election or two after we get critical mass.
  This is fundamentally not how things work. It won't just spontaneously happen, just like that, it isn't a trivial issue. Even if every single Democratic voter would prefer the Green Party (for instance), each of them individually would think, "Well, I may want to switch, but nobody else is going to, so it would be a wasted vote." There's no reason this wouldn't continue indefinitely.
  This also ignores the fact that certain vote thresholds are necessary to be recognized as a major party and receive things like federal campaign funding and a spot in televised debates. Collecting votes doesn't only help in terms of perceived relevancy, but it also directly helps in spreading the message.
  I'd also like to point out that we're not at election day and yet you don't seem to be advocating for a third party, instead criticizing me for doing so. If your position is that you should support a third party up until it comes time to vote, then where is that support?
  
  There’s no reason this wouldn’t continue indefinitely.
  Wait, what? Why would it continue indefinitely? Lets say we had a Green Party with polling showing 90% of the population interested in that party. In what reason would you not vote for the Green Party (Assuming they are aligned with your goals)? Even if the polls are off we still have an extremely good chance of winning.
  vote thresholds are necessary to be recognized as a major party and receive things like federal campaign funding and a spot in televised debates.
  You don't technically need money to win an election, it helps, but all that matters is the votes. If you don't debate a popular candidate, your opponent can call you a coward. No one wants to debate anyone, it's just better optics to engage.
  If your position is that you should support a third party up until it comes time to vote, then where is that support?
  Ohhh, maybe you got me, I haven't been paying much attention to the 3rd party polling. Any progressive 3rd party candidates coming close to Biden or Trump? If they are, then you win, and let me know.
  Also, let me just say, if it is not too late, that I support all candidates that agree with me. Have any candidates in particular you want me to verify?
  
  Wait, what? Why would it continue indefinitely? Lets say we had a Green Party with polling showing 90% of the population interested in that party. In what reason would you not vote for the Green Party (Assuming they are aligned with your goals)? Even if the polls are off we still have an extremely good chance of winning.
  The Green Party would not be polling at 90%. When polls ask people who they intend to vote for, they would tell them that they intend to vote for the Democrats, because they consider the Greens nonviable.
  You know, like you said you're doing when I asked why you're not supporting them now.
  I guess you're expecting people to lie to pollsters or something? Most people aren't going to do that.
  You don’t technically need money to win an election, it helps, but all that matters is the votes. If you don’t debate a popular candidate, your opponent can call you a coward. No one wants to debate anyone, it’s just better optics to engage.
  This is so absurdly naive that it's hardly worth answering. Money lets you spread your message. Being in a debate lets you spread your message. These are massive advantages that it's virtually impossible to win without. People aren't voting completely divorced from anything campaigns do.
  Seriously, this is completely ridiculous and I won't entertain the notion further.
  
  When polls ask people who they intend to vote for, they would tell them that they intend to vote for the Democrats, because they consider the Greens nonviable.
  Sounds like we need to organize more to get better information. Also, what is this I found? https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx Looks like a poll that supports 3rd party candidates without committing to vote on them.
  This is so absurdly naive that it’s hardly worth answering.
  I think you misread my statement that you quoted. I didn't say money wasn't helpful. And I never said we don't need to debate. I said the debates will come to us if we are popular (You won't have to doge bullets Neo).
  Seriously, this is completely ridiculous and I won’t entertain the notion further.
  Your call if you want to end on some bad arguments.
  
  Sounds like we need to organize more to get better information. Also, what is this I found? https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx Looks like a poll that supports 3rd party candidates without committing to vote on them.
  Well then, seeing as that poll shows 63%, I assume you're voting third party with everyone else then, right? Because that's apparently how you think the world works.
  Stop giving me this nonsense and come back down to reality.
  
  Is that 63% specific candidate? Or is that 63% in general?
  Because of its 63% for a specific candidate we can talk. Looks like it's just in general. Which makes sense because the two candidates are particularly bad this upcoming election.
  Oh man, looks like you have no good arguments to counter mine, otherwise you would have used them. Looks like I'll have to put you back into the idiot category. Sorry.
  
  cites poll
  "actually, this poll is meaningless."
  Good talk.
  
  Whoa, where did I say the poll was meaningless?
  How do you do that thing where you put things I never said in my mouth? Hey, let me try.
  My name is OBJECTION! and I can't read.
  Wow, that was easier than I thought it was.
  Ad-homing is fun!
  
  That's not not how you spell ad-hominem or what it is.
  If the poll is not meaningless to you, then what number would it have to be for it to make you to vote third party?
  
  The poll would have to be about a specific candidate. Not voting third party in general.
  Third party in general just means that most people are sick of the two candidates in top. This could mean that we are splitting The 60% between five third-party candidates. This means the Democratic and Republican candidates are still on top?
  Now if 60% of the people were interested in voting for the green candidate specifically. Then I'm very interested and a big funny is about to happen to the Republican or Democratic candidate.

487 comments