Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[wareyin]

Self-fulfilling prophecy of "realistic" it is.

I certainly hope that claiming that the American population is not stupid becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now, how about you start providing evidence that there is even 1% of a chance that the next President will not be Clinton or Trump? Show me historical voting trends, current polls, anything more than the magical 'if we all just like, voted for someone not even on the ballot they could totally win, man' that a freshmen political science minor might state after a few bong hits.

 

[Belz...]

Self-fulfilling prophecy of "realistic" it is.

What does that even mean?

If you have 3 options, and option 3 has little chance of winning, but your objective is making sure that option 2 doesn't win, then voting for option 1 makes sense. You might call it a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it's just pragmatic thinking.

ETA: The thing is, each person is only worth 1 vote, so voting for a weak candidate does nothing to help, and might actually help the option you want to avoid. The only way to change that is to campaign for option 3 and try to make them a strong contender.

 

[caveman1917]

Now, how about you start providing evidence that there is even 1% of a chance that the next President will not be Clinton or Trump?

I don't have to provide any such evidence. I'll just ask you the same thing as I asked Skeptic Ginger: do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?

 

[caveman1917]

What does that even mean?

What it means is that there are more people whose primary choice would be neither the democratic nor republican candidate than people whose primary choice is either the democratic or republican candidate. However, by the time it comes to actually voting, people will hold the belief that it's not "realistic" to vote for anyone but either the democratic or republican candidate, hence choosing to vote for either of those two candidates rather than their primary choice, and thereby creating the very conditions under which their belief of other candidates not being "realistic" comes true.

 

[wareyin]

I don't have to provide any such evidence. I'll just ask you the same thing as I asked Skeptic Ginger: do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?

If you wish to be taken seriously, you do. Or, continue as you are.

 

[Belz...]

What it means is that there are more people whose primary choice would be neither the democratic nor republican candidate than people whose primary choice is either the democratic or republican candidate. However, by the time it comes to actually voting, people will hold the belief that it's not "realistic" to vote for anyone but either the democratic or republican candidate, hence choosing to vote for either of those two candidates rather than their primary choice, and thereby creating the very conditions under which their belief of other candidates not being "realistic" comes true.

What other choice should they make? Throw away their vote and give the third candidate +1 vote? As I said, one has to campaign to increase the overall chances of the candidate.

The US should have a two-round voting system lik in France. First vote for the candidate you like and, if they don't make it to the second round, vote for the lesser evil.

 

[caveman1917]

If you wish to be taken seriously, you do.

There is nothing inherently good about being taken seriously, it depends on by whom one is supposed to be taken seriously.

Let's use a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. People believe a certain bank is insolvent, leading them to all try to withdraw their money, leading to the bank being insolvent. According to your reasoning, if someone wants to claim this to be a self-fulling prophecy, then they should provide evidence that, after this mass withdrawal, the bank has a chance not to be insolvent after all.

I'll just repeat my question again: do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?

 

[caveman1917]

What other choice should they make? Throw away their vote and give the third candidate +1 vote?

Are you claiming that 40% of Americans only share a single vote among them?

 

[Belz...]

Are you claiming that 40% of Americans only share a single vote among them?

...what?

 

[wareyin]

There is nothing inherently good about being taken seriously, it depends on by whom one is supposed to be taken seriously.

Let's use a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. People believe a certain bank is insolvent, leading them to all try to withdraw their money, leading to the bank being insolvent. According to your reasoning, if someone wants to claim this to be a self-fulling prophecy, then they should provide evidence that, after this mass withdrawal, the bank has a chance not to be insolvent after all.

I'll just repeat my question again: do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is?

You have it exactly backwards. According to your reasoning, despite the history of banks becoming insolvent in these cases, you should leave your money in the bank because if everyone else did, the bank would not become insolvent. Those with an understanding of history and current voting patterns understand that your candidate will not win for voting, and you will lose your money in your bank scenario.

 

[The Don]

Are you claiming that 40% of Americans only share a single vote among them?

40% of the U.S. population may identify as independent but that does not mean that they are completely "independent" per-se. Neither of my parents-in-law have a registered party affiliation, and so are "independent" but each has voted for the same party at every election since they became entitled to vote in 1960. They are independents who always vote for the same major party.

Even if someone is "independent" to the extent that they don't have a party affiliation and they really do change which party they vote for, it doesn't mean that they are prepared to choose a candidate outside the two main parties. They are independents who switch between the two main parties.

Among the 40%, IMO most people fit into the two categories above.

 

[caveman1917]

You have it exactly backwards. According to your reasoning, despite the history of banks becoming insolvent in these cases, you should leave your money in the bank because if everyone else did, the bank would not become insolvent. Those with an understanding of history and current voting patterns understand that your candidate will not win for voting, and you will lose your money in your bank scenario.

According to my reasoning, it's the people who are saying "the bank is insolvent" who are responsible for the bank becoming insolvent. Likewise, it is the people who are saying "there are no other realistic choices" who are responsible for there not being other "realistic" choices.

Presumably the people who originate the idea of the bank being insolvent have something to gain by the bank becoming insolvent. Likewise, presumably the people who originate the idea of there not being any other "realistic choice" have something to gain from there not being any other realistic choice. Such as being able to promote literally any candidate, no matter how "evil", without needing to defend their candidate on their own terms.

 

[caveman1917]

...what?

If they (ie that 40% primarily independent-affiliated) were to vote for another candidate it would amount to +1 vote for that candidate.

 

[wareyin]

According to my reasoning, it's the people who are saying "the bank is insolvent" who are responsible for the bank becoming insolvent. Likewise, it is the people who are saying "there are no other realistic choices" who are responsible for there not being other "realistic" choices.

Presumably the people who originate the idea of the bank being insolvent have something to gain by the bank becoming insolvent. Likewise, presumably the people who originate the idea of there not being any other "realistic choice" have something to gain from there not being any other realistic choice. Such as being able to promote literally any candidate, no matter how "evil", without needing to defend their candidate on their own terms.

Your presumptions are as bad as your understanding of how voting works.

 

[wareyin]

40% of the U.S. population may identify as independent but that does not mean that they are completely "independent" per-se. Neither of my parents-in-law have a registered party affiliation, and so are "independent" but each has voted for the same party at every election since they became entitled to vote in 1960. They are independents who always vote for the same major party.

Even if someone is "independent" to the extent that they don't have a party affiliation and they really do change which party they vote for, it doesn't mean that they are prepared to choose a candidate outside the two main parties. They are independents who switch between the two main parties.

Among the 40%, IMO most people fit into the two categories above.

But, dude, what if, like, everyone who didn't register as Republican or Democrat all chose to vote for Stephen Colbert? That would be so awesome! Wait, you are telling me Stephen Colbert has no chance of winning? That's just, like, a self-fulfilling prophecy, man! You don't know that!

</stoner understanding of US voting>

 

[Belz...]

If they (ie that 40% primarily independent-affiliated) were to vote for another candidate it would amount to +1 vote for that candidate.

Only if you see them as a block and not as individuals. Perhaps you should re-read my post. Each person makes their choices individually. You're not going to make these third candidates win unless you somehow convince a lot of people to vote for them. A single individual vote makes no difference.

 

[caveman1917]

40% of the U.S. population may identify as independent but that does not mean that they are completely "independent" per-se. Neither of my parents-in-law have a registered party affiliation, and so are "independent" but each has voted for the same party at every election since they became entitled to vote in 1960. They are independents who always vote for the same major party.

Even if someone is "independent" to the extent that they don't have a party affiliation and they really do change which party they vote for, it doesn't mean that they are prepared to choose a candidate outside the two main parties. They are independents who switch between the two main parties.

Among the 40%, IMO most people fit into the two categories above.

I checked turnout figures against this, seems that turnout for elections is at around 60%, so it's probably more likely that people self-identifying as independents don't vote. Which is interesting, I'd have thought that independents having internalized the claims by partisan "realists" would actually change their vote but it seems they just don't bother voting at all. It still leads to the same results of course, as those who don't vote don't get counted in anyway.

 

[caveman1917]

But, dude, what if, like, everyone who didn't register as Republican or Democrat all chose to vote for Stephen Colbert? That would be so awesome! Wait, you are telling me Stephen Colbert has no chance of winning? That's just, like, a self-fulfilling prophecy, man! You don't know that!

</stoner understanding of US voting>

But, dude, what if, like, everyone actually didn't withdraw their money from the bank? That would be so awesome! Wait, are you telling me that the bank is insolvent and we should all go withdraw our money? That's just, like, a self-fulfilling prophecy, man! You don't know that the bank is insolvent!

</actual understanding of how self-fulfilling prophecies work>

 

[caveman1917]

But, dude, what if, like, everyone who didn't register as Republican or Democrat all chose to vote for Stephen Colbert?

But, dude, self-identifying with Democrats/Republicans is like totally the same thing as actually registering as a Democrat/Republican.

</alcoholic understanding of the difference between party affiliation and party membership>

 

[caveman1917]

Only if you see them as a block and not as individuals. Perhaps you should re-read my post. Each person makes their choices individually. You're not going to make these third candidates win unless you somehow convince a lot of people to vote for them. A single individual vote makes no difference.

True, an individual vote makes no difference. But then why are people voting in the first place?