Obama warning - dont vote 3rd party or Trump

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
You can interpret it as you wish.
The fact is that not voting means nothing (and I'm considering the option), when all is said and done. Voting "against" someone makes no sense to me. And voting for Johnson would be (do I have to add "IMHO"?) ridiculous.

Obama wants Hillary to win. It is his right as an American citizen to express his opinion. No? I agree with some of his opinions and disagree with others. My right. Being President does not remove his right to express his opinions.

originally posted by: Seiko
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

They do however have a chance. It' a long shot chance with great odds but five parties are on enough ballots in enough states to garner the needed electoral college votes sufficient to gain the presidency.

The political landscape is a great example of the false dichotomy.

there's always a chance... But the probability is rather low. One of the biggest reasons I think is...that 3rd party nominees dont get nearly enough media time....

A question: why wasnt a 3rd party candidate present at the presidential debate the other day ? It makes as if 3rd party doesnt even exist...

originally posted by: Seiko
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Our president doesn't enact laws, he signs them, he can however veto. As just happened he vetoed a bill and was overridden.

congress overrides Obama

hmmm...thanks for the link. Did not know that. What's the point of having a veto power...if it can be overridden ?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

why wasnt a 3rd party candidate present at the presidential debate the other day ?

Because the prior established rules did not allow it.
Rules fair? Maybe not. But they were established a while back and everyone knew them.

*Trying to visualize Johnson up there*

The guy is maybe likeable but he is mostly incoherent.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

When the league of women voters refused to make changes for the presidential debates the republican and democratic party started their own committee. This committee puts certain rules on who can attend. The major block is amount of numbers in nationwide polls.

On an aside Jill Stein has tried to crash them last election and was detained by the secret service and again this year and was escorted off the grounds by county and campus police.

originally posted by: Phage
The fact is that not voting means nothing (and I'm considering the option), when all is said and done.

The Presidential comment makes more sense with an implied "If you normally vote Democrat".
If one normally votes Democrat, and doesn't this time, then the reduction in Democrat voting might be enough to let in the other main candidate.

a reply to: Phage

Voting "against" someone makes no sense to me.

One of the very few points on which I agree with you Phage

It is his right as an American citizen to express his opinion. No? I agree with some of his opinions and disagree with others. My right. Being President does not remove his right to express his opinions.

But is it his right ? I'm not sure how it goes in the US..legal wise...but my president could be penalized for taking sides since he/she carries a great deal of influence on public. Is it fair on the election ?

a reply to: DISRAELI

If one normally votes Democrat, and doesn't this time, then the reduction in Democrat voting might be enough to let in the other main candidate.

I don't follow the logic.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

But is it his right ?

Yes. The Office removes no personal rights. He can say anything I can say. In particular, and especially, because he is not running for office. He faces no legal or (perhaps more importantly) political repercussions.

a reply to: Seiko

On an aside Jill Stein has tried to crash them last election and was detained by the secret service and again this year and was escorted off the grounds by county and campus police.

well..that's why I think 3rd party doesn really stand a chance. The game is rigged in favor of the big players. Isn't this the main reason you have electoral college ?

originally posted by: Phage
I don't follow the logic.

Let me illustrate the logic by oversimplifying the maths.
Let us suppose there are 100 voters; of whom 55 normally vote Democrat, 45 normally vote Republican.
If 15 of those 55 decide not to vote or vote for a third party, the Democrats become 40 and the Republican 45 will win.

a reply to: DISRAELI
What if.

What if 15 of those 45 do the same? Or do you think all Republicans will vote Trump?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

the "electors" as named in the constitution and what we call the "electoral college" was a compromise between allowing a full democratic election or having the president elected by congress. If no candidate achieves the magic 270 votes required the congress will elect one from the top three with the vice president being picked by the senate.

And now in a round about way we're actually answering why the president would stump for his successor and his party down ballot.

I realize this is a lot of information to digest but it is connected and explains why. I hope I've explained it well enough.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I got you the first time

It does make sense to a degree. He's actually calling on the dem voters who are disapointed by his presidency

a reply to: Phage
Quite; that is why the comment "You will give the election to Trump" is pyschologically revealing. It implies a fear that Democrat defections will be more substantial than Republican defections. If that anxiety is in place, then the comment does make sense.

a reply to: DISRAELI

It implies a fear that Democrat defections will be more substantial than Republican defections. If that anxiety is in place, then the comment does make sense.

Is the Trump campaign encouraging people to vote who may not otherwise do so?
Are they afraid of who they might vote for?

a reply to: Seiko

I realize this is a lot of information to digest but it is connected and explains why. I hope I've explained it well enough.

Yes it is to an outsider like me.

Anyway...thanks for the effort.

Also, your avatar helped

a reply to: Phage

Is the Trump campaign encouraging people to vote? At all?

I think he doesnt have to. "Angry white men" are more then eager this time around

originally posted by: Phage
Is the Trump campaign encouraging people to vote who may not otherwise do so?
Are they afraid of who they might vote for?

I have no idea. I'm not taking sides here, not trying to predict what will happen.
All I am doing is interpreting the psychology of what Obama is supposed to have said.
The argument does make more sense to people who are more used to three-party politics. To take one example, David Cameron felt a danger that Conservative voters defecting to UKIP would hand elections to Labour; it was to ward off that possibility that he allowed the Brexit referendum to happen. For that matter, did the Wallace candidacy help Nixon to win in 1968?

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
Depends on what they are angry about. And if there are enough of them, compared to everyone else.