Getting rid of Holcomb

[Thor]

So do the dead voting/ballot box stuffers

Care to elaborate, perhaps with data on how candidate enthusiasm affects number of people who vote and then perhaps some insight into how enthusiastic the average voter is for the current slate

Third parties need another Teddy Roosevelt to deal with the enthusiasm gap, and I don't see one on the horizon - and what ever became of the Bull Moose party anyway. Ripple in the stream, TR went on to do good things the party sank w/o a trace

And he managed to put Wilson in the WH. Probably not the outcome even he would have wanted.

 

[jamil]

OMG. Let's try some a simple example.

Democrat 5 votes
Republican 6 votes

Joe Blow votes Libertarian, so now we have

Democrat 5 votes
Republican 6 votes
Libertarian 1 vote

Now please explain how that is the same as

Democrat 5 votes
Republican 6 votes

Joe Blow votes Democrat, so now we have

Democrat 6 votes
Republican 6 votes

Not voting for someone is not the same as voting for someone else.

I think I did something similar leading up to the 2012 election on INGO. Didn't work then.

 

[jamil]

Now do it with a fixed voter base of 11 total voters. Joe Blow is one of the 11, and he doesn't want to vote for the Republican out of principle. Now the results would be
Democrat 5 votes
Republican 5 votes
Libertarian 1 vote.

He hasn't added a vote to the Democrat, but he has taken one away from the Republican.

You're assuming Joe Blow's vote belonged to the Republican. I think Joe Blow would have just as much right to ask all the Republican voters to vote for the Libertarian as the republican voters have to ask him to vote for the Republican.

 

[jamil]

I reject the assumption of a fixed voter base.

Yeah, but for the sake of argument, might as well.

 

[jamil]

Well, that's fine, but if the assumption is that a Libertarian's vote would have gone to the Republican if they weren't pissed at the Republican, then the example still holds up. And since that's what's being discussed, I still think it works. If they were going to vote Libertarian no matter what, then they're not part of the situation being discussed (getting rid of Holcomb).

It was fine until you put that in the mix. Now that you're making an argument that's not represented by a fixed voter base, foszoe's complaint is quite valid.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It was fine until you put that in the mix. Now that you're making an argument that's not represented by a fixed voter base, foszoe's complaint is quite valid.

Not really. The premise early on was that rather than vote for Holcomb (Republican) that some were going to vote for the Libertarian candidate. Now, if one presumes that they had a Republican candidate that they liked, then that vote would have gone for the Republican. Since they don't like Holcomb, they said they would vote L (or write-in). How is that not taking a vote away from the Republican? I agree that it does not add to the Democrat vote count, but it does lessen the Republican vote count.

 

[jamil]

Not really. The premise early on was that rather than vote for Holcomb (Republican) that some were going to vote for the Libertarian candidate. Now, if one presumes that they had a Republican candidate that they liked, then that vote would have gone for the Republican. Since they don't like Holcomb, they said they would vote L (or write-in). How is that not taking a vote away from the Republican? I agree that it does not add to the Democrat vote count, but it does lessen the Republican vote count.

How much does this group really impact the election? Is it really a tie without them? You add more factors in the mix and that stuff becomes more relevant. And again, what makes you think these principled voters owe their vote to a Republican?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

How much does this group really impact the election? Is it really a tie without them? You add more factors in the mix and that stuff becomes more relevant. And again, what makes you think these principled voters owe their vote to a Republican?

You mean other than saying that they would vote Republican if it weren't for a squishy candidate like Holcomb? That's what I'm basing this on. It's the "But for" argument. "But for Holcomb being the only choice" they would vote Republican. As for how much impact it could have? Look no further than Ross Perot.

 

[IndyBeerman]

Our problem is we either re-elect our somewhat spinless Governor or let A democrat get elected along with the chance losing one or both the House and Senate AND Trump losing the state in the presidential by doing this.

I help screwed the pooch in 92 by voting 3rd party casting a vote for Ross Perot.

The absolute last thing we need is a chance for a democratic candidate to get a solid chance to to get elected. While noble to vote 3rd candidate, until one comes along that CAN move the populous to more than a 33% mark, it can and will be disastrous with our 2A rights being put out there on a limb.

 

[foszoe]

Donnelley is a good example. One and done. Don't vote out of fear and be a lever puller.

If there is a silent majority, all the doomsday scenarios would backfire one and done.

If there isn't, at least we can quit relying on them to speak up.

 

[KLB]

Not really. The premise early on was that rather than vote for Holcomb (Republican) that some were going to vote for the Libertarian candidate. Now, if one presumes that they had a Republican candidate that they liked, then that vote would have gone for the Republican. Since they don't like Holcomb, they said they would vote L (or write-in). How is that not taking a vote away from the Republican? I agree that it does not add to the Democrat vote count, but it does lessen the Republican vote count.

If the number of voters that do that are enough to get the Democrat elected, maybe the republican Party should look at the candidates it is choosing. I think you'll find that number is really pretty small. As opposed to the usual insinuation around here that all votes for Ls fall into that category.

I think the more likely scenario is that there are some Republican candidates that a L voter will find acceptable at times.

 

[jamil]

You mean other than saying that they would vote Republican if it weren't for a squishy candidate like Holcomb? That's what I'm basing this on. It's the "But for" argument. "But for Holcomb being the only choice" they would vote Republican. As for how much impact it could have? Look no further than Ross Perot.

So you're basing it on independent minded people caring more about the person they're voting for than the party. That sounds a lot like not owing Republicans their votes. It's not that they would owe their vote to Republicans, "but for" the squishiness. It's that they are choosing a candidate based on the candidate's political record, character, and mostly their alignment on the issues. I am NOT a Republican. But I am typically pragmatic in the understanding that exactly one of two candidates will win the top offices, because there are two competitive parties. So for me it's usually a choice between the least evil of the two candidates that can possibly win. That's typically a Republican. I could vote for a sane, mature Libertarian if there were such a unicorn. There comes a point, especially with Indiana squishies, where we need to send a message so that we can have future candidates who are viable. That's the rationale. It's not a "but for" argument, because that implies an allegiance otherwise, yet not in evidence.

And incidentally that strategy isn't always grand either. Mourdock is a good example. Yeah. We got rid of squishy Lugar. Great. Then we got Jo Jo the Union Ho to occupy the office for 6 years. And now we have Mike Braun, essentially the new and improved, Dick Lugar 2.0. The mistake there wasn't in ousting the guy who could beat Donnelly--undoubtedly Lugar would have saved us from that 6 years of Donnelly. The mistake was replacing Lugar with the incompetent Mourdock, who couldn't handle answering a simple gotcha question. That stupid mother****er didn't have to stand up there, faith on his sleeve, and profess his faith to Jesus. All he had to do was sidestep the question and move on, like any politician running for the US Senate should be able to do. But I digress. That's beside the point that people don't owe their votes to Republicans.

 

[jamil]

Our problem is we either re-elect our somewhat spinless Governor or let A democrat get elected along with the chance losing one or both the House and Senate AND Trump losing the state in the presidential by doing this.

I help screwed the pooch in 92 by voting 3rd party casting a vote for Ross Perot.

The absolute last thing we need is a chance for a democratic candidate to get a solid chance to to get elected. While noble to vote 3rd candidate, until one comes along that CAN move the populous to more than a 33% mark, it can and will be disastrous with our 2A rights being put out there on a limb.

It's not a fact that Perot cost Bush the election. Union folks who would have voted for Clinton voted for Perot in high numbers. But I will grant that the numbers in reality are probably close enough that it could go either way, and so the point is worth making in a discussion like this.

 

[DNS]

The last thing we need in Indiana, is a democrat governor to have any, no matter how remote chance of getting elected!

 

[churchmouse]

The last thing we need in Indiana, is a democrat governor to have any, no matter how remote chance of getting elected!

Please please please just look at our lack luster waste of skin Mayor. This is a prime example of what the "D"s bring regardless of how spineless (yes he is) the Gov. is.

Its your vote. Use it as you see fit. Just please look at the bigger picture.

 

[jamil]

Please please please just look at our lack luster waste of skin Mayor. This is a prime example of what the "D"s bring regardless of how spineless (yes he is) the Gov. is.

Its your vote. Use it as you see fit. Just please look at the bigger picture.

This is the proper way to address your belief. Convince people through trying to persuade them, rather than saying they're saying things they aren't saying, or doing things they're not really doing. Kudos.

 

[churchmouse]

This is the proper way to address your belief. Convince people through trying to persuade them, rather than saying they're saying things they aren't saying, or doing things they're not really doing. Kudos.

We can argue over anything. And not much changes.

We can threaten with what ever comes to mind and again....not much changes.

Until folks stop being self righteous about this crap not much will change and our strength is reduced. It is not about you. It is about the Republic in which you are a part. A very small part. Until many realize they are such a small part and move to make change en-mass this will only get worse. Stop thinking it is all about you and your silly butt hurt. Get over it and open your eyes.

Or remain locked inside yourself and watch it all come crashing down because we are well on our way. Your "I will show them vote" shows no one anything. No one that matters cares.

Again, its your vote. Use it while we still can.

A blessed Friday too you all.

 

[BugI02]

So you're basing it on independent minded people caring more about the person they're voting for than the party. That sounds a lot like not owing Republicans their votes. It's not that they would owe their vote to Republicans, "but for" the squishiness. It's that they are choosing a candidate based on the candidate's political record, character, and mostly their alignment on the issues. I am NOT a Republican. But I am typically pragmatic in the understanding that exactly one of two candidates will win the top offices, because there are two competitive parties. So for me it's usually a choice between the least evil of the two candidates that can possibly win. That's typically a Republican. I could vote for a sane, mature Libertarian if there were such a unicorn. There comes a point, especially with Indiana squishies, where we need to send a message so that we can have future candidates who are viable. That's the rationale. It's not a "but for" argument, because that implies an allegiance otherwise, yet not in evidence.

And incidentally that strategy isn't always grand either. Mourdock is a good example. Yeah. We got rid of squishy Lugar. Great. Then we got Jo Jo the Union Ho to occupy the office for 6 years. And now we have Mike Braun, essentially the new and improved, Dick Lugar 2.0. The mistake there wasn't in ousting the guy who could beat Donnelly--undoubtedly Lugar would have saved us from that 6 years of Donnelly. The mistake was replacing Lugar with the incompetent Mourdock, who couldn't handle answering a simple gotcha question. That stupid mother****er didn't have to stand up there, faith on his sleeve, and profess his faith to Jesus. All he had to do was sidestep the question and move on, like any politician running for the US Senate should be able to do. But I digress. That's beside the point that people don't owe their votes to Republicans.

I would like nothing better than to see a viable third party, especially if it was centrist. I think that is the fastest way to cut off the extremes from relevance and pull all candidates towards the center. I don't know how to get from here to there, though, without some really rocky times in the internecene period which I am loath to live through unnecessarily

Outlier opinion alert! I think Trumpism is far enough outside the lines to essentially be a third party even though he co-opted one of the existing parties. I would welcome something similar arising on the left, and then the two major parties calving into four. Four competitive parties would likely be as good as three, and even if they devolve eventually back to two (as the system seems designed to do) they might be better than what we have

I'm less dissatisfied with what we've got, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. The lesson of history (provided Trump is re-elected) is from the Reagan era. Worry about who takes up the reins afterward

 

[edporch]

In the end for the 2016 election, it's either going to be the Republican or the Democrat.
Don't kid ourselves.

There's also NO Democrat that would be better than Holcomb for Governor.

YES, I'm sure there's better Republicans than Holcomb for Governor.
The time to change that is in the Primary.

 

[foszoe]

In the end for the 2016 election, it's either going to be the Republican or the Democrat.
Don't kid ourselves.

There's also NO Democrat that would be better than Holcomb for Governor.

YES, I'm sure there's better Republicans than Holcomb for Governor.
The time to change that is in the Primary.

If the actions of that Democratic governor while in office for a term solidified the resolve of the electorate to become more involved in advancing their political agendas and the silent majority became vocal then I would hold that the Democrats did more for the state than Holcomb