Not Since 1890

[Perknose]

In fact, not ever, until now. The Arizona Republic, which started publishing in 1890, has never once endorsed a Democrat for President, until now.

Folks, this is just one historic clue that the choice between the two electable Presidential candidates in this election really, really matters.

 

[theeedude]

Yikes, they even endorsed Nixon twice, and were neutral between Nixon and Humphrey.

 

[disappoint]

This foretells of a landslide victory for Trump in November.

This post brought to you by the alternate reality fairy, the letter A and the number B.

 

[Cozarkian]

Yet another person being lead down the path of the self-fulfilling prophecy without paying any heed to where it may lead.

Anyone excluding candidates other than Hillary and Trump is begging the question, because it is only the pre-election assumption that nobody else can win that makes it true.

It is also a self-delusion, because guess what - - your vote for Hillary or Clinton isn't going to make a difference. Even in swing states, the chance of a one-vote winner is so low it is practically non-existent. Your vote is a symbol that will have a greater impact if you use it to symbolically state a preference for a third party candidate.

Think of the future. Every journey starts with a single step and if we ever want to have a choice between more than two candidates now is the time to take that step. The more support third party candidates get in this election the greater the impact will be on the chances of third party candidates in future elections.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yet another person being lead down the path of the self-fulfilling prophecy without paying any heed to where it may lead.

Anyone excluding candidates other than Hillary and Trump is begging the question, because it is only the pre-election assumption that nobody else can win that makes it true.

It is also a self-delusion, because guess what - - your vote for Hillary or Clinton isn't going to make a difference. Even in swing states, the chance of a one-vote winner is so low it is practically non-existent. Your vote is a symbol that will have a greater impact if you use it to symbolically state a preference for a third party candidate.

Think of the future. Every journey starts with a single step and if we ever want to have a choice between more than two candidates now is the time to take that step. The more support third party candidates get in this election the greater the impact will be on the chances of third party candidates in future elections.

Bullshit. We had a multiplicity of candidates to choose from in the Primaries, winnowed down to Clinton & what's his name, the loud mouthed idiot. Nether Stein nor Johnson represent an actual political party, anyway, but rather just splinter groups.

Right wingers always spew this crap to amplify the effects of their brain dead cadre who'll vote Republican no matter what. It's why they love voter suppression & low turnout as well.

 

[justoh]

So it's an organization which had (presumably) previously supported a mormon. Doesn't that mean we should do the opposite of what they suggest now?

 

[VRAMdemon]

Well...Trump still has the endorsement of the National Enquirer. And the New York Post, I think.

Both of them the very pinnacle of journalistic integrity and ethical behavior...

 

[trenchfoot]

Bullshit. We had a multiplicity of candidates to choose from in the Primaries, winnowed down to Clinton & what's his name, the loud mouthed idiot. Nether Stein nor Johnson represent an actual political party, anyway, but rather just splinter groups.

Right wingers always spew this crap to amplify the effects of their brain dead cadre who'll vote Republican no matter what. It's why they love voter suppression & low turnout as well.

In the mysterious Rovian dialect of which only "real" conservatives understand, a true blue Repub buddy of mine half-jokingly translated for me what you mentioned as "evening the odds" in order to give them "an equal chance at winning elections."

So I assume then the term "fair play" in Rove speak means to disingenuously interpret the Constitution at the razor's edge of it's boundaries where the event horizon of treason exists and where a confounding zone of grey flux can be found and exploited in order to "keep things on a level playing field."

 

[Moonbeam]

Yet another person being lead down the path of the self-fulfilling prophecy without paying any heed to where it may lead.

Anyone excluding candidates other than Hillary and Trump is begging the question, because it is only the pre-election assumption that nobody else can win that makes it true.

It is also a self-delusion, because guess what - - your vote for Hillary or Clinton isn't going to make a difference. Even in swing states, the chance of a one-vote winner is so low it is practically non-existent. Your vote is a symbol that will have a greater impact if you use it to symbolically state a preference for a third party candidate.

Think of the future. Every journey starts with a single step and if we ever want to have a choice between more than two candidates now is the time to take that step. The more support third party candidates get in this election the greater the impact will be on the chances of third party candidates in future elections.

A noble sentiment with no real hope of achievement. As you said, my vote doesn't matter, even when cast for a third party candidate. The public is asleep and will not awaken. Until our elected representatives are held to account to represent us and not the interests of those who pay to elect them, no hope exists. An alternate dream would be to call a constitutional convention and demand public funding for elections, the option to vote none of the above and the ability to prioritize ones choices so that if ones vote for a candidate that loses goes to the next candidate selected. In such a system one could safely vote for a third party candidate without risking the greater of two evils might get elected because in such a system you can't waste a vote and risk electing the greatest evil. Until people demand such changes nothing will change. Just saying. None of the people we typically elect would ever desire these changes, third party or otherwise, I think it best we strive to make those changes what people need to go for, one voice at a time. Why not push for the best solution if you are going against a hopeless situation.

 

[JSt0rm]

I think the best ending for the human race would be trump elected and then him getting pissy and droping nukes and the world ends in nuke war. This has to be our eventual end anyhow. On a long enough timeline with such a flawed fearful warlike creature? We evolved wrong.

 

[Mandres]

It is also a self-delusion, because guess what - - your vote for Hillary or Clinton isn't going to make a difference.

Troll detected!

 

[Moonbeam]

Mandres, why would you call that a troll post. It is a very typical point of view expressed by many people.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the best ending for the human race would be trump elected and then him getting pissy and droping nukes and the world ends in nuke war. This has to be our eventual end anyhow. On a long enough timeline with such a flawed fearful warlike creature? We evolved wrong.

I don't see why the world should suffer just because modern American conservatives are suffering from a brain defect.

 

[JSt0rm]

I don't see why the world should suffer just because modern American conservatives are suffering from a brain defect.

too late for that my friend

 

[Cozarkian]

A noble sentiment with no real hope of achievement. As you said, my vote doesn't matter, even when cast for a third party candidate. The public is asleep and will not awaken. Until our elected representatives are held to account to represent us and not the interests of those who pay to elect them, no hope exists. An alternate dream would be to call a constitutional convention and demand public funding for elections, the option to vote none of the above and the ability to prioritize ones choices so that if ones vote for a candidate that loses goes to the next candidate selected. In such a system one could safely vote for a third party candidate without risking the greater of two evils might get elected because in such a system you can't waste a vote and risk electing the greatest evil. Until people demand such changes nothing will change. Just saying. None of the people we typically elect would ever desire these changes, third party or otherwise, I think it best we strive to make those changes what people need to go for, one voice at a time. Why not push for the best solution if you are going against a hopeless situation.

Interesting post. You start with what appears to be a rejection of my position on grounds it is impossible to achieve but end with the acknowledgement that the only way to bring change is to try and the conclusion that we should try.

Did you intend to ultimately agree with me?

 

[MongGrel]

Yet another person being lead down the path of the self-fulfilling prophecy without paying any heed to where it may lead.

Anyone excluding candidates other than Hillary and Trump is begging the question, because it is only the pre-election assumption that nobody else can win that makes it true.

It is also a self-delusion, because guess what - - your vote for Hillary or Clinton isn't going to make a difference. Even in swing states, the chance of a one-vote winner is so low it is practically non-existent. Your vote is a symbol that will have a greater impact if you use it to symbolically state a preference for a third party candidate.

Think of the future. Every journey starts with a single step and if we ever want to have a choice between more than two candidates now is the time to take that step. The more support third party candidates get in this election the greater the impact will be on the chances of third party candidates in future elections.

Third Party candidates are not going to do crap.

Other than muddy the water.

Waste your vote if you like.

 

[MongGrel]

I think the best ending for the human race would be trump elected and then him getting pissy and droping nukes and the world ends in nuke war. This has to be our eventual end anyhow. On a long enough timeline with such a flawed fearful warlike creature? We evolved wrong.

It would be Kubrikian.

 

[Moonbeam]

Interesting post. You start with what appears to be a rejection of my position on grounds it is impossible to achieve but end with the acknowledgement that the only way to bring change is to try and the conclusion that we should try.

Did you intend to ultimately agree with me?

I didn't intend to agree, only to suggest what I feel is a better hopeless dream. As long as you are going to have hope for what can't be, you might as well aim as high as you can, no?

You are asking that people do what is counterintuitive, to waste a vote that could advantage the greater of the two rejected evils. I am asking for a revolution to change how we vote so that one can cast a save third party vote. In my fantasy the world would be better because a third party would have a real chance. The defect, of course, is that there is no more chance of my fantasy happening than yours.

But as long as you are going to aspire for real change, might as well aspire for the best change that you can, no?

 

[Moonbeam]

Stroke the furry wall, hehe.

 

[Commodus]

Yet another person being lead down the path of the self-fulfilling prophecy without paying any heed to where it may lead.

Anyone excluding candidates other than Hillary and Trump is begging the question, because it is only the pre-election assumption that nobody else can win that makes it true.

It is also a self-delusion, because guess what - - your vote for Hillary or Clinton isn't going to make a difference. Even in swing states, the chance of a one-vote winner is so low it is practically non-existent. Your vote is a symbol that will have a greater impact if you use it to symbolically state a preference for a third party candidate.

Think of the future. Every journey starts with a single step and if we ever want to have a choice between more than two candidates now is the time to take that step. The more support third party candidates get in this election the greater the impact will be on the chances of third party candidates in future elections.

Someone I know created an elegant response to this "your vote doesn't matter, so vote for a third-party candidate in protest" rhetoric:

Black and Hispanic people don't have the luxury of a protest vote. The LGBT community doesn't have the luxury of a protest vote. Women who are pro-choice, or want someone who values equal pay for women, don't have the luxury of a protest vote. If Trump wins, they get screwed.

I agree that the US needs to move toward making third parties a viable option. But no, now is absolutely not the time to take that step. Trump is likely the worst major party presidential candidate in US history, and I'm not being hyperbolic. No experience, ignorance of the very basics of politics, habitual lying that makes Clinton seem like a saint, an unwillingness to take on the responsibilities of president, policies that openly court bigots, friendliness towards a dictatorial Russian government, economic strategies that are primarily designed to increase the wealth of his own company, and eagerness to commit war crimes. The threat he poses is too great to even take the chance that he might get in.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

In fact, not ever, until now. The Arizona Republic, which started publishing in 1890, has never once endorsed a Democrat for President, until now.

Folks, this is just one historic clue that the choice between the two electable Presidential candidates in this election really, really matters.

Clearly a matter of libral media.

Wish they'd endorse Vermin Supreme instead though

 

[Meghan54]

The Arizona Republic is suffering some major blowback for its decision to back a Democrat over a Republican in a presidential campaign for the first time since its founding in 1890.

Since the paper published its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president, it has faced a steady stream of subscription cancellations and even a death threat, according to a senior editor.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ter-clinton-endorsement/ar-BBwKJck?li=BBnbfcL

 

[Cozarkian]

I didn't intend to agree, only to suggest what I feel is a better hopeless dream. As long as you are going to have hope for what can't be, you might as well aim as high as you can, no?

You are asking that people do what is counterintuitive, to waste a vote that could advantage the greater of the two rejected evils. I am asking for a revolution to change how we vote so that one can cast a save third party vote. In my fantasy the world would be better because a third party would have a real chance. The defect, of course, is that there is no more chance of my fantasy happening than yours.

But as long as you are going to aspire for real change, might as well aspire for the best change that you can, no?

Got it. I agree we should switch to ranked voting. If people are split as to whether the best candidate is A or B, but everyone agrees C is second best, C should win. Technological advancements in the digital age have made this possible.

But there is no reason we can't take both actions concurrently and I think your post supports that we should.

I also disagree my position will helpTrump. I think there are more traditionally-republican voters looking for an alternative to Trump then there are people looking for an alternative to Clinton.

 

[Cozarkian]

Someone I know created an elegant response to this "your vote doesn't matter, so vote for a third-party candidate in protest" rhetoric:

Black and Hispanic people don't have the luxury of a protest vote. The LGBT community doesn't have the luxury of a protest vote. Women who are pro-choice, or want someone who values equal pay for women, don't have the luxury of a protest vote. If Trump wins, they get screwed.

I agree that the US needs to move toward making third parties a viable option. But no, now is absolutely not the time to take that step. Trump is likely the worst major party presidential candidate in US history, and I'm not being hyperbolic. No experience, ignorance of the very basics of politics, habitual lying that makes Clinton seem like a saint, an unwillingness to take on the responsibilities of president, policies that openly court bigots, friendliness towards a dictatorial Russian government, economic strategies that are primarily designed to increase the wealth of his own company, and eagerness to commit war crimes. The threat he poses is too great to even take the chance that he might get in.

That isn't elegant. Calling it a protest vote indicates this person has fallen for the exact same mathematically false belief that a vote counts more if it is for one of the two-party candidates.

If LGBT, pro-choice, and equal pay advocates like Clinton's positions on those issues and believe those issues are sufficiently important to sway their vote, then they should vote for Clinton.

 

[Ichinisan]

Let these parties know: If they want my vote next time, they will need to adopt some principles that appeal to Libertarians.