You're viewing a single thread.
She knows what she's doing. Obvious spoiler campaign.
If you read the article, it's actually about the Green New Deal, which was the same issue she ran on in 2012 and 2016. You know, climate change. That issue that the Republicans don't think is real and the Democrats don't take seriously.
Of course - and siphoning progressive voters from practical opposition to Trump is going to help the climate a great deal.
the Democrats don't own the votes. they need to earn the votes.
Someone doesn't understand game theory.
I do. I also know that it doesn't reflect either how people should or actually do make decisions.
Except it does. That is why a two part system is inevitable is a winner-take-all election system as we have. Politicians want as few competitors as possible, which is one (exceptions being a one party totalitarian government). The two parties reinforce their dominance by passing laws that limit the ability of third parties to get on the ballot. They also constrain funding to their own parties, so third parties can't even begin to match their resources. Third parties CAN NOT win in the current political system. A third party vote is only ever taking a vote away from one of the two major party candidates.
if what you say about the inevitability of the two parties prevailing is true, then the fact that human behavior is not dictated by game theory is very easy to prove: people still vote third party despite this. I don't actually believe what you said is provable, nor do I believe people always act in rational self interest.
That people don't act in rational self interest is exactly what game theory is about. The Prisoner's Dilemma speaks precisely to this. The fact that there has been no president elected from a third party since the fall of the Whig party is proof enough that it just can't happen.
I guarantee there will not be an america, a democrat party, or a republican party in 2000 years. 500 years is likely. 5 years is possible. none of this requires game theory.
the prisoners dilemma does not speak at all about the longevity of political parties or the possibility of getting any of them elected. it also doesn't actually describe a real situation that's ever happened or will happen. it's a thought experiment that pols I majors think justifies voting for genocide.
Stein needs to earn them too. I see no reason why I should give my vote to someone who boosts pseudoscience. She's welcome to start trying at any time.
3rd party's don't siphon votes. We wouldn't vote for your BlueMAGA pieces of shit if they were the only ones in the ballot
Ah yes, 2016
When she divided democratic votes.
How did that go again?
she didn't divide democratic votes. hilary divided green votes