The “not voting is copping out” fallacy

Some people just aren’t going to vote for president on November 8.  They may vote for other offices and referendums on the ballot, but not for president.  Some say this is copping out.  I don’t think it is.   I’ll try to make my case after the jump. [Read more…]

The other races

Democrats need to take 30 seats to win control of the House of Representatives.  But they only need to turn four to take the Senate.The former is unlikely to happen.  The latter will be close.

Read about the closely contested seats after the jump. [Read more…]

How to defeat conservatives

James O’Keefe, the undercover videographer who enrages leftists by recording what they say, has recorded Democratic operatives admitting to voting fraud, illegally colluding with the Clinton campaign,  and hiring agitators to start fights at Donald Trump rallies so as to associate the Republicans with violence.  (For all the tapes, go here.)

One of the operatives he interviews is Robert Creamer.  (For that video, go here.)

I’d like to turn your attention to something that  Creamer wrote back in 2007 in a book on how progressives can defeat conservatives.  His words are scarily prophetic.  They apply to more than just political conservatives, and they need to be remembered in the days ahead.  After the jump, read what he has to say. [Read more…]

The “a vote for a third party is a vote for Clinton” fallacy

Those who say they are voting for a third party or independent candidate often hear that doing so is equivalent to a vote for Hillary Clinton.

In this reasoning, not voting for Donald Trump is voting for Clinton.  This is because, I assume, a vote that Trump doesn’t get is helping his opponent win her majority.

But you could just as easily say that voting for a third party or independent candidate is also a vote that Hillary Clinton doesn’t get.

[Read more…]

Which kind of conservatism?

Matthew Continetti has written an essay that is sure to get attention, as the Republican party tries to put itself back together.  Entitled “Crisis of the Conservative Intellectual,” the piece traces the longtime conflict between “conservatism” (that is, the classic version that seeks to preserve institutions and that opposes modernity’s love of change) and “populism” (which opposes existing institutions and wants to change society).

This has come to a head in Donald Trump’s candidacy, which opposes the “establishment,” including the Republican establishment.

Continetti’s essay takes a historical look at this conflict, as well as the times when the two philosophies worked together, for example, to elect Ronald Reagan.  In the course of doing so, he also talks about other competing versions of what conservatism is, such as the New Right, neoconservatives, social conservatives, the the religious right (which, he says, combined populism with the institution-conserving conservatism of the William F. Buckleys).

Excerpted and linked after the jump. [Read more…]

The “throw away your vote” fallacy

If you vote for a third party or an independent candidate, some say, you are throwing away your vote.

So your vote has meaning only if you vote for someone who could win?  That makes no sense to me. [Read more…]