@108: "Logically inconsistent" doesn't always pair with "I don't get why you're doing what you're doing." An argument is logically consistent as long as it does not contain a contradiction. Our argument is that voting third party in a safe state will have a negligible effect on the outcome of the election, but will have a positive outcome for the third party and its associated political movements.
The first premise is that Washingtonians live in a safe state. The last time our state voted Republican was 1984. During the course of this comment thread, the win percentage for Clinton has actually bounced up from 92.7% to 93.5%. We currently have a 0.6% chance of tipping the election (i.e. being the state that decides it all). All of this holds true while a projected 11.5% of the population is voting for Gary Johnson. To tell me that my vote for the Green Party will cost Clinton the election is plain mathematical ignorance.
The second premise is that voting for the Green Party will help the Green Party. We've already discussed how, so we don't need to go into that again.
Therefore, as it stands, the only effect my vote will have on the election will be to provide support to the Green Party, which will help build an independent political movement on a local level for 2018, and on a national level for 2020. You can even borrow the logic of all those tepid Clinton supporters if you don't particularly like Stein: vote for the party, not the person.
As far as destroying the GOP, Clinton has already been wooing the far right
, their policy makers, and their billionaires. If anything, they'll be absorbed into the Democratic Party after a massive Trump loss (much like Arlen Specter was in 2009), pulling it even further to the right than it is at the moment. I don't know about you, but I can't wait until we ditch this two party system for a one party system.
On top of that, people are making the strange assumption that Clinton will appoint traditionally liberal SC justices when Clinton is a clearly neoliberal. Even the Clinton supporters here agree with that assessment
. We'll likely see a corporate-friendly, anti-union, and pro-government surveillance SC justice come out of a Clinton administration. They may have some left tendencies, but will be unwilling to take a bold stance on anything as controversial as Citizens United. Treading water isn't going to stop a more sophisticated Trump-like figure from winning in 2020.
@122: That sounds like a corporate Domino Theory, which worked so flawlessly last time. I'd rather not give multinational corporations the ability to sue governments over environmental regulations that could harm profitability for the sake of cultural and corporate imperialism.