Matthews: Third-party voters are 'idiots'

[Orcseeker]

Original article: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/matthews-thirdparty-voters-are-idiots-148639.html

Hard to tell if the A block of MSNBC's 12 p.m. hour today was "Now With Alex Wagner" or "Hardball with Chris Matthews."

Matthews was a guest at Wagner's table today but largely controlled the conversation as he railed against people who either weren't intending to vote or intended to vote for a third-party candidate.

"If you don't vote, you're an idiot," Matthews yelled at the camera. "If you don't vote, I don't want to talk to you. And if you vote for one of these numbskull third or fourth party candidates like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein and say, 'Oh, I was so surprised at what happened. ...' No! You shouldn't be! Because idiots like you voted for third- and fourt-party candidates, and they don't know how this system works. You have two choices."

Matthews has many fans on the left, but he probably just lost the Green Party. 

The larger issue on the table: Should cable news hosts be admonishing people based on how they vote?

So what kind of country is the US? One where you only have a small choice as to which goes where? That you are pigeonholed into making a choice regardless of your thoughts on the issue?

The main choices are what everyone hears about, they have an upper hand just on that information alone. People have these choices shoved in their faces. Those who don't delve to deeply in their choice would usually go for one or the other. Should those who do this be demonised and shunned? Is it not proof that some actual thought has gone into their vote and consideration of the alternatives? Should this not be encouraged?

What do you think?

[Hasina]

What do I think? I think Matthews is an idiot.

[supervike]

What do I think? I think Matthews is an idiot.

Took the words right out of my mouth. The guy is just a blowhard pundit. It's people like him that makes politics so hard to stay interested in.

Edited November 8, 2012 by supervike

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Mind you, to vote for a Third Party and be surprised they didn't win is somewhat naieve.

I'm never surprised the people I vote for don't win, Australia is inherently "conservative" while I vote "Green".

[ImaLoner]

Oh, now my feelings are hurt... I'm an idiot because I use my brain to think and choose which candidate I want, rather than who others tell me to vote for. Garsh... I guess it never occurred to Matthews that his chosen party may actually one day be obsolete.. Maybe he missed that bit in his History books about how majority parties disappeared after a shift in political opinions.. What a git!

[Ashotep]

Its your vote use it like you want to. I think third party candidates need more exposure.

[supervike]

Its your vote use it like you want to. I think third party candidates need more exposure.

Absolutely! Fresh ideas should never be dismissed.

[MiskatonicGrad]

Absolutely! Fresh ideas should never be dismissed.

unless they come from the mind of Chris Matthews. No fear of that though.

Edited November 8, 2012 by MiskatonicGrad

[F3SS]

Original article: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/11/matthews-thirdparty-voters-are-idiots-148639.html

So what kind of country is the US? One where you only have a small choice as to which goes where? That you are pigeonholed into making a choice regardless of your thoughts on the issue?

The main choices are what everyone hears about, they have an upper hand just on that information alone. People have these choices shoved in their faces. Those who don't delve to deeply in their choice would usually go for one or the other. Should those who do this be demonised and shunned? Is it not proof that some actual thought has gone into their vote and consideration of the alternatives? Should this not be encouraged?

What do you think?

He's just a sheep. I'm proud to admit that for the first time I chose every libertarian I could and no vote on two unchallenged dems. No, I didn't pick Gary Johnson. Just thought it was more important to get O out.

Anyhow, it should be encouraged not discouraged. Really, how the hell is someone like Gary Johnson supposed to get his name out. I seen two commercials for him during the fall but I only recognized what it was about because I knew who he was. Otherwise I'd never notice or remember. Third parties should be given exposure. They really can't achieve only 5% of the vote? Especially with all the Ron Paul supporters out there? Are Ron and Gary really that much different? If so, how?

Also, like 12-15M less people voted this year. Repubs lost around 2M votes and dems(Obama) lost around 12M since 2008. Were those independents and Paulies who just opted out? Were they former dem voters who didn't want to vote for Obama but couldn't vote for Romney? I doubt they were Paulies but the Obama still lost 12M votes. Who were they? I'm very curious.

EDIT: who were they and why didn't they vote.

Edited November 8, 2012 by -Mr_Fess-

[karmakazi]

Original article: http://www.politico....ots-148639.html

So what kind of country is the US? One where you only have a small choice as to which goes where? That you are pigeonholed into making a choice regardless of your thoughts on the issue?

The main choices are what everyone hears about, they have an upper hand just on that information alone. People have these choices shoved in their faces. Those who don't delve to deeply in their choice would usually go for one or the other. Should those who do this be demonised and shunned? Is it not proof that some actual thought has gone into their vote and consideration of the alternatives? Should this not be encouraged?

What do you think?

I think it's sad that there are people that not only listen to this guy but agree with him. No one should be bullied into voting one way or another, yet it is pretty common. Feh. Still glad I don't have cable after all these years.

More often than not, he who has the most money for the campaign wins.

Edited November 8, 2012 by karmakazi

[acidhead]

The idiots are more aptly called zombies in my book....... you know?..... anybody who voted either D or R yesterday.

lol

[Jackofalltrades]

In my opinion, it might benefit the US if there was another party elected and not just the democrat's or republican's party's that normally get elected...

They have both had more than their fair share of running the country, and where has it got the US ?

It would be benficial for the US to actually give the people a choice, rather than making them choose from the lesser of two evil's (Lib's/Dem's) which judging by what I seen in this election there is not much difference to each other

In my opinion, the playing field should be levelled out and make all candidates spend a maximum amount of money, and not spend million's/billion's to run for president (which I think is disgusting, as the money could be put to better use like housing the homeless etc), doing that would give the third party candidate's a chance at winning (some seem like they may do a better Job than any Lib/Dem has done to date) it would give the American people more choice to who they want as President, and who they think would actually do a better job

IF I voted (I dont vote) IF I could vote in the US, then I would vote for ANY other third party that seem they would do the job better, and not the Lib / Dem party's

Matthews seem's like a **** in my opinion (judging by what he said about people voting for third party's)

[F3SS]

I really like the idea of putting a cap on the amount of campaign money allowed to be spent. A cap for primaries and a cap for general. No billion dollar campaigning. It is kind of sick that a president makes 400k, swindles a billion dollars to advertise and touts himself as relating to the common man. Sounds more like a self fulfilling selfish thing looking at it that way. Limiting to 100-200M could first limit a campaign to the where one stands on issues and less focus on attacks. Plus, there would be an inevitable yearning for people to look into other options and parties when Ds and Rs aren't the only thing bombarding you in the face anymore.

[Gromdor]

Eh, but the PACs aren't directly affiliated with the campaigns, that is how they get around a lot of the rules regarding campaign spending.

[lightly]

There was a time when our two current major parties didn't exist.... they came into existence by "idiots" voting for an alternate party.

[ThickasaBrick]

Go out to a restaurant and find you only have a choice between a bland steak and dry chicken; would you go back to that restaurant? America needs more than a choice between Dem and Rep. All parties should have equal footing, equal financing, and get equal exposure. This will not happen due to the predominant parties who fear the independent candidates.

Regardless of what is said now, America has 4 more years of Obama. I hope that he will actually do well, but as the saying goes, hope in one hand, defecate in the other, see which fills up first.

[Orcseeker]

In my opinion, it might benefit the US if there was another party elected and not just the democrat's or republican's party's that normally get elected...

They have both had more than their fair share of running the country, and where has it got the US ?

It would be benficial for the US to actually give the people a choice, rather than making them choose from the lesser of two evil's (Lib's/Dem's) which judging by what I seen in this election there is not much difference to each other

In my opinion, the playing field should be levelled out and make all candidates spend a maximum amount of money, and not spend million's/billion's to run for president (which I think is disgusting, as the money could be put to better use like housing the homeless etc), doing that would give the third party candidate's a chance at winning (some seem like they may do a better Job than any Lib/Dem has done to date) it would give the American people more choice to who they want as President, and who they think would actually do a better job

IF I voted (I dont vote) IF I could vote in the US, then I would vote for ANY other third party that seem they would do the job better, and not the Lib / Dem party's

Matthews seem's like a **** in my opinion (judging by what he said about people voting for third party's)

Yeah the maximum payment is a great idea. As you can see the massive amounts they have spent (the two richest parties), it gives them the most exposure, advertisement and air time. A massive advantage over the rest.

[+joc]

Yeah the maximum payment is a great idea. As you can see the massive amounts they have spent (the two richest parties), it gives them the most exposure, advertisement and air time. A massive advantage over the rest.

It really hurts me to say this but...I agree with Chris Matthews...OUCH....(just put a bandaid on it...and stop the bleeeeding now)

Voting Third Party is stupid. A third party is not going to ever win...and even if they did...then what? Then they have to work with democrats and republicans because...THERE ARE NO THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES WHO HAVE ANY POWER WHATSOEVER IN CONGRESS...I apologize for shouting at the top of my lungs...

...and besides that...it always...ALWAYS...splits the vote of the other two parties...so effectively what you have is a third party candidate that has no chance of winning influencing the election of the two who do have a chance.

[Hasina]

That's why I love our country. 'You have the power! Vote! Except don't vote for anyone you actually agree with if they're third party! It's stupid! They'll never win! Now get back in line and vote for one of the real parties!' *troll face* -Most main party supporters

[Myles]

It really hurts me to say this but...I agree with Chris Matthews...OUCH....(just put a bandaid on it...and stop the bleeeeding now)

Voting Third Party is stupid. A third party is not going to ever win...and even if they did...then what? Then they have to work with democrats and republicans because...THERE ARE NO THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES WHO HAVE ANY POWER WHATSOEVER IN CONGRESS...I apologize for shouting at the top of my lungs...

...and besides that...it always...ALWAYS...splits the vote of the other two parties...so effectively what you have is a third party candidate that has no chance of winning influencing the election of the two who do have a chance.

I think you are nuts. Everyone should vote for the person they would most like to see get into the office. I voted for Ross Perot. He received 19% of the popular vote. Not bad for a 3rd party.

As far as splitting another parties votes, if a canidate loses votes to another canidate, then he/she didn't really have that vote locked up.

[Orcseeker]

It really hurts me to say this but...I agree with Chris Matthews...OUCH....(just put a bandaid on it...and stop the bleeeeding now)

Voting Third Party is stupid. A third party is not going to ever win...and even if they did...then what? Then they have to work with democrats and republicans because...THERE ARE NO THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES WHO HAVE ANY POWER WHATSOEVER IN CONGRESS...I apologize for shouting at the top of my lungs...

...and besides that...it always...ALWAYS...splits the vote of the other two parties...so effectively what you have is a third party candidate that has no chance of winning influencing the election of the two who do have a chance.

But should the government be structured as such? Is it right for the media to imply there are simply only two parties and that it will always be so? All this talk of change in the elections but nothing will change one bit.

If you make things fair, it at least givens everyone an even ground instead of those who just have the most money. Other parties should be given a chance to be elected into congress too.

Do you think it is right for two parties to have a monopoly on the politics?

[F3SS]

300 million Americans and 2 views to pick from. Heck no. There should be an amendment that for every 100 Million in population there should be another party mandated to participate. I mean legitimately participate. Ron Paul could of easily disrupted the establishment if he chose to initiate a third party after the primaries. He had tons of support and enough exposure. At least enough that people knew who he was. He could've made Obama lose. Doubtful but why not? Also, I think he could've gotten the magical 5%. He is definitely not the typical republican or even politician for that matter.

[+joc]

But should the government be structured as such? Is it right for the media to imply there are simply only two parties and that it will always be so? All this talk of change in the elections but nothing will change one bit.

If you make things fair, it at least givens everyone an even ground instead of those who just have the most money. Other parties should be given a chance to be elected into congress too.

Do you think it is right for two parties to have a monopoly on the politics?

After this election...I think it very obvious that we do not have a two party system...there is only one party...wow...is that something or what? I mean look at the effing Governor of NJ...did NJ vote for Romney...no...Did the big Fat Repub get a thrill up his leg for Obama? yep And Romney...Homney Romney...what a pathetic joke! Viscious...absolutely VISCIOUS during the primaries...oh, so Ward Freaking Clever against Obama...and Boehner? Everyone has got an opinon right...Boehner is just a big woosie OPINION! I hate the freaking Republicans...I do...more than I loathe the Dems...I absolutely HATE the Republicans...At least with the Dems...they are what they are and you can kind of count on that...liars, thieves, hypocrits (not you guys, the Government Agent Democrats)but the Republicans...worse than that...because they are oh so nicey nice...Well guess what folks? They are all the same ...Vipers everyone of 'em...we have been duped...duped by One Party Rule for years...Bush? Loser! Clinton? Loser! Bush's Daddy? Loser! Obama? Loser! If it weren't for all the innocent lives in Washington, I would wish DC would get nuked...then we could start all over with genuine real people...

Like alot of you...If I were President...I would make Orcseeker VP...I would make HuttonEtAl Secretary of State...I would put Mr. Fess in charge of the Budget and I would make Hasina Secretary of Bringing us All Coffee cause she is just so damn cute....

We are screwed ya'll...seriously screwed...it'll take years for it all to wash out...and Romney...we'd be just as screwed, who knows, maybe more...

It is what it is and that's all it is...okay, done venting...

[ninjadude]

There was a time when our two current major parties didn't exist.... they came into existence by "idiots" voting for an alternate party.

The two current ones. But there there have nearly always been two strong parties. It is in the nature of winner take all.

[Michelle]

Can I be Secretary of Defense, joc?!?!?