The US Election 2016, Part V

[Guard Dog]

Well, the truth is unless you are voting in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, or Arizona this election is already over so far as the Presidency is concerned. Clinton will never win a hard red state and Trump will never win a hard blue state. If you are are in the 43 states not named you can vote 3rd party with a clear conscience if you wish to do so. If you are in one of the seven swing states then the decision is a bit more complex. Florida was decided by just 500 votes in 2000. It is conceivable, however unlikely that one vote in one of those states decides this whole thing. 

 

For me, as I've already said I find both outcomes intolerable. There is no doubt the next President is going to damage the country either through hubris or simple incompetence. These are two deeply flawed human beings who should not be in a position of power. However that ship has sailed. The only bright spot is I'll be one of the (hopefully) 5% of voters who can say "Don't blame me I voted for Johnson"

Edited August 24, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

I expect Johnson to pull in more than 5%.  I'd guess somewhere around 12% is likely.  Jill Stein will probably pull in close to 5%.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

the good news is that trump will be able to accomplish virtual 0 o' his domestic goals.  everything he wants to do is either blatant unconstitutional, or is a job for Congress or individual States.  trump will be impotent, particularly as he is Not a consensus building candidate.  liberals will be unified 'gainst him, and he is gonna split conservatives. doomed.

 

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

If Trump runs afoul of a Republican Congress and they wake up and remember that they ARE Congress and that Article I assigns responsibilities to THEM that would be one positive to take from this. A very thin reed indeed but when all the news is bad you have to take the positives where you find them. 

[Guard Dog]

I expect Johnson to pull in more than 5%.  I'd guess somewhere around 12% is likely.  Jill Stein will probably pull in close to 5%.

IF he gets in the debates he'll do it. If not it will be a very tough number to make. Jill Stein is only on the ballot in 37 states as of now. Best case they might make it to 44. That makes 5% out of reach because the majority of those are red states and swing states. Her biggest support is likely to come from the west coast where all three are safe for Clinton and New England. That's a problem because she will likely not be on in Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. She actually has the signatures in NH but she's out of time. It's looking like a court challenge might be coming. But time is really short. 

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

 

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

You know Grom, you do have another option that is a viable candidate and on the ballot in all 50 states this year. Only three candidates can say that. Given your line of work that 3rd option might even be attractive. Yes the odds are long, but they are not zero and good things can come even from a loss this time. Just sayin'.

our certainty that trump won't win needs be absolute before we consider voting for a 3rd party candidate. we marveled when folks acted as if sanders supporters and sanders himself giving clinton their support was some kinda mortal sin. "how could you?" how? why? 'cause the freaking alternative is trump. duh. if our voting 3rd party has any chance o' resulting in a trump presidency, we would be irresponsible in doing so.

 

the good news is that trump will be able to accomplish virtual 0 o' his domestic goals. everything he wants to do is either blatant unconstitutional, or is a job for Congress or individual States. trump will be impotent, particularly as he is Not a consensus building candidate. liberals will be unified 'gainst him, and he is gonna split conservatives. doomed.

 

bad news is that once trump discovers that his domestic efforts is stymied by his own nature and by the federal system itself, he will possible become more concerned with foreign affairs. the President has broad powers when dealing with foreign nations, and regardless o' what some believe, the US is still the most powerful economic and military force on the planet. trump as President scares us. he should scare you too.

 

3rd party? sure, just so long as chance o' trump victory is zero.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Foreign affairs and immigration are the only things I support trump on, and they happen to be the things he would actually have power over.

[BruceVC]

Well, the truth is unless you are voting in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, or Arizona this election is already over so far as the Presidency is concerned. Clinton will never win a hard red state and Trump will never win a hard blue state. If you are are in the 43 states not named you can vote 3rd party with a clear conscience if you wish to do so. If you are in one of the seven swing states then the decision is a bit more complex. Florida was decided by just 500 votes in 2000. It is conceivable, however unlikely that one vote in one of those states decides this whole thing. 

 

For me, as I've already said I find both outcomes intolerable. There is no doubt the next President is going to damage the country either through hubris or simple incompetence. These are two deeply flawed human beings who should not be in a position of power. However that ship has sailed. The only bright spot is I'll be one of the (hopefully) 5% of voters who can say "Don't blame me I voted for Johnson"

But GD  I'm sure you will recognize if there is only the 2 of them to choose then Hilary overall is the best choice, despite some trust issues ?

[Gorth]

I'm sure you will recognize if there is only the 2 of them to choose then Hilary overall is the best choice, despite some trust issues ?

I'm not GD, but it's a situation where you have to keep the bigger picture in mind, like how likely is the candidate to actually damage the country. Trump may be the off the cuff talking buffoon with all the social grace of a British soccer hooligan from the 80's, but as mentioned previously in this thread, odds are he'll be mired down in opposition from both factions. Clinton on the other hand is devious, lying and manipulative enough to actually get active damage done over a 4 year period compared to "just" 4 years of the US being in a state of limbo.

[BruceVC]

 

I'm sure you will recognize if there is only the 2 of them to choose then Hilary overall is the best choice, despite some trust issues ?

I'm not GD, but it's a situation where you have to keep the bigger picture in mind, like how likely is the candidate to actually damage the country. Trump may be the off the cuff talking buffoon with all the social grace of a British soccer hooligan from the 80's, but as mentioned previously in this thread, odds are he'll be mired down in opposition from both factions. Clinton on the other hand is devious, lying and manipulative enough to actually get active damage done over a 4 year period compared to "just" 4 years of the US being in a state of limbo.

 

Gothfuscious !!!

 

Thats  a very negative view of the impending Hilary Clinton victory and presidential reign ?

[Gorth]

Gothfuscious !!!

 

Thats  a very negative view of the impending Hilary Clinton victory and presidential reign ?

Why not? She's a power obsessed megalomaniac

[Guard Dog]

 

Well, the truth is unless you are voting in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, or Arizona this election is already over so far as the Presidency is concerned. Clinton will never win a hard red state and Trump will never win a hard blue state. If you are are in the 43 states not named you can vote 3rd party with a clear conscience if you wish to do so. If you are in one of the seven swing states then the decision is a bit more complex. Florida was decided by just 500 votes in 2000. It is conceivable, however unlikely that one vote in one of those states decides this whole thing. 

 

For me, as I've already said I find both outcomes intolerable. There is no doubt the next President is going to damage the country either through hubris or simple incompetence. These are two deeply flawed human beings who should not be in a position of power. However that ship has sailed. The only bright spot is I'll be one of the (hopefully) 5% of voters who can say "Don't blame me I voted for Johnson"

But GD  I'm sure you will recognize if there is only the 2 of them to choose then Hilary overall is the best choice, despite some trust issues ?

 

Bruce, trust issues aside can you not understand why someone like me would have deep, no, insurmountable philosophical differences with Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama was one one of the least corrupt, most upstanding citizens to occupy the White House in many years and I voted against him twice. It wasn't because he was a bad man, or a communist, or a muslim, or a foreigner. He was none of those things. And it wasn't because of the melanin content in his skin. Although I am sick to death of hearing everyone who disagrees with hm on anything is a racist. He envisions a USA where the government is very powerful, and individual liberty is an afterthought and protected only when it does not conflict with the whims of the state. Hillary Clinton is promising to serve us up more of the same.

 

As objectionable as I find Donald Trump I agree with him on a lot of issues. And I'd rather have him picking Supreme Court Justices than Clinton any day for reasons I have written about in depth. But since this the the Presidency we are talking about, the head of the Executive branch of the US Government the character of the candidate IS a factor. Putting aside every stupid or mean utterance Trump has made, he has no experience in government, and as Gromnir pointed out is promising to do a of of things a President can not do. Which means he might try to do them anyway by executive order or he'll lash out at Congress in petty ways and make the air in DC more toxic than it already is. And to tell the truth, I'm not 100% sure Congress WOULD stop him. They have rolled over on their backs and let Barack Obama run roughshod over their own enumerated responsibilities with executive orders.

 

So with two intolerable candidates I look at Johnson and Weld. Both have executive government experience. Both were very successful, both have excellent reputations and not a whiff of corruption. I agree with them on 85% of their platform and they are coming from a political party whose philosophy I agree with 95%. I can't imagine why anyone WOULDN'T support them. And taking Gromnir as an example he isn't voting for Clinton, he's voting against Trump. Negative voting. Voting for someone you despise because the alternative is worse. I've done it many times. I didn't like Romney or McCain but I voted for both, because I was voting against Obama.

 

Sure there are some folks like Leferd for example who is buying what Hillary is selling. WoD is buying that Trump is selling. I don't agree with either of them but I can't fault them for making a choice. But I think the majority of votes cast will be negative votes. Well, nuts to that. From now on I'm voting for what I think is right, not what I think is less wrong. Clinton or Trump is going to win but they will do it without my help. No, Hillary is NOT the best choice. Not for me. I can't explain it any clearer than this.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I'm sure you will recognize if there is only the 2 of them to choose then Hilary overall is the best choice, despite some trust issues ?

I'm not GD, but it's a situation where you have to keep the bigger picture in mind, like how likely is the candidate to actually damage the country. Trump may be the off the cuff talking buffoon with all the social grace of a British soccer hooligan from the 80's, but as mentioned previously in this thread, odds are he'll be mired down in opposition from both factions. Clinton on the other hand is devious, lying and manipulative enough to actually get active damage done over a 4 year period compared to "just" 4 years of the US being in a state of limbo.

 

Very true. Since Trump is hated by the establishment of both parties, he'll be impeached if he steps out of bounds. The only way Democrats will ever vote for Hilzilla's removal would be if she murders someone on live TV, and I'm not even sure about that. And once she appoints the Supreme Court justice, her power will be all but absolute.

[Enoch]

Eh, I don't see what's so wrong with negative voting.  Fundamentally, the voters are never being asked to judge each candidate in a vacuum.  It's always a relative consideration-- which of the serious candidates do you think would do a better job and support policies most in-line with your preferences?  Whether one considers that a "positive" or a "negative" vote is wholly arbitrary.  That GD has cast a lot of votes that he considers "negative" in the past says at least as much about him as it does about the candidates. 

[Chilloutman]

Eh, I don't see what's so wrong with negative voting.  Fundamentally, the voters are never being asked to judge each candidate in a vacuum.  It's always a relative consideration-- which of the serious candidates do you think would do a better job and support policies most in-line with your preferences?  Whether one considers that a "positive" or a "negative" vote is wholly arbitrary.  That GD has cast a lot of votes that he considers "negative" in the past says at least as much about him as it does about the candidates. 

 

And he also stated that he is not going to do it anymore and vote for who he align with no matter if he will get there or not so what is your point now? Its sad if you can't stand behind your own beliefs

[213374U]

She's a power obsessed megalomaniac

 

Hmm.

 

 

 

Ruthless Powermonger

The Ruthless Powermonger treats her country and her people as personal possessions. She is completely unscrupulous and she will let nothing stand between her and her goals. Sometimes she can develop a streak of paranoia which will endanger friend and foe alike.

 

Of course, the alternative isn't much better...

 

 

 

Barking Buffoon

The Barking Buffoon is a great political dramatic actor. People see him as a strong and competent leader who will save the nation and restore it to its historical greatness. But behind his mask of bombastic rhetoric hides a weak-minded, vain simpleton. Those who really know him, know he is an incompetent man.

[Hurlshort]

Eh, I don't see what's so wrong with negative voting.  Fundamentally, the voters are never being asked to judge each candidate in a vacuum.  It's always a relative consideration-- which of the serious candidates do you think would do a better job and support policies most in-line with your preferences?  Whether one considers that a "positive" or a "negative" vote is wholly arbitrary.  That GD has cast a lot of votes that he considers "negative" in the past says at least as much about him as it does about the candidates. 

 

The only reason Clinton and Trump are regarded as serious candidates over a 3rd party is because of this idea that you have to vote for one of these two candidates.  We have Johnson on every ballot.  We should have more than that.  This is a pretty important office, there should always be an option available that you are comfortable voting for.  

 

If people stopped negative voting, how would that change how our elections work? 

[Enoch]

 

Eh, I don't see what's so wrong with negative voting.  Fundamentally, the voters are never being asked to judge each candidate in a vacuum.  It's always a relative consideration-- which of the serious candidates do you think would do a better job and support policies most in-line with your preferences?  Whether one considers that a "positive" or a "negative" vote is wholly arbitrary.  That GD has cast a lot of votes that he considers "negative" in the past says at least as much about him as it does about the candidates. 

 

And he also stated that he is not going to do it anymore and vote for who he align with no matter if he will get there or not so what is your point now? Its sad if you can't stand behind your own beliefs

 

 

Well, that's a decision to do something different entirely.  GD thinks that it's more important to support the long-term growth of a minor party whose platform he likes than it is to help the country decide between the candidate who have a serious chance.  That's a reasonable response, but it's essentially using one's vote for the presidency to do something other than vote for president (except by absence-- the impact is the same as staying home). 

 

One person's "stand behind your beliefs" is another person's "demand that the world cater to your preferences."  I'm not saying that GD's stance is such-- his belief in building his party's stature is sincere, and that's a reasonable thing for a civic-minded individual to do with their vote.  I think less of those who decide based on indifference, frustration, knee-jerk cynicism, lulz, etc. 

[Chilloutman]

 

 

Eh, I don't see what's so wrong with negative voting.  Fundamentally, the voters are never being asked to judge each candidate in a vacuum.  It's always a relative consideration-- which of the serious candidates do you think would do a better job and support policies most in-line with your preferences?  Whether one considers that a "positive" or a "negative" vote is wholly arbitrary.  That GD has cast a lot of votes that he considers "negative" in the past says at least as much about him as it does about the candidates. 

 

And he also stated that he is not going to do it anymore and vote for who he align with no matter if he will get there or not so what is your point now? Its sad if you can't stand behind your own beliefs

 

 

Well, that's a decision to do something different entirely.  GD thinks that it's more important to support the long-term growth of a minor party whose platform he likes than it is to help the country decide between the candidate who have a serious chance.  That's a reasonable response, but it's essentially using one's vote for the presidency to do something other than vote for president (except by absence-- the impact is the same as staying home). 

 

One person's "stand behind your beliefs" is another person's "demand that the world cater to your preferences."  I'm not saying that GD's stance is such-- his belief in building his party's stature is sincere, and that's a reasonable thing for a civic-minded individual to do with their vote.  I think less of those who decide based on indifference, frustration, knee-jerk cynicism, lulz, etc. 

 

 

Well I am not him but I think that you just put too much into that party growth. I too vote for small party just because they align with my view of word. I am much more troubled by people who vote lesser evil if they have choice to vote what they believe is good. 

[Hurlshort]

 

Well, that's a decision to do something different entirely.  GD thinks that it's more important to support the long-term growth of a minor party whose platform he likes than it is to help the country decide between the candidate who have a serious chance.  That's a reasonable response, but it's essentially using one's vote for the presidency to do something other than vote for president (except by absence-- the impact is the same as staying home). 

 

One person's "stand behind your beliefs" is another person's "demand that the world cater to your preferences."  I'm not saying that GD's stance is such-- his belief in building his party's stature is sincere, and that's a reasonable thing for a civic-minded individual to do with their vote.  I think less of those who decide based on indifference, frustration, knee-jerk cynicism, lulz, etc. 

 

 

Again with the "serious candidates".  How serious would they be if people did not cast negative votes?  This whole idea that only the democrat and the republican are the serious candidates is the definition of insanity.  We cannot break the cycle of we keep voting for the same two parties over and over.  

[Enoch]

This is a pretty important office, there should always be an option available that you are comfortable voting for.  

 

Everybody?  Really?  How would that even work? 

 

 

 

If people stopped negative voting, how would that change how our elections work?

 

My point is mainly that there is no such thing.  Voters pick their preference among the candidates on the ballot.  That preference is relative, not absolute-- they think that this guy/gal will do a better job than the others.  It's not "positive" or "negative," it's "that guy/gal over the other guys/gals."

 

What you're really asking for is for voters to do so without any regard for which of these folks has a realistic chance of winning.  Which I'd say is asking voters to be idiots who give no thought to how best to get the policies they care about implemented.  The system as it is structured rewards strategic thought on the part of parties, advocacy groups, and voters.  Absent serious Constitutional change (e.g., a more parliamentary-style system of preferential voting), the political equilibrium in America is going to keep returning to two major parties that are relatively centrist.  Those parties have been the Dems and the GOP for the last century-plus because their policy platforms have been far more popular than the other alternatives that have been posed.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Enoch

[Hurlshort]

Why isn't Johnson a serious candidate, anyways?  He is on every ballot.  Is it because he doesn't have as much money?

[Hurlshort]

 

This is a pretty important office, there should always be an option available that you are comfortable voting for.  

 

Everybody?  Really?  How would that even work? 

 

 

 

You can write in candidates in 43 states.  Each state handles this different, but we are not locked in to two candidates.

 

I get that the GOP and Dems have represented the vast majority of the country for over a century, and they've has success with more moderate policies compared to many of the fringe 3rd party groups that often sound a but wacky.  But both parties seem to be flying off the rails.  These candidates suck.  If they are not going to put up viable candidates, voters should not feel like they still have to vote for them because of tradition and viability.  It's like a self fulfilling prophecy.  People are voting for Clinton or Trump because they are being told they are the only options.   

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's because when you vote for a third party candidate you hurt the major party you're most closely aligned to, thus helping the other major party.

[Gorgon]

Well, this would be the time to do it. Trump being a trainwreck already and all. 

[Gorth]

Hey, it's simple math, a two-party system must be twice as good as a one-party system!

 

I think you have to be raised with such a system to fully grasp it. Growing up in a system with 4-6 left and 4-6 right wing parties in parliament (depending on which decade), it always seemed strange when people spoke about political news from across the Atlantic and wondering how those two parties could represent so many people.

 

Edit: As a young man, relatively ignorant of politics, I probably attributed it to Americans living in a very homogenous society.

[Hurlshort]

It's because when you vote for a third party candidate you hurt the major party you're most closely aligned to, thus helping the other major party.

 

If your party can't put forward a decent candidate, they don't deserve your loyalty.  Our vote is our most powerful tool in enacting change.  If we vote for the same party every time regardless of their actions, we are giving up our power.