General Election Poll - Lets see who the mustachians would choose for president

[MoonShadow]

Why choose the lesser evil? Write in Cthulhu. Cthulhu for President, 2016!!

On a more serious note, I will be voting for Jill Stein, strictly on the premise that I can't stand either major party candidate, and I don't believe I have the right to complain if I don't vote.

Not voting is still a vote, but 'none of the above' can't hold the office.  You do know that Jill Stein is a watermelon, right? You'd make more of an impact by writing in Sanders.

[MoonShadow]

(since you have a government job, perhaps you haven't seen how inefficient and wasteful industry is).

Wait, Yeager has a job in government?  Really?  Hahaha, OMG that cannot be true!

You'd be surprised by the number of people that government service turns into anti-government conservatives, but most of us resign out of disgust.

[thd7t]

I still have no clue where you got 15%, he even has higher than a 15% favorable rating.

You have to look at the actual vote totals.  Primaries are notoriously low turnout events in this day and age.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/twelve-thirty-seven/2016/04/donald-trump-popular-vote-record-222510

With his five blowout wins Tuesday night, Donald Trump has passed Mitt Romney’s popular vote total from four years ago and is on a trajectory that could land him more Republican votes than any presidential candidate in modern history – by a lot.

Trump surged to more than 10 million votes, according to totals that include Tuesday’s preliminary results across the Northeast. That’s already about 250,000 more than Romney earned in the entire 2012 primary season and 153,000 more than John McCain earned in 2008.

More significantly, Trump is positioned to easily pass the modern record-holder, George W. Bush, who collected 10.8 million votes in 2000.

That presents an uncomfortable reality for anti-Trump forces: they’re attempting to thwart the candidate who is likely to win more Republican primary votes than any GOP contender in at least the last 36 years, and maybe ever.

While primary votes don't mean much in the general, the fact remains that Trump was the popular candidate running in the Republican primary, and was able to motivate more Republicans to get out to vote for him on primary day than any other candidate that has proceeded him, and this is not counting the rather large state of California.  No matter what you may think of him, this wasn't just a fluke.  If he tears the Republican party in two by this, then they had it coming anyway.

You keep saying that Trump has received more Republican primary votes than anyone else, without California, but that is false.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/may/02/donald-trump/donald-trumps-claim-about-receiving-most-votes-eve/&ved=0ahUKEwjl7tWWhJfNAhUJJR4KHcVgAt0QFghJMAE&usg=AFQjCNEwKU8MPL33tBVUSQUt7JknFJXGpQ
Trump won't pass George W Bush's total until after California. Trump self-reported his lead. That should have been the first clue that it was not true.

Dude, that was published on May 2nd.  Trump passed Bush after Indiana.

Only if you count Trump's caucus wins, but not Bush's.

[beltim]

Had the Democrats nominated someone more popular than the second least popular nominee ever, this would be the biggest landslide presidential election in US history.

I still contend that it might yet be such a landslide, but not in the direction you are expecting.

And in turn, I still contend that it could be a landslide, but not in the direction you are expecting.

In contrast, none of this has any reasonable chance of happening:

The dems could still beat Trump if they chose Sanders, but I think we all know that the Dems aren't going to let him have it; and when he runs independent (with money that we will learn after the election came from a Trump owned shell company/PAC) the result will be embarrassing for the Dems.

[Jeremy E.]

By itself, neither.  But the fact that Trump has such a low percentage of primary votes I think is due to his extreme unfavorability ratings – the least popular nominee ever.

I agree with this.

Had the Democrats nominated someone more popular than the second least popular nominee ever, this would be the biggest landslide presidential election in US history.

I still contend that it might yet be such a landslide, but not in the direction you are expecting.  The dems could still beat Trump if they chose Sanders, but I think we all know that the Dems aren't going to let him have it; and when he runs independent (with money that we will learn after the election came from a Trump owned shell company/PAC) the result will be embarrassing for the Dems.  On the bright side, the Dems will be able to claim for 4 years that Trump's victory wasn't a legit reflection of the will of the people, because of the 3-7% of votes that Sanders will get.  If Sanders and/or Johnson make it onto the debate stage, that will be quite a show.  I'm still hoping for that one, I'd pony up for pay-per-view on my Roku to watch that.  In that case, we might end up with the lowest percentage vote for the actual winner, no matter who it is.

If Sanders doesn't get the nomination he will back Clinton

[MoonShadow]

By itself, neither.  But the fact that Trump has such a low percentage of primary votes I think is due to his extreme unfavorability ratings – the least popular nominee ever.

I agree with this.

Had the Democrats nominated someone more popular than the second least popular nominee ever, this would be the biggest landslide presidential election in US history.

I still contend that it might yet be such a landslide, but not in the direction you are expecting.  The dems could still beat Trump if they chose Sanders, but I think we all know that the Dems aren't going to let him have it; and when he runs independent (with money that we will learn after the election came from a Trump owned shell company/PAC) the result will be embarrassing for the Dems.  On the bright side, the Dems will be able to claim for 4 years that Trump's victory wasn't a legit reflection of the will of the people, because of the 3-7% of votes that Sanders will get.  If Sanders and/or Johnson make it onto the debate stage, that will be quite a show.  I'm still hoping for that one, I'd pony up for pay-per-view on my Roku to watch that.  In that case, we might end up with the lowest percentage vote for the actual winner, no matter who it is.

If Sanders doesn't get the nomination he will back Clinton

I don't know about that.  This is starting to smell a lot like the 1968 Dem Convention.  History doesn't repeat, but I still hear a faint rhythm.  Even if Sanders does capitulate, that doesn't mean that his hardest supporters will.

[forummm]

(since you have a government job, perhaps you haven't seen how inefficient and wasteful industry is).

Wait, Yeager has a job in government?  Really?  Hahaha, OMG that cannot be true!

I was a little surprised too. But I think that's what he said in a post in the past couple days.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/general-election-poll-lets-see-who-the-mustachians-would-choose-as-their-presi/msg1109456/#msg1109456

I'm really looking forward to his response about healthcare. I've seen him posting elsewhere. He has such strong views on the subject. One would hope there's at least something specific there to point to support them. Or that he would at least be open to thinking about things in a new way when presented with reasoned discussion. I am certainly interested in learning new things or rethinking things if he has interesting points to share.

[forummm]

If Sanders doesn't get the nomination he will back Clinton

I don't know about that.  This is starting to smell a lot like the 1968 Dem Convention.  History doesn't repeat, but I still hear a faint rhythm.  Even if Sanders does capitulate, that doesn't mean that his hardest supporters will.

Sanders won't run against Clinton in the general. And he will motivate his supporters to make sure Trump doesn't win. He's already essentially said so.

[Jeremy E.]

Johnson has overtaken Trump among mustachians :D

[MoonShadow]

If Sanders doesn't get the nomination he will back Clinton

I don't know about that.  This is starting to smell a lot like the 1968 Dem Convention.  History doesn't repeat, but I still hear a faint rhythm.  Even if Sanders does capitulate, that doesn't mean that his hardest supporters will.

Sanders won't run against Clinton in the general. And he will motivate his supporters to make sure Trump doesn't win. He's already essentially said so.

Politicians say a lot of things, but if any of them will hold to their word, I'm sure that Sanders would.  We will know more soon.

[Tyson]

Looking at the poll numbers.  MMM community has spoken - Clinton in a landslide.

[MoonShadow]

Looking at the poll numbers.  MMM community has spoken - Clinton in a landslide.

Indeed.  But I didn't expect anything different.

[onlykelsey]

Johnson has overtaken Trump among mustachians :D

Haha.  I can see an argument for both the mainstream democratic platform and the libertarian platform aligning with MMM, but I really can't align nationalism of Trump's variant with MMM.

[maizefolk]

Comparing the unscientific poll above to the current national polls. I estimate libertarians are 85% more likely to be mustachian than the overall population, clinton supporters are 40% more likely to be mustachian than the overall population, and trump supporters are 60% less likely to be mustachian than the overall population.

[Bucksandreds]

Comparing the unscientific poll above to the current national polls. I estimate libertarians are 85% more likely to be mustachian than the overall population, clinton supporters are 40% more likely to be mustachian than the overall population, and trump supporters are 60% less likely to be mustachian than the overall population.

Trump supporters tend to be lower educated so it would make sense that they would be less likely to enter into a very analytical lifestyle, like this one, even though they would benefit greatly from it.

[MoonShadow]

Comparing the unscientific poll above to the current national polls. I estimate libertarians are 85% more likely to be mustachian than the overall population, clinton supporters are 40% more likely to be mustachian than the overall population, and trump supporters are 60% less likely to be mustachian than the overall population.

Trump supporters tend to be lower educated so it would make sense that they would be less likely to enter into a very analytical lifestyle, like this one, even though they would benefit greatly from it.

Just to be sure, you know that this is bullshit, right?

[sol]

Trump supporters tend to be lower educated so it would make sense that they would be less likely to enter into a very analytical lifestyle, like this one, even though they would benefit greatly from it.

Just to be sure, you know that this is bullshit, right?

Not according to ALL of the polling on this issue, you sexist pig.  Not that I expect someone who supports inflaming racism and sexism as a valid election tactic to listen to any polling or other established verifiable facts.  Runs counter to Trump's whole campaign.

[MoonShadow]

Trump supporters tend to be lower educated so it would make sense that they would be less likely to enter into a very analytical lifestyle, like this one, even though they would benefit greatly from it.

Just to be sure, you know that this is bullshit, right?

Not according to ALL of the polling on this issue, you sexist pig.  Not that I expect someone who supports inflaming racism and sexism as a valid election tactic to listen to any polling or other established verifiable facts.  Runs counter to Trump's whole campaign.

The polling that you reference was flawed, because it included many flawed questions as well as bias towards particular forms of education.  If you had ever bothered to look into the actual data, the real results were marginal.  And I never claimed that I supported it, just that it was a valid tactic in our political system.  The fact that you can't make that distinction says much.

[sol]

Trump supporters tend to be lower educated so it would make sense that they would be less likely to enter into a very analytical lifestyle, like this one, even though they would benefit greatly from it.

Just to be sure, you know that this is bullshit, right?

Not according to ALL of the polling on this issue, you sexist pig.  Not that I expect someone who supports inflaming racism and sexism as a valid election tactic to listen to any polling or other established verifiable facts.  Runs counter to Trump's whole campaign.

The polling that you reference was flawed, because it included many flawed questions as well as bias towards particular forms of education.  If you had ever bothered to look into the actual data, the real results were marginal.  And I never claimed that I supported it, just that it was a valid tactic in our political system.  The fact that you can't make that distinction says much.

What, no ad hominem attack this time?  You're slipping.  Go watch some Trump debates for a refresher.

[MoonShadow]

Trump supporters tend to be lower educated so it would make sense that they would be less likely to enter into a very analytical lifestyle, like this one, even though they would benefit greatly from it.

Just to be sure, you know that this is bullshit, right?

Not according to ALL of the polling on this issue, you sexist pig.  Not that I expect someone who supports inflaming racism and sexism as a valid election tactic to listen to any polling or other established verifiable facts.  Runs counter to Trump's whole campaign.

The polling that you reference was flawed, because it included many flawed questions as well as bias towards particular forms of education.  If you had ever bothered to look into the actual data, the real results were marginal.  And I never claimed that I supported it, just that it was a valid tactic in our political system.  The fact that you can't make that distinction says much.

What, no ad hominem attack this time?  You're slipping.  Go watch some Trump debates for a refresher.

I never attack you, Sol.  That was your response.  I stated an opinion.

[sol]

I never attack you, Sol.  That was your response.  I stated an opinion.

You told me that Trump would win the election because he is sexist, and that this was a genius move, and that I was an idiot (deluded, confused, irrational) for disagreeing with you.  I'm still disagreeing with you.  You can't support a candidate who is openly sexist (racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc), compliment those views, and then claim that you are not sexist (racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, etc).  When you support sexist acts then you are a sexist. 

You keep trying to say that you're not a sexist because you're not the candidate espousing the views, you just think they're really good views to have.  Don't you see how idiotic that sounds? 

You are of course welcome to keep repeating your sexist views.  I'm going to keep calling you sexist for it.  You're probably going to continue insisting that you're not sexist just because you support sexist views, and then saying that I'm the one with the cognitive dissonance problem.  I feel like I can see the future.  (Hint: Trump still loses.)

[MoonShadow]

I never attack you, Sol.  That was your response.  I stated an opinion.

You told me that Trump would win the election because he is sexist, and that this was a genius move, and that I was an idiot (deluded, confused, irrational) for disagreeing with you.  I'm still disagreeing with you.

I did nothing of the sort.  Feel free to find such a quote, but you know that it doesn't exist.  You are 'interpreting' my comments according to your own will.  You called me disgusting, which is a direct quote.  You can disagree with me all you like.

[MrStash2000]

Moonshadow got boomsticked again.

Dang I know my earlier posts say I was temporarily leaning Trump but you guys have me scared straight.

The logic that Drumph (hehe) is sexist therefore Drumph supporters are sexist is so sound. I can't believe I never I saw it this way. I mean who who want to willingly be mysoginistic? Right?

So anyway I disavow Drumph and IM WITH HER. 

Bill and Hillary Clinton are the LEAST sexist people alive. They have never done anything that could be remotely considered to be degrading to women.

Hillary fair and square just picked up the DNC nomination. It is time to move forward to prevent the Drumph monster from getting his Fascist hands on the White House.

[MoonShadow]

You keep trying to say that you're not a sexist because you're not the candidate espousing the views, you just think they're really good views to have.  Don't you see how idiotic that sounds? 

That does sound idiotic.  Particularly since I didn't say this either, or even allude to it.

You are of course welcome to keep repeating your sexist views.  I'm going to keep calling you sexist for it.  You're probably going to continue insisting that you're not sexist just because you support sexist views, and then saying that I'm the one with the cognitive dissonance problem.  I feel like I can see the future.  (Hint: Trump still loses.)

I have pointed out that you are prone to cognitive dissonance, resulting in unfounded emotional outbursts on many occasions, various subjects and numerous other forum members other than myself.  You display a pattern, Sol, although it's not entirely predictable.  I'm just reminding you of that pattern, because it's the right thing to do.  If you were walking around the mall with your fly down, I'd tell you about that too, even if I didn't know you.

[MoonShadow]

Moonshadow got boomsticked again.

Did I?  Probably.  I certainly can't get away with calling another forum member "disgusting" without a 2 week ban.  I'm not Sol.

Dang I know my earlier posts say I was temporarily leaning Trump but you guys have me scared straight.

The logic that Drumph (hehe) is sexist therefore Drumph supporters are sexist is so sound. I can't believe I never I saw it this way. I mean who who want to willingly be mysoginistic? Right?

So anyway I disavow Drumph and IM WITH HER. 

Bill and Hillary Clinton are the LEAST sexist people alive. They have never done anything that could be remotely considered to be degrading to women.

Heh.

Hillary fair and square just picked up the DNC nomination. It is time to move forward to prevent the Drumph monster from getting his Fascist hands on the White House.

Scott Adams came out on his blog earlier this week supporting Hillary also...

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for-president-of-the-united-states


Of course, he did so because he doesn't wish to be assassinated by a violent mob upset that he predicted the next Hitler POTUS last year.  I can relate.

[Tyson]

I think the problem is that ideas are not morally neutral, so when some people say they support certain ideas (either left or right), or that they oppose certain ideas, then those not holding those ideas feel offended or outraged. 

[Jeremy E.]

$5 says Sol and MoonShadow get this thread as well as the legitimate criticisms of presidential candidates thread closed by weeks end

[Chris22]

#AnybodyButHer

Trump is a doofus and a buffoon, but Hillary is straight up evil. 

[golden1]

Drumpf is a doofus and a buffoon, but Hillary is straight up evil.

Nah. 

[deadlymonkey]

Hillary is probably pretty corrupt but she at least has a semblance of an idea how government works and has demonstrated the ability to accomplish things and effectively govern.

Trump has no qualifications other than brand recognition.  He exhibits a willful disregard for history, precedent, or the legal basis on which the country was formed.  He has no patience, altruism, empathy, restraint.  He even lacks the ability to feign the possession of those traits which are essential for being the president. 

If Donald Trump is qualified to hold the presidency, then so is the stoner serving slushies at the nearest 7-11.

[forummm]

#AnybodyButHer

Trump is a doofus and a buffoon, but Hillary is straight up evil. 

What evil does she have that he doesn't?

[Chris22]

Hillary is probably pretty corrupt but she at least has a semblance of an idea how government works and has demonstrated the ability to accomplish things and effectively govern.

One thing to consider is that there is very little I want the government to "accomplish" and "effectively govern" is mostly an oxymoron in my opinion (just leave us the hell alone).  My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.  Can't convince me that wouldn't be better than either party. 

[Chris22]

#AnybodyButHer

Trump is a doofus and a buffoon, but Hillary is straight up evil. 

What evil does she have that he doesn't?

She's basically the opposite of him in terms of she's the "I will say anything to anyone to try and get elected" and he's basically "I'm going to piss off as many people as possible and see if I can still get elected."  I basically don't believe Hillary has every taken a principled stand in her entire life on anything.  Trump's such a loose cannon and his statements are so absurd that I can't see them going anywhere anyways.

[thd7t]

Hillary is probably pretty corrupt but she at least has a semblance of an idea how government works and has demonstrated the ability to accomplish things and effectively govern.

One thing to consider is that there is very little I want the government to "accomplish" and "effectively govern" is mostly an oxymoron in my opinion (just leave us the hell alone).  My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.  Can't convince me that wouldn't be better than either party.

So, would you support a libertarian, or are you doing more strategic voting?

[randymarsh]

My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.

We've spent 8 years with Republicans refusing to do basically anything other than scream death panel. So for you a Clinton presidency with a Republican congress would seem to come the closest to your turnip scenario.

[Jeremy E.]

My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.

We've spent 8 years with Republicans refusing to do basically anything other than scream death panel. So for you a Clinton presidency with a Republican congress would seem to come the closest to your turnip scenario.

Obama passed the ACA, the biggest entitlement we've passed in a long time, not too mention all his work with executive orders or other bills he has signed. To say he's basically accomplished nothing is nonsense, by far the candidate who would prevent new laws would be Gary Johnson

[Chris22]

Hillary is probably pretty corrupt but she at least has a semblance of an idea how government works and has demonstrated the ability to accomplish things and effectively govern.

One thing to consider is that there is very little I want the government to "accomplish" and "effectively govern" is mostly an oxymoron in my opinion (just leave us the hell alone).  My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.  Can't convince me that wouldn't be better than either party.

So, would you support a libertarian, or are you doing more strategic voting?

I would gladly vote libertarian except that I feel it's throwing my vote away.

[deadlymonkey]

There are a lot of good things about Gary, and a lot of bad things about the platform.  I just hope he can get on the debate stage, but debating against Hillary and Trump might backfire in the end, not sure if he can go toe to toe with them.  Probably better with town hall style.

[beltim]

My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.

We've spent 8 years with Republicans refusing to do basically anything other than scream death panel. So for you a Clinton presidency with a Republican congress would seem to come the closest to your turnip scenario.

Obama passed the ACA, the biggest entitlement we've passed in a long time, not too mention all his work with executive orders or other bills he has signed. To say he's basically accomplished nothing is nonsense, by far the candidate who would prevent new laws would be Gary Johnson

In 2016, Medicare Part D will cost more than the ACA provisions.  Medicare Part D, as you know, is an entitlement introduced by the Republican Speaker of the House, passed by a majority Republican House, passed by a majority Republican Senate, and signed by a Republican President.

[deadlymonkey]

Hillary is probably pretty corrupt but she at least has a semblance of an idea how government works and has demonstrated the ability to accomplish things and effectively govern.

One thing to consider is that there is very little I want the government to "accomplish" and "effectively govern" is mostly an oxymoron in my opinion (just leave us the hell alone).  My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.  Can't convince me that wouldn't be better than either party.

So, would you support a libertarian, or are you doing more strategic voting?

I would gladly vote libertarian except that I feel it's throwing my vote away.

depends on your state....if you are not a battleground state, vote whomever you want to help the third party get their magic percentage which guarantees funding and equal treatment in subsequent elections.

[deadlymonkey]

My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.

We've spent 8 years with Republicans refusing to do basically anything other than scream death panel. So for you a Clinton presidency with a Republican congress would seem to come the closest to your turnip scenario.

Obama passed the ACA, the biggest entitlement we've passed in a long time, not too mention all his work with executive orders or other bills he has signed. To say he's basically accomplished nothing is nonsense, by far the candidate who would prevent new laws would be Gary Johnson

In 2016, Medicare Part D will cost more than the ACA provisions.  Medicare Part D, as you know, is an entitlement introduced by the Republican Speaker of the House, passed by a majority Republican House, passed by a majority Republican Senate, and signed by a Republican President.

And as a bonus to the Pharmaceutical Industry, bans the government from negotiating on price making the whole program very expensive.

[onlykelsey]

My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.

We've spent 8 years with Republicans refusing to do basically anything other than scream death panel. So for you a Clinton presidency with a Republican congress would seem to come the closest to your turnip scenario.

Obama passed the ACA, the biggest entitlement we've passed in a long time, not too mention all his work with executive orders or other bills he has signed. To say he's basically accomplished nothing is nonsense, by far the candidate who would prevent new laws would be Gary Johnson

In 2016, Medicare Part D will cost more than the ACA provisions.  Medicare Part D, as you know, is an entitlement introduced by the Republican Speaker of the House, passed by a majority Republican House, passed by a majority Republican Senate, and signed by a Republican President.

And as a bonus to the Pharmaceutical Industry, bans the government from negotiating on price making the whole program very expensive.

Yeah, that last part is brutal.  The pharmaceutical industry didn't get as much attention as I thought it deserved in negotiation of the ACA.  I'm not a Sanders voter, but he's associated with a sort of brain trust/pet project that has a pretty brutal but I think realistic take on the pharmaceutical industry.  I wouldn't go so far as to remove IP protection for drugs, but something's got to give.

[beltim]

My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.

We've spent 8 years with Republicans refusing to do basically anything other than scream death panel. So for you a Clinton presidency with a Republican congress would seem to come the closest to your turnip scenario.

Obama passed the ACA, the biggest entitlement we've passed in a long time, not too mention all his work with executive orders or other bills he has signed. To say he's basically accomplished nothing is nonsense, by far the candidate who would prevent new laws would be Gary Johnson

In 2016, Medicare Part D will cost more than the ACA provisions.  Medicare Part D, as you know, is an entitlement introduced by the Republican Speaker of the House, passed by a majority Republican House, passed by a majority Republican Senate, and signed by a Republican President.

And as a bonus to the Pharmaceutical Industry, bans the government from negotiating on price making the whole program very expensive.

As the House Minority Leader (Nancy Pelosi) pointed out at the time.

[Chris22]

Hillary is probably pretty corrupt but she at least has a semblance of an idea how government works and has demonstrated the ability to accomplish things and effectively govern.

One thing to consider is that there is very little I want the government to "accomplish" and "effectively govern" is mostly an oxymoron in my opinion (just leave us the hell alone).  My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.  Can't convince me that wouldn't be better than either party.

So, would you support a libertarian, or are you doing more strategic voting?

I would gladly vote libertarian except that I feel it's throwing my vote away.

depends on your state....if you are not a battleground state, vote whomever you want to help the third party get their magic percentage which guarantees funding and equal treatment in subsequent elections.

The problem is, if the Libertarian party becomes more prominent, it will be at the expense of the GOP, just like if the Greens become more prominent, it will be at the expense of the Dems.  I don't want to weaken the GOP and allow a Dem win, solely because someday maybe the Libs win one.  That's too much of a long game gamble.

[onlykelsey]

Hillary is probably pretty corrupt but she at least has a semblance of an idea how government works and has demonstrated the ability to accomplish things and effectively govern.

One thing to consider is that there is very little I want the government to "accomplish" and "effectively govern" is mostly an oxymoron in my opinion (just leave us the hell alone).  My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.  Can't convince me that wouldn't be better than either party.

So, would you support a libertarian, or are you doing more strategic voting?

I would gladly vote libertarian except that I feel it's throwing my vote away.

depends on your state....if you are not a battleground state, vote whomever you want to help the third party get their magic percentage which guarantees funding and equal treatment in subsequent elections.

The problem is, if the Libertarian party becomes more prominent, it will be at the expense of the GOP, just like if the Greens become more prominent, it will be at the expense of the Dems.  I don't want to weaken the GOP and allow a Dem win, solely because someday maybe the Libs win one.  That's too much of a long game gamble.

It seems to me like the GOP is set to split in to a more nationalist/protectionist arm vs a more small government/libertarian-lite/Adam Smith liberal arm.  There doesn't seem to be too much uniting the party anymore.  Of course, same could be said about Dems and the GOP with respect to trade deals a la NAFTA and TPP.  But it doesn't seem like there's a real split on other issues for Dems as much.

[Chris22]

Hillary is probably pretty corrupt but she at least has a semblance of an idea how government works and has demonstrated the ability to accomplish things and effectively govern.

One thing to consider is that there is very little I want the government to "accomplish" and "effectively govern" is mostly an oxymoron in my opinion (just leave us the hell alone).  My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.  Can't convince me that wouldn't be better than either party.

So, would you support a libertarian, or are you doing more strategic voting?

I would gladly vote libertarian except that I feel it's throwing my vote away.

depends on your state....if you are not a battleground state, vote whomever you want to help the third party get their magic percentage which guarantees funding and equal treatment in subsequent elections.

The problem is, if the Libertarian party becomes more prominent, it will be at the expense of the GOP, just like if the Greens become more prominent, it will be at the expense of the Dems.  I don't want to weaken the GOP and allow a Dem win, solely because someday maybe the Libs win one.  That's too much of a long game gamble.

It seems to me like the GOP is set to split in to a more nationalist/protectionist arm vs a more small government/libertarian-lite/Adam Smith liberal arm.  There doesn't seem to be too much uniting the party anymore.  Of course, same could be said about Dems and the GOP with respect to trade deals a la NAFTA and TPP.  But it doesn't seem like there's a real split on other issues for Dems as much.

Really?  Has Bernie conceded yet?

[onlykelsey]

Hillary is probably pretty corrupt but she at least has a semblance of an idea how government works and has demonstrated the ability to accomplish things and effectively govern.

One thing to consider is that there is very little I want the government to "accomplish" and "effectively govern" is mostly an oxymoron in my opinion (just leave us the hell alone).  My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.  Can't convince me that wouldn't be better than either party.

So, would you support a libertarian, or are you doing more strategic voting?

I would gladly vote libertarian except that I feel it's throwing my vote away.

depends on your state....if you are not a battleground state, vote whomever you want to help the third party get their magic percentage which guarantees funding and equal treatment in subsequent elections.

The problem is, if the Libertarian party becomes more prominent, it will be at the expense of the GOP, just like if the Greens become more prominent, it will be at the expense of the Dems.  I don't want to weaken the GOP and allow a Dem win, solely because someday maybe the Libs win one.  That's too much of a long game gamble.

It seems to me like the GOP is set to split in to a more nationalist/protectionist arm vs a more small government/libertarian-lite/Adam Smith liberal arm.  There doesn't seem to be too much uniting the party anymore.  Of course, same could be said about Dems and the GOP with respect to trade deals a la NAFTA and TPP.  But it doesn't seem like there's a real split on other issues for Dems as much.

Really?  Has Bernie conceded yet?

I think that's more of a personality-driven insider outsider split, as his support among registered Dems is smaller than his support so far in the primary (because of open primaries).  It seems like the substantive issues he differs from Clinton on are foreign policy (although I'm not sure he has a coherent one) and neo-liberalism in trade and tax policies, although she's backpedaled there in the primary herself, I think she's at heart still a neo-liberal open borders open trade type.

[Jeremy E.]

Hillary is probably pretty corrupt but she at least has a semblance of an idea how government works and has demonstrated the ability to accomplish things and effectively govern.

One thing to consider is that there is very little I want the government to "accomplish" and "effectively govern" is mostly an oxymoron in my opinion (just leave us the hell alone).  My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.  Can't convince me that wouldn't be better than either party.

So, would you support a libertarian, or are you doing more strategic voting?

I would gladly vote libertarian except that I feel it's throwing my vote away.

depends on your state....if you are not a battleground state, vote whomever you want to help the third party get their magic percentage which guarantees funding and equal treatment in subsequent elections.

The problem is, if the Libertarian party becomes more prominent, it will be at the expense of the GOP, just like if the Greens become more prominent, it will be at the expense of the Dems.  I don't want to weaken the GOP and allow a Dem win, solely because someday maybe the Libs win one.  That's too much of a long game gamble.

I would think this would be true as well, and maybe it will be during a less chaotic election. But currently he has been taking slightly more votes from Clinton than Trump. Him being socially liberal, and not a war monger, makes him appealing to a lot of "Democrats".

[randymarsh]

My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.

We've spent 8 years with Republicans refusing to do basically anything other than scream death panel. So for you a Clinton presidency with a Republican congress would seem to come the closest to your turnip scenario.

Obama passed the ACA, the biggest entitlement we've passed in a long time, not too mention all his work with executive orders or other bills he has signed. To say he's basically accomplished nothing is nonsense, by far the candidate who would prevent new laws would be Gary Johnson

I didn't literally mean nothing. Just that overall, the past 8 years we've had an unproductive Congress who are constantly slowing everything down or outright blocking anything. That seems closest to what Chriss22 would be in favor of. Obama did have the first 2 years but I don't think anyone can say Congress was highly productive even then.

The EO point makes no sense. Obama has signed 364 EOs. GWB: 291 Clinton: 364 Carter: 320 Reagan: 381 Nixon: 346

[Jeremy E.]

My dream candidate would be a turnip or watermelon or something to just sit there for the next 8 years so that we STOP MAKING NEW LAWS.

We've spent 8 years with Republicans refusing to do basically anything other than scream death panel. So for you a Clinton presidency with a Republican congress would seem to come the closest to your turnip scenario.

Obama passed the ACA, the biggest entitlement we've passed in a long time, not too mention all his work with executive orders or other bills he has signed. To say he's basically accomplished nothing is nonsense, by far the candidate who would prevent new laws would be Gary Johnson

I didn't literally mean nothing. Just that overall, the past 8 years we've had an unproductive Congress who are constantly slowing everything down or outright blocking anything. That seems closest to what Chriss22 would be in favor of. Obama did have the first 2 years but I don't think anyone can say Congress was highly productive even then.

The EO point makes no sense. Obama has signed 364 EOs. GWB: 291 Clinton: 364 Carter: 320 Reagan: 381 Nixon: 346

Why does the EO point make no sense?