CDZ What choice have folks who find Trump detestable and Mrs. Clinton unacceptable?

[sakinago]

One of the things you're omitting from the formula is that, like me, there are millions upon millions of voters in enough states to deliver the Presidency to Secretary Clinton

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Well, there's a first time for everything, isn't there. LOL

This election cycle, with its two front runners having such high negatives, seems like as good a time as there's going to be for a third party candidate like Mr. Johnson to have a chance.

Speculating on just how he might actually attain the Presidency, I propose the following "strange bedfellows" scenario:

1. Mr. Johnson makes a major push to get his name known. That isn't all that hard to do if one thinks "outside the box." Indeed, taking a page from Kennedy's playbook, if Mr. Johnson can get a pop singer to release a catch tune that promotes him, he'd become quite well known almost overnight. You may recall that Sinatra did exactly that for JFK.
2. Mainstream Republicans, in their fit of dissatisfaction with Trump look at Mr. Johnson's stance on the issues and notice that although they aren't in lockstep with Republican ideas, they aren't very far from them, and some of them are identical to them.
3. Upon noticing the great degree of similarity, along with looking at Mr. Johnson's record as NM Governor, GOP mainstreamers decide Mr. Johnson is a far better compromise than is Trump, particularly since Libertarians would caucus with Republicans in Congress anyway.
4. Mainstream GOP leaders mount a campaign backing Mr. Johnson as the alternative to Trump.
5. Johnson doesn't win enough of the electoral college votes to win the Presidency outright, but he draws enough votes from Trump and the Democratic nominee that he throws the decision of who shall be President into the House of Representatives.
6. Given that the Republican held House must choose among the top three electoral vote getters, their choices will be Trump, Mr. Johnson and whomever the Democratic candidate is.
7. Of those three choices, the House lead by the establishment/mainstream will almost certainly choose Mr. Johnson. The man's a two-term Governor. It's not as though his views are strange, unknown or not conservative. In some areas they may not be as conservative as some REPs would like, but in all areas they are more conservative than are Trump's ideas and approaches.
8. Boom. Gary Johnson becomes President.

You'll note that the keys to that strategy are:

• Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee. Not a far fetched possibility, and a possibility that the GOP can help along by encouraging support for her over Mr. Sanders.
• Johnson drawing enough electoral votes from Mrs. Clinton (or Mr. Sanders if he runs, although appealing to core DEMs and Mr. Sanders' own base of young idealists is unlikely) to throw the decision into the House.
• Republican leaders who despise Trump get over the need to have a Republican in name in the White House and focus on the substance of what they want and don't want, thereby accepting a good compromise when they see it and acting to make it happen. This is probably the biggest hurdle to overcome among the three key pillars of the strategy I proposed.

Is it an unusual approach for Mr. Johnson? Sure it is. Does it give the GOP and other mainstream politicians and voters a far more tolerable/"less negative" alternative than Trump or Mrs. Clinton? Absolutely.

P.S.
No, I don't really want Johnson to become POTUS, but if the alternative is Trump, sure, I'll take Johnson instead. In a New York minute. LOL Of the remaining possibilities, Sanders is the one I prefer. He just makes more sense overall to me, even though he's far from perfect.

One of the things you're omitting from the formula is that, like me, there are millions upon millions of voters in enough states to deliver the Presidency to Secretary Clinton who are not voting against Trump or Johnson or anyone else. Call us the establishment or whatever...we're firmly in her camp and she isn't going anywhere...

The only thing that would allow your scenario to (in part) come true is whether Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton end up intertwined in legal matters that shape the race.

Red:
First of all, what I identified isn't a formula. I identified a strategy and a high level plan for effecting it. A formula is something entirely different from either of those things. That said, I know what you are referring to, and that's clearly more important in this context than whether it's called a strategy, formula or banana even.

I didn't omit anything of the sort that you've suggested. What you've identified is obvious and has nothing to do with the strategy or the rough plan I outlined for implementing it. You've stated nothing short of what is the wager each nominating party must make regarding whether a majority of the nation's electoral votes can be collected by their respective nominees. As things appear right now:

• The Democrats' wager will be that Mrs. Clinton can do so.
• The Republican's wager ostensibly will be that Trump can do so.
• The Libertarians wager will be that Mr. Johnson can do so.
• The Green Party's wager will be that whomever they nominate can do so.

The Republican's who don't want Trump to do so have only one wager, and that is finding someone who can prevent Mrs. Clinton and Trump from collecting enough electoral votes to force the decision into the House of Representative where the establishment GOP holds sway. So, of course, if the Democrats' wager pans out and Mrs. Clinton wins the required 270 electoral votes, it won't matter whether the strategy and plan to drive the decision into the House works, for clearly it will not have. Nonetheless, it, something very similar to it, or a meeting of the minds between Trump and the GOP mainstream, are the only real options the GOP mainstream have at the moment.

Lastly, you'll notice the thread question is, "what choice have folks" who are unwilling to support/vote for Trump or Clinton. The strategy and plan I outlined is one of the choices they have. What I've laid out is an actionable choice and course of action such individuals currently have available to them. Have you seen anyone else in the discussion here identify anything that directly answers the title question and that resembles a clear strategy and plan? I haven't.

I realize you want Mrs. Clinton to win the Presidential election. That's fine, and I have no problem with it. As I noted earlier, I don't want Trump or Mr. Johnson to win, but that I don't want them to win doesn't prevent me from being able to identify what strategic options the GOP currently have open to them and what it'd take for them to bring them to fruition.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War​

Part of knowing the enemy is knowing what options they have and then crafting one's own plan for countering them. So for you, myself and others who don't want Trump to win, and even though we may not be campaign strategists, the call of this thread is to try to think like one and present actionable strategies. The next step, if one wants to carry on the discussion is to identify actionable counters to one's strategy. Politics, war and chess have a lot in common.

P.S.
It is the discussion of stratagems and their counters that I find eminently more interesting than the puerile "I'm right; you're wrong and stupid" banter that typically passes for discussion/debate on USMB. There isn't a political strategy subforum on USMB, so here and the SDF subforum is where I dwell in the hope of finding a few well informed and deep thinking folks who will engage in strategic level civil discourse.


Blue:
Well, for now, that's so. The "two ton gorilla in the room" is, of course what the FBI determines it must do regarding her emails and home email server. Where Mrs. Clinton will go is to her lawyers' offices and a courtroom to plan and argue her defense.

I happen to think that if they indict her, her chances of winning the Presidency will be all but over. I honestly doubt the Democratic Party willfully would nominate a person who has an active and unresolved federal indictment against them. One can ask the American people to overlook quite a lot, and they often will, Donald Trump's success being a fine illustration of that, but open federal charges are not something enough voters will overlook to thereby allow a nominee to get the required 270 electoral votes.

Lastly, given that Mr. Sanders doesn't currently have a mathematical path to winning the Democratic Presidential nomination, it wouldn't surprise me to later find out that Mr. Sanders is remaining in the Democratic primary races largely (albeit quietly) hoping for and just in case the FBI do indict Mrs. Clinton.

Mr Sanders is fighting Hillary to almost a dead even TIE in ELECTED delegates. The contest is lopsided as it is because Sgt Schultz and the Party bosses put in a 15% barrier of UNELECTED delegates. With a lot of coin flips and card draws and other stunts that add up to massive voter disenfranchisement.. One superdelegate is equivalent to about 10,000 Joe Schmoe voters. It's a coronation, not an election. Unless Bernie can literally STEAL the superdelegates from Hilary the same way Obama did.

Being a nominee in the Dem party is now a PATRONAGE job. It's measured by how much money you've raised, how many times you've taken a bullet for cause and how willing you are to spin and deflect for the party..

In the Libertarian Debates (yes they were TELEVISED on Stossel) -- it was agreed by ALL the candidate that BERNIE was correct on about 1/2 of his issues. Ending Corporate Welfare, a higher bar to military interventions, support of ALL 10 of the Bill of Rights, etc.. So I suspect -- that if the Dem party simply erases his efforts to turn the party pink ---- there WILL be just as many #neverhiliary as #nevertrump voters looking at Johnson..

Our problem is -- Johnson has the charisma of a banana slug.. Or he USED to. He's loosened up a bit. He got a lot stuff DONE in New Mexico without making it ----- about him..

Mr. Sanders is right about a lot, mostly when it comes to the problems. Most of his soloutions I do not agree with...but at least he actually has solutions compared to other current candidates. And I can't believe sanders supporters aren't freaking out as much as they should be about the super delegates, we will see if they demand change or not after this. I don't see sanders stealing the super delegates just because for the dems, it's her defacto birthright this go round.

But yes if there's any time for libertarians to bust a move, it is now. Problem is trump and the GOP will blame the loss on the libertarian 3rd party. Wether or not GOP base buys that, we shall see in the house elections in 2 years.

Probable scenario I see for 3rd party libertarian ticket in near future: Clinton wins election, economic bubble burst, Clinton takes blame, some dems shift left to sanders, social lib/fisc cons move to libertarian, libertarian doesn't fully take over GOP but still a good share, put a Rubio-esq eloquent type head for lib party and libertarians have a good shot at presidency with a close 3 way race.

 

[candycorn]

One of the things you're omitting from the formula is that, like me, there are millions upon millions of voters in enough states to deliver the Presidency to Secretary Clinton

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Well, there's a first time for everything, isn't there. LOL

This election cycle, with its two front runners having such high negatives, seems like as good a time as there's going to be for a third party candidate like Mr. Johnson to have a chance.

Speculating on just how he might actually attain the Presidency, I propose the following "strange bedfellows" scenario:

1. Mr. Johnson makes a major push to get his name known. That isn't all that hard to do if one thinks "outside the box." Indeed, taking a page from Kennedy's playbook, if Mr. Johnson can get a pop singer to release a catch tune that promotes him, he'd become quite well known almost overnight. You may recall that Sinatra did exactly that for JFK.
2. Mainstream Republicans, in their fit of dissatisfaction with Trump look at Mr. Johnson's stance on the issues and notice that although they aren't in lockstep with Republican ideas, they aren't very far from them, and some of them are identical to them.
3. Upon noticing the great degree of similarity, along with looking at Mr. Johnson's record as NM Governor, GOP mainstreamers decide Mr. Johnson is a far better compromise than is Trump, particularly since Libertarians would caucus with Republicans in Congress anyway.
4. Mainstream GOP leaders mount a campaign backing Mr. Johnson as the alternative to Trump.
5. Johnson doesn't win enough of the electoral college votes to win the Presidency outright, but he draws enough votes from Trump and the Democratic nominee that he throws the decision of who shall be President into the House of Representatives.
6. Given that the Republican held House must choose among the top three electoral vote getters, their choices will be Trump, Mr. Johnson and whomever the Democratic candidate is.
7. Of those three choices, the House lead by the establishment/mainstream will almost certainly choose Mr. Johnson. The man's a two-term Governor. It's not as though his views are strange, unknown or not conservative. In some areas they may not be as conservative as some REPs would like, but in all areas they are more conservative than are Trump's ideas and approaches.
8. Boom. Gary Johnson becomes President.

You'll note that the keys to that strategy are:

• Hillary Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee. Not a far fetched possibility, and a possibility that the GOP can help along by encouraging support for her over Mr. Sanders.
• Johnson drawing enough electoral votes from Mrs. Clinton (or Mr. Sanders if he runs, although appealing to core DEMs and Mr. Sanders' own base of young idealists is unlikely) to throw the decision into the House.
• Republican leaders who despise Trump get over the need to have a Republican in name in the White House and focus on the substance of what they want and don't want, thereby accepting a good compromise when they see it and acting to make it happen. This is probably the biggest hurdle to overcome among the three key pillars of the strategy I proposed.

Is it an unusual approach for Mr. Johnson? Sure it is. Does it give the GOP and other mainstream politicians and voters a far more tolerable/"less negative" alternative than Trump or Mrs. Clinton? Absolutely.

P.S.
No, I don't really want Johnson to become POTUS, but if the alternative is Trump, sure, I'll take Johnson instead. In a New York minute. LOL Of the remaining possibilities, Sanders is the one I prefer. He just makes more sense overall to me, even though he's far from perfect.

One of the things you're omitting from the formula is that, like me, there are millions upon millions of voters in enough states to deliver the Presidency to Secretary Clinton who are not voting against Trump or Johnson or anyone else. Call us the establishment or whatever...we're firmly in her camp and she isn't going anywhere...

The only thing that would allow your scenario to (in part) come true is whether Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton end up intertwined in legal matters that shape the race.

Red:
First of all, what I identified isn't a formula. I identified a strategy and a high level plan for effecting it. A formula is something entirely different from either of those things. That said, I know what you are referring to, and that's clearly more important in this context than whether it's called a strategy, formula or banana even.

I didn't omit anything of the sort that you've suggested. What you've identified is obvious and has nothing to do with the strategy or the rough plan I outlined for implementing it. You've stated nothing short of what is the wager each nominating party must make regarding whether a majority of the nation's electoral votes can be collected by their respective nominees. As things appear right now:

• The Democrats' wager will be that Mrs. Clinton can do so.
• The Republican's wager ostensibly will be that Trump can do so.
• The Libertarians wager will be that Mr. Johnson can do so.
• The Green Party's wager will be that whomever they nominate can do so.

The Republican's who don't want Trump to do so have only one wager, and that is finding someone who can prevent Mrs. Clinton and Trump from collecting enough electoral votes to force the decision into the House of Representative where the establishment GOP holds sway. So, of course, if the Democrats' wager pans out and Mrs. Clinton wins the required 270 electoral votes, it won't matter whether the strategy and plan to drive the decision into the House works, for clearly it will not have. Nonetheless, it, something very similar to it, or a meeting of the minds between Trump and the GOP mainstream, are the only real options the GOP mainstream have at the moment.

Lastly, you'll notice the thread question is, "what choice have folks" who are unwilling to support/vote for Trump or Clinton. The strategy and plan I outlined is one of the choices they have. What I've laid out is an actionable choice and course of action such individuals currently have available to them. Have you seen anyone else in the discussion here identify anything that directly answers the title question and that resembles a clear strategy and plan? I haven't.

I realize you want Mrs. Clinton to win the Presidential election. That's fine, and I have no problem with it. As I noted earlier, I don't want Trump or Mr. Johnson to win, but that I don't want them to win doesn't prevent me from being able to identify what strategic options the GOP currently have open to them and what it'd take for them to bring them to fruition.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War​

Part of knowing the enemy is knowing what options they have and then crafting one's own plan for countering them. So for you, myself and others who don't want Trump to win, and even though we may not be campaign strategists, the call of this thread is to try to think like one and present actionable strategies. The next step, if one wants to carry on the discussion is to identify actionable counters to one's strategy. Politics, war and chess have a lot in common.

P.S.
It is the discussion of stratagems and their counters that I find eminently more interesting than the puerile "I'm right; you're wrong and stupid" banter that typically passes for discussion/debate on USMB. There isn't a political strategy subforum on USMB, so here and the SDF subforum is where I dwell in the hope of finding a few well informed and deep thinking folks who will engage in strategic level civil discourse.


Blue:
Well, for now, that's so. The "two ton gorilla in the room" is, of course what the FBI determines it must do regarding her emails and home email server. Where Mrs. Clinton will go is to her lawyers' offices and a courtroom to plan and argue her defense.

I happen to think that if they indict her, her chances of winning the Presidency will be all but over. I honestly doubt the Democratic Party willfully would nominate a person who has an active and unresolved federal indictment against them. One can ask the American people to overlook quite a lot, and they often will, Donald Trump's success being a fine illustration of that, but open federal charges are not something enough voters will overlook to thereby allow a nominee to get the required 270 electoral votes.

Lastly, given that Mr. Sanders doesn't currently have a mathematical path to winning the Democratic Presidential nomination, it wouldn't surprise me to later find out that Mr. Sanders is remaining in the Democratic primary races largely (albeit quietly) hoping for and just in case the FBI do indict Mrs. Clinton.

Your "strategy" then relies on someone that most people have never heard of to win "enough electoral votes" to deny Mr. Drumpf or Ms. Clinton of 270. To say that the "strategy" is idiotic on its face is to be so polite I would get the Ms. Manners seal of approval.

To put it another way....giggle....Obama won 332 electoral votes. What Gary Johnson would have to do is strip away 63 electoral votes MEANING he would have to get a plurality of votes in states with millions of people such as Florida with 20 million people. Lets say that 8 million vote, he will have to get about 3,000,000 people who have no idea who he is to vote for him over people they either love or loathe. Then replicate that feat in Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan (or even more states if you're a real masochist).

Your "strategy" doesn't mention the Democrats until the 5th point to where you make the assumption that HRC loses to this guy (again, nobody knows who he is).

Granted, if she ends up in jail or Mr. Drumpf ends up in jail, all bets are off. However, in the spirt of Simon and Garfunkel; nobody says, Where have you gone Gary Johnson"A nation turns its lonely eyes to you (Woo, woo, woo)". Again, nobody knows who this guy is and your "strategy" is about as pie in the sky as they come. Rube Goldberg would be proud.

 

[320 Years of History]

Your "strategy" then relies on someone that most people have never heard of to win "enough electoral votes" to deny Mr. Drumpf or Ms. Clinton of 270.

he will have to get about 3,000,000 people who have no idea who he is to vote for him over people they either love or loathe. Then replicate that feat in [several other states].

First, I presented a strategy, and that strategy is to throw the choice of who'll become President into the House of Representatives because the GOP control the House. That Gary Johnson is the person who'd become President as a result of that strategy is incidental, but nonetheless important, to that strategy because he's already on the ballot in every state. If it is possible to put a different person on the ballots in enough states, Gary Johnson need not be the person chosen as the object of having achieved the strategy. That it be Gary Johnson isn't essential to the strategy of throwing the election into the House. Keep the preceding in mind as you read further in this post.


Remember, what I presented is a strategy. Strategy is about what can be done or what to do, not how to do it. Once one has figured out what one intends to do, the next step would be to identify how to do it, identify the tactics, and part of that is identifying the obstacles to bringing the strategy to fruition and identifying what is necessary to overcome those obstacles, and whatever that/those actions be, I'm certain they won't be as easy as flipping a light switch. It doesn't need to be that easy or easy at all; it needs to be possible to happen can be made to happen in the sphere of politics. Doing so is a matter of (1) having the will and (2) securing and effectively applying the right mix of resources and actions. Some or all of those resources are unlikely to fall into one's lap, and that's where the work, truly hard work and lots of it, to garner them comes in.

Yes, the paucity of name recognition you mention is a significant obstacle Mr. Johnson will have to overcome. That makes it a tactical level key to success not a strategic level key. I'm not denying that the "awareness factor" is an obstacle. I'm saying that is not an insurmountable one if the right combo of resources are marshalled to make it happen. I'm also aware that Mr. Johnson has experience overcoming precisely that obstacle in his quest to become NM's governor.

I think you have succumbed to a tactical mode of thinking and allowing tactical level impediments cloud one's thinking and focus on achieving the strategic goals. I observe that "bass ackwards" form of thinking in far too many folks. (That backwards sequence of considerations is precisely what is observed here where a number of folks failed to address the merit of achieving the outcome before addressing the challenge(s) of actually achieving it.) That is, thinking...

• "XYZ is very difficult to accomplish, expensive to make happen, etc., and because it is, it won't happen,"

rather than thinking...

• "XYZ can be done and it won't be easy, but it's what we want to do because doing it brings us closer to our objectives than does not doing it. Now let's figure out how to do it."

In considering the strategic option I outlined, the questions to ask, and for which one must obtain an credible answer are,

1. "Is the dissatisfaction with Trump and Clinton great and deep/enduring enough that, with the support of those dissatisfied voters and party leaders, a third party candidate could cause the election to be tossed into the House?" If so, why? If not, why not?
2. Assuming one is a Republican, are Gary Johnson's positions close enough to those of the GOP mainstream that actually acting to achieve the strategy using him as its object is a better alternative than would be attempting to put some Republican on the ballots of as many states as possible?

The question to ask at this point in the discussion is not, "How hard will it be for Mr. Johnson to become known and preferred to enough voters in enough states?"

The third question is substantively the one you've been evaluating, and doing so is essentially your putting the cart ahead of the horse, that is, putting a tactical question ahead of the top-level strategic one. That third question is without doubt one to ask, eventually, but only after arriving at an answer to the first two questions, which address whether there is cause to pursue the strategy at all and whether it must be Mr. Johnson or can be someone else who will be the object of the strategy. (Remember, the object of a strategy is not the strategy itself.)

Regardless of whether there is or is not cause to pursue the strategy, the tactics needed to achieve it, and/or the difficulty of executing on those tactics, are not relevant to the question of whether the strategy is what one should do to achieve one's ultimate objective(s). And what is the ultimate objective of the strategy I've presented? To prevent Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton from becoming President. Period.

 

[candycorn]

Your "strategy" then relies on someone that most people have never heard of to win "enough electoral votes" to deny Mr. Drumpf or Ms. Clinton of 270.

he will have to get about 3,000,000 people who have no idea who he is to vote for him over people they either love or loathe. Then replicate that feat in [several other states].

First, I presented a strategy, and that strategy is to throw the choice of who'll become President into the House of Representatives because the GOP control the House. That Gary Johnson is the person who'd become President as a result of that strategy is incidental, but nonetheless important, to that strategy because he's already on the ballot in every state. If it is possible to put a different person on the ballots in enough states, Gary Johnson need not be the person chosen as the object of having achieved the strategy. That it be Gary Johnson isn't essential to the strategy of throwing the election into the House. Keep the preceding in mind as you read further in this post.


Remember, what I presented is a strategy. Strategy is about what can be done or what to do, not how to do it. Once one has figured out what one intends to do, the next step would be to identify how to do it, identify the tactics, and part of that is identifying the obstacles to bringing the strategy to fruition and identifying what is necessary to overcome those obstacles, and whatever that/those actions be, I'm certain they won't be as easy as flipping a light switch. It doesn't need to be that easy or easy at all; it needs to be possible to happen can be made to happen in the sphere of politics. Doing so is a matter of (1) having the will and (2) securing and effectively applying the right mix of resources and actions. Some or all of those resources are unlikely to fall into one's lap, and that's where the work, truly hard work and lots of it, to garner them comes in.

Yes, the paucity of name recognition you mention is a significant obstacle Mr. Johnson will have to overcome. That makes it a tactical level key to success not a strategic level key. I'm not denying that the "awareness factor" is an obstacle. I'm saying that is not an insurmountable one if the right combo of resources are marshalled to make it happen. I'm also aware that Mr. Johnson has experience overcoming precisely that obstacle in his quest to become NM's governor.

I think you have succumbed to a tactical mode of thinking and allowing tactical level impediments cloud one's thinking and focus on achieving the strategic goals. I observe that "bass ackwards" form of thinking in far too many folks. (That backwards sequence of considerations is precisely what is observed here where a number of folks failed to address the merit of achieving the outcome before addressing the challenge(s) of actually achieving it.) That is, thinking...

• "XYZ is very difficult to accomplish, expensive to make happen, etc., and because it is, it won't happen,"

rather than thinking...

• "XYZ can be done and it won't be easy, but it's what we want to do because doing it brings us closer to our objectives than does not doing it. Now let's figure out how to do it."

In considering the strategic option I outlined, the questions to ask, and for which one must obtain an credible answer are,

1. "Is the dissatisfaction with Trump and Clinton great and deep/enduring enough that, with the support of those dissatisfied voters and party leaders, a third party candidate could cause the election to be tossed into the House?" If so, why? If not, why not?
2. Assuming one is a Republican, are Gary Johnson's positions close enough to those of the GOP mainstream that actually acting to achieve the strategy using him as its object is a better alternative than would be attempting to put some Republican on the ballots of as many states as possible?

The question to ask at this point in the discussion is not, "How hard will it be for Mr. Johnson to become known and preferred to enough voters in enough states?"

The third question is substantively the one you've been evaluating, and doing so is essentially your putting the cart ahead of the horse, that is, putting a tactical question ahead of the top-level strategic one. That third question is without doubt one to ask, eventually, but only after arriving at an answer to the first two questions, which address whether there is cause to pursue the strategy at all and whether it must be Mr. Johnson or can be someone else who will be the object of the strategy. (Remember, the object of a strategy is not the strategy itself.)

Regardless of whether there is or is not cause to pursue the strategy, the tactics needed to achieve it, and/or the difficulty of executing on those tactics, are not relevant to the question of whether the strategy is what one should do to achieve one's ultimate objective(s). And what is the ultimate objective of the strategy I've presented? To prevent Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton from becoming President. Period.

Not sure what your point is.

The dis-satisfaction with Drumpf is deep, pronounced, and will not go away. It cuts across deep across every demographic except working class white males and there is a large percentage of them that won’t vote for him.

The dis-satisfaction with HRC is rooted in some demographics that are electorally insignificant. She will get her base out with no problem and there will be more than enough independents who will vote against Drumpf that pull a lever for her.

Whatever the point was you were trying to make didn’t address the above reality.

 

[Mac1958]

Nothing wrong with voting alternate party.

Regardless of what some seem to think, your one vote is no less important than the one vote of anyone who obediently votes (R) or (D).

We have far too many obediently voting (R) or (D) as it is.

Either way, ya gotta vote.
.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Do not know him. He's a non-factor. You decide in one of the four boxes in our 2 party system.

Vote against the DEM by voting for the GOP
Vote against the GOP by voting for the DEM
Vote for the DEM
Vote for the GOP

I have no qualms voting for Ms. Clinton. I just haven't decided in what state to cast my ballot. j/k

That's a rather binary way of looking at what is clearly not a binary set of choices.

• The Binary Fallacy | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
  
• False Dilemma

That is a rather unrealistic assessment of 2016 Presidential Politics. A vote for anyone other than Drumpf of Clinton is wasted in our system. If you wish to discuss better ways to elect the President, I'm all ears but in the current framework, a vote for Mr. Johnson is wasted in the final analysis. It may satisfy some internal desire to not lend support to either major party candidate and that is all well and good but our system is what it is; Sorry.

Not actually wasted. If you want to collect the "wasted" votes --- it would be every vote for the LOSING candidate of the 2 that the stupid parties offer.. Never wasted when you vote on PRINCIPLES. Only wasted if you value winning over REAL choice and principles.

Gary Johnson will be the nominee. We work EXTRAORDINALLY hard to get our candidate on all 50 state ballots. Against the myriad of hurdles and hoops and court challenges that the 2 parties throw at us. And as a 2 term Governor of New Mexico -- he has impeccable fiscal responsibility and is very socially liberal. Very attractive to the #NeverHilary as WELL AS the #NeverTrump crowds. He will likely pull 5 to 10% from BOTH parties this year because of the ARROGANCE of the parties and the AUTHORITARIAN candidates that are being offered.

America is not quite ready to buy an Emperor from either the RIGHT nor the LEFT. Not yet anyways..

No one running on the Libertarian line will draw 5-10% from the Dems. The Reps, yes, because there's a huge slice of that electorate that hates both Trump and Clinton. No way is there an equally large number of Dems who reject Hillary, simply because they always wind up voting pragmatically. Vote for principle over victory? That's absurd. Following that philosophy has the Republicans on the brink of self-destruction. Trump, on the other hand, could pull away a lot of Dems. Not women or Hispanics, of course. Rust-belt, blue collar Dems. No one knows how big that coalition is. It's new. Will Mr. Johnson eat into that new coalition? He better get a LOT of money behind him, cause right now he's an ant. Kristol and Co., who are trolling for a third party candidate, had better make up their minds quickly on who it will be, and get a lot of anti-Trump money and establishment figures behind them, if they hope to do any mischief.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do not know him. He's a non-factor. You decide in one of the four boxes in our 2 party system.

Vote against the DEM by voting for the GOP
Vote against the GOP by voting for the DEM
Vote for the DEM
Vote for the GOP

I have no qualms voting for Ms. Clinton. I just haven't decided in what state to cast my ballot. j/k

That's a rather binary way of looking at what is clearly not a binary set of choices.

• The Binary Fallacy | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
  
• False Dilemma

That is a rather unrealistic assessment of 2016 Presidential Politics. A vote for anyone other than Drumpf of Clinton is wasted in our system. If you wish to discuss better ways to elect the President, I'm all ears but in the current framework, a vote for Mr. Johnson is wasted in the final analysis. It may satisfy some internal desire to not lend support to either major party candidate and that is all well and good but our system is what it is; Sorry.

Not actually wasted. If you want to collect the "wasted" votes --- it would be every vote for the LOSING candidate of the 2 that the stupid parties offer.. Never wasted when you vote on PRINCIPLES. Only wasted if you value winning over REAL choice and principles.

Gary Johnson will be the nominee. We work EXTRAORDINALLY hard to get our candidate on all 50 state ballots. Against the myriad of hurdles and hoops and court challenges that the 2 parties throw at us. And as a 2 term Governor of New Mexico -- he has impeccable fiscal responsibility and is very socially liberal. Very attractive to the #NeverHilary as WELL AS the #NeverTrump crowds. He will likely pull 5 to 10% from BOTH parties this year because of the ARROGANCE of the parties and the AUTHORITARIAN candidates that are being offered.

America is not quite ready to buy an Emperor from either the RIGHT nor the LEFT. Not yet anyways..

No one running on the Libertarian line will draw 5-10% from the Dems. The Reps, yes, because there's a huge slice of that electorate that hates both Trump and Clinton. No way is there an equally large number of Dems who reject Hillary, simply because they always wind up voting pragmatically. Vote for principle over victory? That's absurd. Following that philosophy has the Republicans on the brink of self-destruction. Trump, on the other hand, could pull away a lot of Dems. Not women or Hispanics, of course. Rust-belt, blue collar Dems. No one knows how big that coalition is. It's new. Will Mr. Johnson eat into that new coalition? He better get a LOT of money behind him, cause right now he's an ant. Kristol and Co., who are trolling for a third party candidate, had better make up their minds quickly on who it will be, and get a lot of anti-Trump money and establishment figures behind them, if they hope to do any mischief.

Of COURSE you don't see any HUMONGEOUS fractures in the DEM party.. Because its all about Trump. But if you don't understand how PISSED OFF those young Bernie Fans are gonna be when Sgt Schultz SCREWS them all the convention ----- than I suppose you wouldn't "see 5 to 10%".. In fact -- I was being CONSERVATIVE about that number so as not to look too bold..

In fact -- when those Bernie fans go looking for an alternative to a re-tred power whore that they want NOTHING to do with -- what they are gonna find --- is that Gary Johnson agrees with fully HALF or MORE of what Bernie has been pitching. And he's just as committed to end Corporate collusion and handouts and get wrapped in much LESS foreign intervention and advocate support for ALL 10 of the Bill of Rights Amendments with no apologies. Fiscally conservative -- socially liberal is where young America is at.

Forget the 5 to 10% --- The ante goes UP to 10 to 15%.. And the same from the Reps.

 

[Elvis Obama]

That's a rather binary way of looking at what is clearly not a binary set of choices.

• The Binary Fallacy | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
  
• False Dilemma

That is a rather unrealistic assessment of 2016 Presidential Politics. A vote for anyone other than Drumpf of Clinton is wasted in our system. If you wish to discuss better ways to elect the President, I'm all ears but in the current framework, a vote for Mr. Johnson is wasted in the final analysis. It may satisfy some internal desire to not lend support to either major party candidate and that is all well and good but our system is what it is; Sorry.

Not actually wasted. If you want to collect the "wasted" votes --- it would be every vote for the LOSING candidate of the 2 that the stupid parties offer.. Never wasted when you vote on PRINCIPLES. Only wasted if you value winning over REAL choice and principles.

Gary Johnson will be the nominee. We work EXTRAORDINALLY hard to get our candidate on all 50 state ballots. Against the myriad of hurdles and hoops and court challenges that the 2 parties throw at us. And as a 2 term Governor of New Mexico -- he has impeccable fiscal responsibility and is very socially liberal. Very attractive to the #NeverHilary as WELL AS the #NeverTrump crowds. He will likely pull 5 to 10% from BOTH parties this year because of the ARROGANCE of the parties and the AUTHORITARIAN candidates that are being offered.

America is not buy an Emperor from either the RIGHT nor the LEFT. Not yet anyways..

Like nearly all Americans, I couldn't pick Gary Johnson out of a police line-up and he has zero chance of ascention to the White House regardless of what states of disarray the major parties are in.

When I say "wasted" a vote, I say it is wasted in the sense that you know well before you enter the voting booth that there is no chance your candidate will win your state. While this has morphed into the case for all but 11-20 states quadrenially (sp?), that wasn't always the case. In my lifetime, California has gone from Red to Blue, as has Texas from blue to red. as has any number of other states.

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Voting for them is wasting your vote in a real sense. If it satisfies some pact you have with yourself...so be it and more power to you. If you wish to effect change, you have to do so from inside the tent.

If you had a principled, serious public servant instead of Donald Drumpf who wasn't making a vanity play, one could fathom change from inside the tent of the GOP. It can take place. However, Drumpf is a pathetic toothache of a man interested in one thing, Donald Trump so there is no serious or, more importantly sustained (because change happens slowly I don't care who you are or whom you have leading it) figure acting as it's agent or party providing agency. I don't know who will challenge HRC in 2020 but I guarantee you one thing. If they have an R next to their name, they will be pro life, pro-small government (or at least say they are), pro increasing military spending, against entitlements for the poor, and above all else, be a Christian. I may not get 6 or 6 there but you get the idea.

Good luck to you and there is nothing wrong with voting your conscience. I think you're wasting your vote...but please don't let me stop you

Folks who vote to win are the real losers. Because they are consuming whatever wanna bee power whores the parties are offering.

The "power whores" have delivered the greatest standard of living in the history of the planet. The greatest accumulation of wealth by a people ever. The greatest military the planet has ever assembled. And one of the most benevolent societies in the history of the planet (if not the most benevolent).

I give the American voter an A+.

As far as picking Gary Johnson out of a line up -- same was true of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Or Barack Obama for that matter. And it's the MEDIA and the partisan FEC who designs "the lineup". This year, they are going to have a very hard EXCLUDING Gary Johnson from the everything Trump/Hilary reporting.. And the FEC is gonna get a LOT of pressure to recognize that ANY party that works to place a candidate on 50 state ballots -- SHOULD be included in the debates.

I 100% agree with you. I would love to see Gary Johnson on the debate stage with HRC and Donald Trump.

The Commission of Presidential Debates is the primary culprit.

The debates have been set:

First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

The media made a crapload of money on those Rep/Dem primary debates. And THEY were allowed to frame the issues and the discussion. We are rapidly approaching the point where the PARTIES are greater threat to the Democratic process than the candidates.

And more parties will solve that?

I tell you what I think we should do is have the CPD put together 3-5 debates each cycle for each party (one per month starting in November and going to March the following year)

Have the box on the income tax state that the money will go for this purpose and watch it flood in--my guess you'll see millions for this enterprise--I know I would chunk money in for it.

Anyway, have the debates in the following format; a 90 minute debate. If you have the normal 5-7 candidates, that is 13-18 minutes per candidate. So Bob Scheefer or whomever asks, "Mr. Romney, what is your plan to eliminate poverty. You have 3 minutes". So you get Gov. Romney unfiltered for 3 mins. After that, "Mr. Brown, your plan to eliminate poverty. 3 mins. Go." After that, "Ms. Haley, poverty, 3 mins, go."

On the next round, start with Ms. Haley "What is your plan to repair the VA. 3 mins" go. Then Brown, then Romney.

In the next GOP debate when there are usually less candidates, they get 15-20 mins each so you can ask 6-7 questions (different ones) that get a 3 min response each.

And eventually you get down to 2-3 candidates in March and you have a real substanative dissertation of the stances.

And this is happening for the Ds, the Libs, the R.s; everyone.

Meanwhile, FOX, CNN, MSNBC or whomever are having their made-for-TV crap too which you cannot totally eliminate.

What it will do is have an "official" period where a candidate has to say "Here is what I would do" without some guy on the end of the candidate row interrrupting or whatever.

What you would end up with is more unvarnished facts being put out there by the candidates who can't spend the entire time bitching about Obama's handling of Topic X.

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

 

[flacaltenn]

That is a rather unrealistic assessment of 2016 Presidential Politics. A vote for anyone other than Drumpf of Clinton is wasted in our system. If you wish to discuss better ways to elect the President, I'm all ears but in the current framework, a vote for Mr. Johnson is wasted in the final analysis. It may satisfy some internal desire to not lend support to either major party candidate and that is all well and good but our system is what it is; Sorry.

Not actually wasted. If you want to collect the "wasted" votes --- it would be every vote for the LOSING candidate of the 2 that the stupid parties offer.. Never wasted when you vote on PRINCIPLES. Only wasted if you value winning over REAL choice and principles.

Gary Johnson will be the nominee. We work EXTRAORDINALLY hard to get our candidate on all 50 state ballots. Against the myriad of hurdles and hoops and court challenges that the 2 parties throw at us. And as a 2 term Governor of New Mexico -- he has impeccable fiscal responsibility and is very socially liberal. Very attractive to the #NeverHilary as WELL AS the #NeverTrump crowds. He will likely pull 5 to 10% from BOTH parties this year because of the ARROGANCE of the parties and the AUTHORITARIAN candidates that are being offered.

America is not buy an Emperor from either the RIGHT nor the LEFT. Not yet anyways..

Like nearly all Americans, I couldn't pick Gary Johnson out of a police line-up and he has zero chance of ascention to the White House regardless of what states of disarray the major parties are in.

When I say "wasted" a vote, I say it is wasted in the sense that you know well before you enter the voting booth that there is no chance your candidate will win your state. While this has morphed into the case for all but 11-20 states quadrenially (sp?), that wasn't always the case. In my lifetime, California has gone from Red to Blue, as has Texas from blue to red. as has any number of other states.

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Voting for them is wasting your vote in a real sense. If it satisfies some pact you have with yourself...so be it and more power to you. If you wish to effect change, you have to do so from inside the tent.

If you had a principled, serious public servant instead of Donald Drumpf who wasn't making a vanity play, one could fathom change from inside the tent of the GOP. It can take place. However, Drumpf is a pathetic toothache of a man interested in one thing, Donald Trump so there is no serious or, more importantly sustained (because change happens slowly I don't care who you are or whom you have leading it) figure acting as it's agent or party providing agency. I don't know who will challenge HRC in 2020 but I guarantee you one thing. If they have an R next to their name, they will be pro life, pro-small government (or at least say they are), pro increasing military spending, against entitlements for the poor, and above all else, be a Christian. I may not get 6 or 6 there but you get the idea.

Good luck to you and there is nothing wrong with voting your conscience. I think you're wasting your vote...but please don't let me stop you

Folks who vote to win are the real losers. Because they are consuming whatever wanna bee power whores the parties are offering.

The "power whores" have delivered the greatest standard of living in the history of the planet. The greatest accumulation of wealth by a people ever. The greatest military the planet has ever assembled. And one of the most benevolent societies in the history of the planet (if not the most benevolent).

I give the American voter an A+.

As far as picking Gary Johnson out of a line up -- same was true of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Or Barack Obama for that matter. And it's the MEDIA and the partisan FEC who designs "the lineup". This year, they are going to have a very hard EXCLUDING Gary Johnson from the everything Trump/Hilary reporting.. And the FEC is gonna get a LOT of pressure to recognize that ANY party that works to place a candidate on 50 state ballots -- SHOULD be included in the debates.

I 100% agree with you. I would love to see Gary Johnson on the debate stage with HRC and Donald Trump.

The Commission of Presidential Debates is the primary culprit.

The debates have been set:

First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

The media made a crapload of money on those Rep/Dem primary debates. And THEY were allowed to frame the issues and the discussion. We are rapidly approaching the point where the PARTIES are greater threat to the Democratic process than the candidates.

And more parties will solve that?

I tell you what I think we should do is have the CPD put together 3-5 debates each cycle for each party (one per month starting in November and going to March the following year)

Have the box on the income tax state that the money will go for this purpose and watch it flood in--my guess you'll see millions for this enterprise--I know I would chunk money in for it.

Anyway, have the debates in the following format; a 90 minute debate. If you have the normal 5-7 candidates, that is 13-18 minutes per candidate. So Bob Scheefer or whomever asks, "Mr. Romney, what is your plan to eliminate poverty. You have 3 minutes". So you get Gov. Romney unfiltered for 3 mins. After that, "Mr. Brown, your plan to eliminate poverty. 3 mins. Go." After that, "Ms. Haley, poverty, 3 mins, go."

On the next round, start with Ms. Haley "What is your plan to repair the VA. 3 mins" go. Then Brown, then Romney.

In the next GOP debate when there are usually less candidates, they get 15-20 mins each so you can ask 6-7 questions (different ones) that get a 3 min response each.

And eventually you get down to 2-3 candidates in March and you have a real substanative dissertation of the stances.

And this is happening for the Ds, the Libs, the R.s; everyone.

Meanwhile, FOX, CNN, MSNBC or whomever are having their made-for-TV crap too which you cannot totally eliminate.

What it will do is have an "official" period where a candidate has to say "Here is what I would do" without some guy on the end of the candidate row interrrupting or whatever.

What you would end up with is more unvarnished facts being put out there by the candidates who can't spend the entire time bitching about Obama's handling of Topic X.

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

It's getting to the point where every other month you will hear Party operatives actually BRAG about duping the voters. First it was the ObamaCare consultant and lately I heard somebody in power bragging about "spinning" the Iran deal and getting favorable play from the Press because the American public is so uninformed and so revolted by the perpetual lying and spinning.

A+ just means they are being screwed and don't even know it.. The parties DO NOT RESPECT the voters. You can tell by the ads and the lying and deceit on the Sunday shows. And you can tell when the Dems practice the "voter disenfranchisement" that they SAID they opposed. When they give each SuperDelegate the equivalent power of 10,000 REAL voters and invoke coin tosses and card flips as they go along..

The parties just ABANDON weak districts where their support is below 45%.. Won't even run candidates for the House or Senate. THey don't CARE about offering representation or principles now. They only care about winning.

 

[candycorn]

That is a rather unrealistic assessment of 2016 Presidential Politics. A vote for anyone other than Drumpf of Clinton is wasted in our system. If you wish to discuss better ways to elect the President, I'm all ears but in the current framework, a vote for Mr. Johnson is wasted in the final analysis. It may satisfy some internal desire to not lend support to either major party candidate and that is all well and good but our system is what it is; Sorry.

Not actually wasted. If you want to collect the "wasted" votes --- it would be every vote for the LOSING candidate of the 2 that the stupid parties offer.. Never wasted when you vote on PRINCIPLES. Only wasted if you value winning over REAL choice and principles.

Gary Johnson will be the nominee. We work EXTRAORDINALLY hard to get our candidate on all 50 state ballots. Against the myriad of hurdles and hoops and court challenges that the 2 parties throw at us. And as a 2 term Governor of New Mexico -- he has impeccable fiscal responsibility and is very socially liberal. Very attractive to the #NeverHilary as WELL AS the #NeverTrump crowds. He will likely pull 5 to 10% from BOTH parties this year because of the ARROGANCE of the parties and the AUTHORITARIAN candidates that are being offered.

America is not buy an Emperor from either the RIGHT nor the LEFT. Not yet anyways..

Like nearly all Americans, I couldn't pick Gary Johnson out of a police line-up and he has zero chance of ascention to the White House regardless of what states of disarray the major parties are in.

When I say "wasted" a vote, I say it is wasted in the sense that you know well before you enter the voting booth that there is no chance your candidate will win your state. While this has morphed into the case for all but 11-20 states quadrenially (sp?), that wasn't always the case. In my lifetime, California has gone from Red to Blue, as has Texas from blue to red. as has any number of other states.

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Voting for them is wasting your vote in a real sense. If it satisfies some pact you have with yourself...so be it and more power to you. If you wish to effect change, you have to do so from inside the tent.

If you had a principled, serious public servant instead of Donald Drumpf who wasn't making a vanity play, one could fathom change from inside the tent of the GOP. It can take place. However, Drumpf is a pathetic toothache of a man interested in one thing, Donald Trump so there is no serious or, more importantly sustained (because change happens slowly I don't care who you are or whom you have leading it) figure acting as it's agent or party providing agency. I don't know who will challenge HRC in 2020 but I guarantee you one thing. If they have an R next to their name, they will be pro life, pro-small government (or at least say they are), pro increasing military spending, against entitlements for the poor, and above all else, be a Christian. I may not get 6 or 6 there but you get the idea.

Good luck to you and there is nothing wrong with voting your conscience. I think you're wasting your vote...but please don't let me stop you

Folks who vote to win are the real losers. Because they are consuming whatever wanna bee power whores the parties are offering.

The "power whores" have delivered the greatest standard of living in the history of the planet. The greatest accumulation of wealth by a people ever. The greatest military the planet has ever assembled. And one of the most benevolent societies in the history of the planet (if not the most benevolent).

I give the American voter an A+.

As far as picking Gary Johnson out of a line up -- same was true of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Or Barack Obama for that matter. And it's the MEDIA and the partisan FEC who designs "the lineup". This year, they are going to have a very hard EXCLUDING Gary Johnson from the everything Trump/Hilary reporting.. And the FEC is gonna get a LOT of pressure to recognize that ANY party that works to place a candidate on 50 state ballots -- SHOULD be included in the debates.

I 100% agree with you. I would love to see Gary Johnson on the debate stage with HRC and Donald Trump.

The Commission of Presidential Debates is the primary culprit.

The debates have been set:

First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

The media made a crapload of money on those Rep/Dem primary debates. And THEY were allowed to frame the issues and the discussion. We are rapidly approaching the point where the PARTIES are greater threat to the Democratic process than the candidates.

And more parties will solve that?

I tell you what I think we should do is have the CPD put together 3-5 debates each cycle for each party (one per month starting in November and going to March the following year)

Have the box on the income tax state that the money will go for this purpose and watch it flood in--my guess you'll see millions for this enterprise--I know I would chunk money in for it.

Anyway, have the debates in the following format; a 90 minute debate. If you have the normal 5-7 candidates, that is 13-18 minutes per candidate. So Bob Scheefer or whomever asks, "Mr. Romney, what is your plan to eliminate poverty. You have 3 minutes". So you get Gov. Romney unfiltered for 3 mins. After that, "Mr. Brown, your plan to eliminate poverty. 3 mins. Go." After that, "Ms. Haley, poverty, 3 mins, go."

On the next round, start with Ms. Haley "What is your plan to repair the VA. 3 mins" go. Then Brown, then Romney.

In the next GOP debate when there are usually less candidates, they get 15-20 mins each so you can ask 6-7 questions (different ones) that get a 3 min response each.

And eventually you get down to 2-3 candidates in March and you have a real substanative dissertation of the stances.

And this is happening for the Ds, the Libs, the R.s; everyone.

Meanwhile, FOX, CNN, MSNBC or whomever are having their made-for-TV crap too which you cannot totally eliminate.

What it will do is have an "official" period where a candidate has to say "Here is what I would do" without some guy on the end of the candidate row interrrupting or whatever.

What you would end up with is more unvarnished facts being put out there by the candidates who can't spend the entire time bitching about Obama's handling of Topic X.

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

The decline is palpable…you can tell. We actually elect people to government that think there should be no government larger than it was in 1789. I was speaking of the Executive where we have had some visionaries in both parties.

As for the 10% approval rating and the 90% retention rate…blame gerrymandering and a mute Constitution that allows it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not actually wasted. If you want to collect the "wasted" votes --- it would be every vote for the LOSING candidate of the 2 that the stupid parties offer.. Never wasted when you vote on PRINCIPLES. Only wasted if you value winning over REAL choice and principles.

Gary Johnson will be the nominee. We work EXTRAORDINALLY hard to get our candidate on all 50 state ballots. Against the myriad of hurdles and hoops and court challenges that the 2 parties throw at us. And as a 2 term Governor of New Mexico -- he has impeccable fiscal responsibility and is very socially liberal. Very attractive to the #NeverHilary as WELL AS the #NeverTrump crowds. He will likely pull 5 to 10% from BOTH parties this year because of the ARROGANCE of the parties and the AUTHORITARIAN candidates that are being offered.

America is not buy an Emperor from either the RIGHT nor the LEFT. Not yet anyways..

Like nearly all Americans, I couldn't pick Gary Johnson out of a police line-up and he has zero chance of ascention to the White House regardless of what states of disarray the major parties are in.

When I say "wasted" a vote, I say it is wasted in the sense that you know well before you enter the voting booth that there is no chance your candidate will win your state. While this has morphed into the case for all but 11-20 states quadrenially (sp?), that wasn't always the case. In my lifetime, California has gone from Red to Blue, as has Texas from blue to red. as has any number of other states.

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Voting for them is wasting your vote in a real sense. If it satisfies some pact you have with yourself...so be it and more power to you. If you wish to effect change, you have to do so from inside the tent.

If you had a principled, serious public servant instead of Donald Drumpf who wasn't making a vanity play, one could fathom change from inside the tent of the GOP. It can take place. However, Drumpf is a pathetic toothache of a man interested in one thing, Donald Trump so there is no serious or, more importantly sustained (because change happens slowly I don't care who you are or whom you have leading it) figure acting as it's agent or party providing agency. I don't know who will challenge HRC in 2020 but I guarantee you one thing. If they have an R next to their name, they will be pro life, pro-small government (or at least say they are), pro increasing military spending, against entitlements for the poor, and above all else, be a Christian. I may not get 6 or 6 there but you get the idea.

Good luck to you and there is nothing wrong with voting your conscience. I think you're wasting your vote...but please don't let me stop you

Folks who vote to win are the real losers. Because they are consuming whatever wanna bee power whores the parties are offering.

The "power whores" have delivered the greatest standard of living in the history of the planet. The greatest accumulation of wealth by a people ever. The greatest military the planet has ever assembled. And one of the most benevolent societies in the history of the planet (if not the most benevolent).

I give the American voter an A+.

As far as picking Gary Johnson out of a line up -- same was true of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Or Barack Obama for that matter. And it's the MEDIA and the partisan FEC who designs "the lineup". This year, they are going to have a very hard EXCLUDING Gary Johnson from the everything Trump/Hilary reporting.. And the FEC is gonna get a LOT of pressure to recognize that ANY party that works to place a candidate on 50 state ballots -- SHOULD be included in the debates.

I 100% agree with you. I would love to see Gary Johnson on the debate stage with HRC and Donald Trump.

The Commission of Presidential Debates is the primary culprit.

The debates have been set:

First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

The media made a crapload of money on those Rep/Dem primary debates. And THEY were allowed to frame the issues and the discussion. We are rapidly approaching the point where the PARTIES are greater threat to the Democratic process than the candidates.

And more parties will solve that?

I tell you what I think we should do is have the CPD put together 3-5 debates each cycle for each party (one per month starting in November and going to March the following year)

Have the box on the income tax state that the money will go for this purpose and watch it flood in--my guess you'll see millions for this enterprise--I know I would chunk money in for it.

Anyway, have the debates in the following format; a 90 minute debate. If you have the normal 5-7 candidates, that is 13-18 minutes per candidate. So Bob Scheefer or whomever asks, "Mr. Romney, what is your plan to eliminate poverty. You have 3 minutes". So you get Gov. Romney unfiltered for 3 mins. After that, "Mr. Brown, your plan to eliminate poverty. 3 mins. Go." After that, "Ms. Haley, poverty, 3 mins, go."

On the next round, start with Ms. Haley "What is your plan to repair the VA. 3 mins" go. Then Brown, then Romney.

In the next GOP debate when there are usually less candidates, they get 15-20 mins each so you can ask 6-7 questions (different ones) that get a 3 min response each.

And eventually you get down to 2-3 candidates in March and you have a real substanative dissertation of the stances.

And this is happening for the Ds, the Libs, the R.s; everyone.

Meanwhile, FOX, CNN, MSNBC or whomever are having their made-for-TV crap too which you cannot totally eliminate.

What it will do is have an "official" period where a candidate has to say "Here is what I would do" without some guy on the end of the candidate row interrrupting or whatever.

What you would end up with is more unvarnished facts being put out there by the candidates who can't spend the entire time bitching about Obama's handling of Topic X.

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

The decline is palpable…you can tell. We actually elect people to government that think there should be no government larger than it was in 1789. I was speaking of the Executive where we have had some visionaries in both parties.

As for the 10% approval rating and the 90% retention rate…blame gerrymandering and a mute Constitution that allows it.

Much harder to gerrymander with more than 2 parties you know. Not as easy to collude on WINNING... Also nothing in the Constitution that REQUIRES you keep the same 2 parties that are constantly dissing you and laughing at your futile attempts to reign them in...

 

[candycorn]

Like nearly all Americans, I couldn't pick Gary Johnson out of a police line-up and he has zero chance of ascention to the White House regardless of what states of disarray the major parties are in.

When I say "wasted" a vote, I say it is wasted in the sense that you know well before you enter the voting booth that there is no chance your candidate will win your state. While this has morphed into the case for all but 11-20 states quadrenially (sp?), that wasn't always the case. In my lifetime, California has gone from Red to Blue, as has Texas from blue to red. as has any number of other states.

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Voting for them is wasting your vote in a real sense. If it satisfies some pact you have with yourself...so be it and more power to you. If you wish to effect change, you have to do so from inside the tent.

If you had a principled, serious public servant instead of Donald Drumpf who wasn't making a vanity play, one could fathom change from inside the tent of the GOP. It can take place. However, Drumpf is a pathetic toothache of a man interested in one thing, Donald Trump so there is no serious or, more importantly sustained (because change happens slowly I don't care who you are or whom you have leading it) figure acting as it's agent or party providing agency. I don't know who will challenge HRC in 2020 but I guarantee you one thing. If they have an R next to their name, they will be pro life, pro-small government (or at least say they are), pro increasing military spending, against entitlements for the poor, and above all else, be a Christian. I may not get 6 or 6 there but you get the idea.

Good luck to you and there is nothing wrong with voting your conscience. I think you're wasting your vote...but please don't let me stop you

Folks who vote to win are the real losers. Because they are consuming whatever wanna bee power whores the parties are offering.

The "power whores" have delivered the greatest standard of living in the history of the planet. The greatest accumulation of wealth by a people ever. The greatest military the planet has ever assembled. And one of the most benevolent societies in the history of the planet (if not the most benevolent).

I give the American voter an A+.

As far as picking Gary Johnson out of a line up -- same was true of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Or Barack Obama for that matter. And it's the MEDIA and the partisan FEC who designs "the lineup". This year, they are going to have a very hard EXCLUDING Gary Johnson from the everything Trump/Hilary reporting.. And the FEC is gonna get a LOT of pressure to recognize that ANY party that works to place a candidate on 50 state ballots -- SHOULD be included in the debates.

I 100% agree with you. I would love to see Gary Johnson on the debate stage with HRC and Donald Trump.

The Commission of Presidential Debates is the primary culprit.

The debates have been set:

First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

The media made a crapload of money on those Rep/Dem primary debates. And THEY were allowed to frame the issues and the discussion. We are rapidly approaching the point where the PARTIES are greater threat to the Democratic process than the candidates.

And more parties will solve that?

I tell you what I think we should do is have the CPD put together 3-5 debates each cycle for each party (one per month starting in November and going to March the following year)

Have the box on the income tax state that the money will go for this purpose and watch it flood in--my guess you'll see millions for this enterprise--I know I would chunk money in for it.

Anyway, have the debates in the following format; a 90 minute debate. If you have the normal 5-7 candidates, that is 13-18 minutes per candidate. So Bob Scheefer or whomever asks, "Mr. Romney, what is your plan to eliminate poverty. You have 3 minutes". So you get Gov. Romney unfiltered for 3 mins. After that, "Mr. Brown, your plan to eliminate poverty. 3 mins. Go." After that, "Ms. Haley, poverty, 3 mins, go."

On the next round, start with Ms. Haley "What is your plan to repair the VA. 3 mins" go. Then Brown, then Romney.

In the next GOP debate when there are usually less candidates, they get 15-20 mins each so you can ask 6-7 questions (different ones) that get a 3 min response each.

And eventually you get down to 2-3 candidates in March and you have a real substanative dissertation of the stances.

And this is happening for the Ds, the Libs, the R.s; everyone.

Meanwhile, FOX, CNN, MSNBC or whomever are having their made-for-TV crap too which you cannot totally eliminate.

What it will do is have an "official" period where a candidate has to say "Here is what I would do" without some guy on the end of the candidate row interrrupting or whatever.

What you would end up with is more unvarnished facts being put out there by the candidates who can't spend the entire time bitching about Obama's handling of Topic X.

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

The decline is palpable…you can tell. We actually elect people to government that think there should be no government larger than it was in 1789. I was speaking of the Executive where we have had some visionaries in both parties.

As for the 10% approval rating and the 90% retention rate…blame gerrymandering and a mute Constitution that allows it.

Much harder to gerrymander with more than 2 parties you know. Not as easy to collude on WINNING... Also nothing in the Constitution that REQUIRES you keep the same 2 parties that are constantly dissing you and laughing at your futile attempts to reign them in...

I don’t recall seeing them laughing at futile attempts. And no there is nothing binding the American public to these two parties. In fact
We have more than 2 parties. At some point, isn’t the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the Communist Party, the __________ Party responsible for growing it’s patronage? I know the two major parties collude to keep them down but at some point the Libertarians have to be accountable for not growing their ranks beyond whatever it is…. I think it’s become really convenient for smaller parties to just complain that they are not growing very much due to the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats moved away from being the caretakers so much during the Clinton years. As a result 5 of the last 6 times the American public was asked…they have voted for democrats to be President. Parties need to evolve to stay relevant. What new recipes are libertarians or greens coming up with to broaden their appeal?

 

[Elvis Obama]

Not actually wasted. If you want to collect the "wasted" votes --- it would be every vote for the LOSING candidate of the 2 that the stupid parties offer.. Never wasted when you vote on PRINCIPLES. Only wasted if you value winning over REAL choice and principles.

Gary Johnson will be the nominee. We work EXTRAORDINALLY hard to get our candidate on all 50 state ballots. Against the myriad of hurdles and hoops and court challenges that the 2 parties throw at us. And as a 2 term Governor of New Mexico -- he has impeccable fiscal responsibility and is very socially liberal. Very attractive to the #NeverHilary as WELL AS the #NeverTrump crowds. He will likely pull 5 to 10% from BOTH parties this year because of the ARROGANCE of the parties and the AUTHORITARIAN candidates that are being offered.

America is not buy an Emperor from either the RIGHT nor the LEFT. Not yet anyways..

Like nearly all Americans, I couldn't pick Gary Johnson out of a police line-up and he has zero chance of ascention to the White House regardless of what states of disarray the major parties are in.

When I say "wasted" a vote, I say it is wasted in the sense that you know well before you enter the voting booth that there is no chance your candidate will win your state. While this has morphed into the case for all but 11-20 states quadrenially (sp?), that wasn't always the case. In my lifetime, California has gone from Red to Blue, as has Texas from blue to red. as has any number of other states.

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Voting for them is wasting your vote in a real sense. If it satisfies some pact you have with yourself...so be it and more power to you. If you wish to effect change, you have to do so from inside the tent.

If you had a principled, serious public servant instead of Donald Drumpf who wasn't making a vanity play, one could fathom change from inside the tent of the GOP. It can take place. However, Drumpf is a pathetic toothache of a man interested in one thing, Donald Trump so there is no serious or, more importantly sustained (because change happens slowly I don't care who you are or whom you have leading it) figure acting as it's agent or party providing agency. I don't know who will challenge HRC in 2020 but I guarantee you one thing. If they have an R next to their name, they will be pro life, pro-small government (or at least say they are), pro increasing military spending, against entitlements for the poor, and above all else, be a Christian. I may not get 6 or 6 there but you get the idea.

Good luck to you and there is nothing wrong with voting your conscience. I think you're wasting your vote...but please don't let me stop you

Folks who vote to win are the real losers. Because they are consuming whatever wanna bee power whores the parties are offering.

The "power whores" have delivered the greatest standard of living in the history of the planet. The greatest accumulation of wealth by a people ever. The greatest military the planet has ever assembled. And one of the most benevolent societies in the history of the planet (if not the most benevolent).

I give the American voter an A+.

As far as picking Gary Johnson out of a line up -- same was true of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Or Barack Obama for that matter. And it's the MEDIA and the partisan FEC who designs "the lineup". This year, they are going to have a very hard EXCLUDING Gary Johnson from the everything Trump/Hilary reporting.. And the FEC is gonna get a LOT of pressure to recognize that ANY party that works to place a candidate on 50 state ballots -- SHOULD be included in the debates.

I 100% agree with you. I would love to see Gary Johnson on the debate stage with HRC and Donald Trump.

The Commission of Presidential Debates is the primary culprit.

The debates have been set:

First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

The media made a crapload of money on those Rep/Dem primary debates. And THEY were allowed to frame the issues and the discussion. We are rapidly approaching the point where the PARTIES are greater threat to the Democratic process than the candidates.

And more parties will solve that?

I tell you what I think we should do is have the CPD put together 3-5 debates each cycle for each party (one per month starting in November and going to March the following year)

Have the box on the income tax state that the money will go for this purpose and watch it flood in--my guess you'll see millions for this enterprise--I know I would chunk money in for it.

Anyway, have the debates in the following format; a 90 minute debate. If you have the normal 5-7 candidates, that is 13-18 minutes per candidate. So Bob Scheefer or whomever asks, "Mr. Romney, what is your plan to eliminate poverty. You have 3 minutes". So you get Gov. Romney unfiltered for 3 mins. After that, "Mr. Brown, your plan to eliminate poverty. 3 mins. Go." After that, "Ms. Haley, poverty, 3 mins, go."

On the next round, start with Ms. Haley "What is your plan to repair the VA. 3 mins" go. Then Brown, then Romney.

In the next GOP debate when there are usually less candidates, they get 15-20 mins each so you can ask 6-7 questions (different ones) that get a 3 min response each.

And eventually you get down to 2-3 candidates in March and you have a real substanative dissertation of the stances.

And this is happening for the Ds, the Libs, the R.s; everyone.

Meanwhile, FOX, CNN, MSNBC or whomever are having their made-for-TV crap too which you cannot totally eliminate.

What it will do is have an "official" period where a candidate has to say "Here is what I would do" without some guy on the end of the candidate row interrrupting or whatever.

What you would end up with is more unvarnished facts being put out there by the candidates who can't spend the entire time bitching about Obama's handling of Topic X.

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

The decline is palpable…you can tell. We actually elect people to government that think there should be no government larger than it was in 1789. I was speaking of the Executive where we have had some visionaries in both parties.

As for the 10% approval rating and the 90% retention rate…blame gerrymandering and a mute Constitution that allows it.

No, I blame an electorate too ignorant to know what gerrymandering is. Nothing reflects the stupidity of the American electorate more than blithely accepting their representation being stolen from them by a system that a three year old could figure out is absurd. Oh sure, let's leave apportionment up to the victors of an election so they can use it to reinforce their grip on power. What could go wrong? And the fix is so easy. We're just too ignorant to insist on it.

 

[candycorn]

Like nearly all Americans, I couldn't pick Gary Johnson out of a police line-up and he has zero chance of ascention to the White House regardless of what states of disarray the major parties are in.

When I say "wasted" a vote, I say it is wasted in the sense that you know well before you enter the voting booth that there is no chance your candidate will win your state. While this has morphed into the case for all but 11-20 states quadrenially (sp?), that wasn't always the case. In my lifetime, California has gone from Red to Blue, as has Texas from blue to red. as has any number of other states.

Libertarians and 3rd parties have won (as far as I know) zero states during the same period.

Voting for them is wasting your vote in a real sense. If it satisfies some pact you have with yourself...so be it and more power to you. If you wish to effect change, you have to do so from inside the tent.

If you had a principled, serious public servant instead of Donald Drumpf who wasn't making a vanity play, one could fathom change from inside the tent of the GOP. It can take place. However, Drumpf is a pathetic toothache of a man interested in one thing, Donald Trump so there is no serious or, more importantly sustained (because change happens slowly I don't care who you are or whom you have leading it) figure acting as it's agent or party providing agency. I don't know who will challenge HRC in 2020 but I guarantee you one thing. If they have an R next to their name, they will be pro life, pro-small government (or at least say they are), pro increasing military spending, against entitlements for the poor, and above all else, be a Christian. I may not get 6 or 6 there but you get the idea.

Good luck to you and there is nothing wrong with voting your conscience. I think you're wasting your vote...but please don't let me stop you

Folks who vote to win are the real losers. Because they are consuming whatever wanna bee power whores the parties are offering.

The "power whores" have delivered the greatest standard of living in the history of the planet. The greatest accumulation of wealth by a people ever. The greatest military the planet has ever assembled. And one of the most benevolent societies in the history of the planet (if not the most benevolent).

I give the American voter an A+.

As far as picking Gary Johnson out of a line up -- same was true of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Or Barack Obama for that matter. And it's the MEDIA and the partisan FEC who designs "the lineup". This year, they are going to have a very hard EXCLUDING Gary Johnson from the everything Trump/Hilary reporting.. And the FEC is gonna get a LOT of pressure to recognize that ANY party that works to place a candidate on 50 state ballots -- SHOULD be included in the debates.

I 100% agree with you. I would love to see Gary Johnson on the debate stage with HRC and Donald Trump.

The Commission of Presidential Debates is the primary culprit.

The debates have been set:

First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

The media made a crapload of money on those Rep/Dem primary debates. And THEY were allowed to frame the issues and the discussion. We are rapidly approaching the point where the PARTIES are greater threat to the Democratic process than the candidates.

And more parties will solve that?

I tell you what I think we should do is have the CPD put together 3-5 debates each cycle for each party (one per month starting in November and going to March the following year)

Have the box on the income tax state that the money will go for this purpose and watch it flood in--my guess you'll see millions for this enterprise--I know I would chunk money in for it.

Anyway, have the debates in the following format; a 90 minute debate. If you have the normal 5-7 candidates, that is 13-18 minutes per candidate. So Bob Scheefer or whomever asks, "Mr. Romney, what is your plan to eliminate poverty. You have 3 minutes". So you get Gov. Romney unfiltered for 3 mins. After that, "Mr. Brown, your plan to eliminate poverty. 3 mins. Go." After that, "Ms. Haley, poverty, 3 mins, go."

On the next round, start with Ms. Haley "What is your plan to repair the VA. 3 mins" go. Then Brown, then Romney.

In the next GOP debate when there are usually less candidates, they get 15-20 mins each so you can ask 6-7 questions (different ones) that get a 3 min response each.

And eventually you get down to 2-3 candidates in March and you have a real substanative dissertation of the stances.

And this is happening for the Ds, the Libs, the R.s; everyone.

Meanwhile, FOX, CNN, MSNBC or whomever are having their made-for-TV crap too which you cannot totally eliminate.

What it will do is have an "official" period where a candidate has to say "Here is what I would do" without some guy on the end of the candidate row interrrupting or whatever.

What you would end up with is more unvarnished facts being put out there by the candidates who can't spend the entire time bitching about Obama's handling of Topic X.

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

The decline is palpable…you can tell. We actually elect people to government that think there should be no government larger than it was in 1789. I was speaking of the Executive where we have had some visionaries in both parties.

As for the 10% approval rating and the 90% retention rate…blame gerrymandering and a mute Constitution that allows it.

No, I blame an electorate too ignorant to know what gerrymandering is. Nothing reflects the stupidity of the American electorate more than blithely accepting their representation being stolen from them by a system that a three year old could figure out is absurd. Oh sure, let's leave apportionment up to the victors of an election so they can use it to reinforce their grip on power. What could go wrong? And the fix is so easy. We're just too ignorant to insist on it.

Okay. How much time do you spend thinking about politics…how much time would you be willing to spend going to meetings, sitting on committees, holding hearings, attending hearings, speaking to groups about the evils of Gerrymandering….

Are you willing to leave your job for a week or two and picket your State Capitol in 4 years when in 50 states they should be redrawing boundaries…then are you willing to look at the boundaries and hold hearings, attend meetings, and try to figure out why they insisted on dividing that neighborhood on the other side of town but not this one near you????

Most people do not spend anywhere near as much time as we do on this stuff and (if you want to call this effort) would be willing to put in a tenth of the effort we put into this. They want to go home, turn on the game and try to figure out how to pay the mortgage in between at-bats.

This is probably the best argument for term limits; not the supposed corruption that magically lands on politicians. If you limit them to 6 years, they will care a lot less about party patronage (but they will also care a lot less about becoming a rep since their career will be doing something else).

 

[320 Years of History]

Not sure what your point is.

The point is that you've "put the cart ahead of the horse" by addressing a tactical concern before having concluded on the strategy's merit as something to do. Look at the thread title. It asks "what choice have folks" not "how can XYZ be achieved."

​

You've spoken to the challenges of "doing the thing" before presenting a case for "the thing's" being something to to do or not do. The merit of a strategy doesn't depend on the difficulty of achieving the tactics; the difficulty of executing on tactics affects the time frame and cost of achieving the goal.

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
-- John F. Kennedy​

 

[candycorn]

Not sure what your point is.

The point is that you've "put the cart ahead of the horse" by addressing a tactical concern before having concluded on the strategy's merit as something to do. Look at the thread title. It asks "what choice have folks" not "how can XYZ be achieved."

​

You've spoken to the challenges of "doing the thing" before presenting a case for "the thing's" being something to to do or not do. The merit of a strategy doesn't depend on the difficulty of achieving the tactics; the difficulty of executing on tactics affects the time frame and cost of achieving the goal.

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
-- John F. Kennedy​

Ahh, okay. Sorry.

I will say this though….I haven’t spoken to the challenge, I’ve explained the impossibility of it. It’s not going to happen. Sorry.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

For the first time since I became eligible to vote in 1972, I'm planning on sitting this one out.

 

[OldLady]

Do not know him. He's a non-factor. You decide in one of the four boxes in our 2 party system.

Vote against the DEM by voting for the GOP
Vote against the GOP by voting for the DEM
Vote for the DEM
Vote for the GOP

I have no qualms voting for Ms. Clinton. I just haven't decided in what state to cast my ballot. j/k

That's a rather binary way of looking at what is clearly not a binary set of choices.

• The Binary Fallacy | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
  
• False Dilemma

That is a rather unrealistic assessment of 2016 Presidential Politics. A vote for anyone other than Drumpf of Clinton is wasted in our system. If you wish to discuss better ways to elect the President, I'm all ears but in the current framework, a vote for Mr. Johnson is wasted in the final analysis. It may satisfy some internal desire to not lend support to either major party candidate and that is all well and good but our system is what it is; Sorry.

For dyed in the wool GOP-ers, it's hardly that at all and it need not at all be a waste, most especially in the 2016 Presidential election cycle. For example, the House of Representatives is currently held by Republicans. If enough votes to to Johnson, the choice of whom shall become President will end up in the House. I ask you, would the House then choose Trump, Clinton or Johnson?

You have a point. Johnson as a spoiler. Interesting.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Folks who vote to win are the real losers. Because they are consuming whatever wanna bee power whores the parties are offering.

The "power whores" have delivered the greatest standard of living in the history of the planet. The greatest accumulation of wealth by a people ever. The greatest military the planet has ever assembled. And one of the most benevolent societies in the history of the planet (if not the most benevolent).

I give the American voter an A+.

As far as picking Gary Johnson out of a line up -- same was true of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Or Barack Obama for that matter. And it's the MEDIA and the partisan FEC who designs "the lineup". This year, they are going to have a very hard EXCLUDING Gary Johnson from the everything Trump/Hilary reporting.. And the FEC is gonna get a LOT of pressure to recognize that ANY party that works to place a candidate on 50 state ballots -- SHOULD be included in the debates.

I 100% agree with you. I would love to see Gary Johnson on the debate stage with HRC and Donald Trump.

The Commission of Presidential Debates is the primary culprit.

The debates have been set:

First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

The media made a crapload of money on those Rep/Dem primary debates. And THEY were allowed to frame the issues and the discussion. We are rapidly approaching the point where the PARTIES are greater threat to the Democratic process than the candidates.

And more parties will solve that?

I tell you what I think we should do is have the CPD put together 3-5 debates each cycle for each party (one per month starting in November and going to March the following year)

Have the box on the income tax state that the money will go for this purpose and watch it flood in--my guess you'll see millions for this enterprise--I know I would chunk money in for it.

Anyway, have the debates in the following format; a 90 minute debate. If you have the normal 5-7 candidates, that is 13-18 minutes per candidate. So Bob Scheefer or whomever asks, "Mr. Romney, what is your plan to eliminate poverty. You have 3 minutes". So you get Gov. Romney unfiltered for 3 mins. After that, "Mr. Brown, your plan to eliminate poverty. 3 mins. Go." After that, "Ms. Haley, poverty, 3 mins, go."

On the next round, start with Ms. Haley "What is your plan to repair the VA. 3 mins" go. Then Brown, then Romney.

In the next GOP debate when there are usually less candidates, they get 15-20 mins each so you can ask 6-7 questions (different ones) that get a 3 min response each.

And eventually you get down to 2-3 candidates in March and you have a real substanative dissertation of the stances.

And this is happening for the Ds, the Libs, the R.s; everyone.

Meanwhile, FOX, CNN, MSNBC or whomever are having their made-for-TV crap too which you cannot totally eliminate.

What it will do is have an "official" period where a candidate has to say "Here is what I would do" without some guy on the end of the candidate row interrrupting or whatever.

What you would end up with is more unvarnished facts being put out there by the candidates who can't spend the entire time bitching about Obama's handling of Topic X.

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

The decline is palpable…you can tell. We actually elect people to government that think there should be no government larger than it was in 1789. I was speaking of the Executive where we have had some visionaries in both parties.

As for the 10% approval rating and the 90% retention rate…blame gerrymandering and a mute Constitution that allows it.

No, I blame an electorate too ignorant to know what gerrymandering is. Nothing reflects the stupidity of the American electorate more than blithely accepting their representation being stolen from them by a system that a three year old could figure out is absurd. Oh sure, let's leave apportionment up to the victors of an election so they can use it to reinforce their grip on power. What could go wrong? And the fix is so easy. We're just too ignorant to insist on it.

Okay. How much time do you spend thinking about politics…how much time would you be willing to spend going to meetings, sitting on committees, holding hearings, attending hearings, speaking to groups about the evils of Gerrymandering….

Are you willing to leave your job for a week or two and picket your State Capitol in 4 years when in 50 states they should be redrawing boundaries…then are you willing to look at the boundaries and hold hearings, attend meetings, and try to figure out why they insisted on dividing that neighborhood on the other side of town but not this one near you????

Most people do not spend anywhere near as much time as we do on this stuff and (if you want to call this effort) would be willing to put in a tenth of the effort we put into this. They want to go home, turn on the game and try to figure out how to pay the mortgage in between at-bats.

This is probably the best argument for term limits; not the supposed corruption that magically lands on politicians. If you limit them to 6 years, they will care a lot less about party patronage (but they will also care a lot less about becoming a rep since their career will be doing something else).

My main objection to becoming an anti-gerrymandering evangelical is that the word has too many darn syllables. Five! C'mon, that's brutal. It doesn't fit on a t-shirt. No, I'm afraid I am a poor choice to play resurrectionist for democratic principles which probably never had general acceptance in the first place. I have too little patience.

There are no good arguments against term limits, imo. It would be better if we didn't need them, if we could be trusted to keep in the people who merit their positions and vote out the ones who don't. Clearly we cannot be trusted to do that job properly. Term limits creates a condition in which people are forced to go to Washington to do something, rather than to be something. Term limits are, unfortunately, no more easy to implement than anti-gerrymandering legislation. It does fit on a t-shit, though. And it's much simpler to understand than gerrymandering. Perhaps if Bill Gates ever decides to do something useful with his money he'll fund an effort to make some kind of systemic change in government, along with Buffet and Soros and Bloomberg and the other supposedly socially conscious billionaires. Launch a major ad campaign to get people mad at the right things. They're already mad. If we could only get them to be mad at something that made sense.

 

[candycorn]

The "power whores" have delivered the greatest standard of living in the history of the planet. The greatest accumulation of wealth by a people ever. The greatest military the planet has ever assembled. And one of the most benevolent societies in the history of the planet (if not the most benevolent).

I give the American voter an A+.

I 100% agree with you. I would love to see Gary Johnson on the debate stage with HRC and Donald Trump.

The Commission of Presidential Debates is the primary culprit.

The debates have been set:

First presidential debate:
Monday, September 26, 2016
Wright State University, Dayton, OH

Vice presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate:
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV


And more parties will solve that?

I tell you what I think we should do is have the CPD put together 3-5 debates each cycle for each party (one per month starting in November and going to March the following year)

Have the box on the income tax state that the money will go for this purpose and watch it flood in--my guess you'll see millions for this enterprise--I know I would chunk money in for it.

Anyway, have the debates in the following format; a 90 minute debate. If you have the normal 5-7 candidates, that is 13-18 minutes per candidate. So Bob Scheefer or whomever asks, "Mr. Romney, what is your plan to eliminate poverty. You have 3 minutes". So you get Gov. Romney unfiltered for 3 mins. After that, "Mr. Brown, your plan to eliminate poverty. 3 mins. Go." After that, "Ms. Haley, poverty, 3 mins, go."

On the next round, start with Ms. Haley "What is your plan to repair the VA. 3 mins" go. Then Brown, then Romney.

In the next GOP debate when there are usually less candidates, they get 15-20 mins each so you can ask 6-7 questions (different ones) that get a 3 min response each.

And eventually you get down to 2-3 candidates in March and you have a real substanative dissertation of the stances.

And this is happening for the Ds, the Libs, the R.s; everyone.

Meanwhile, FOX, CNN, MSNBC or whomever are having their made-for-TV crap too which you cannot totally eliminate.

What it will do is have an "official" period where a candidate has to say "Here is what I would do" without some guy on the end of the candidate row interrrupting or whatever.

What you would end up with is more unvarnished facts being put out there by the candidates who can't spend the entire time bitching about Obama's handling of Topic X.

"I give the American voter an A+."

I'm not sure how to respond to that. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking milk when I read it.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania – Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds

The accomplishments you cite have all been under assault for decades, with the result being a shrinking middle-class and a growing percentage of our children being raised in poverty. Why? Because the American voter is an ass. A manipulable ass. An ignorant ass, as the above study shows so clearly. A+, huh. No wonder education is in the shape it's in. We reward ignorance with an A+. Congressional approval ratings hovering around 10% and re-election rates hovering around 90%? A+! Riiiight.

The decline is palpable…you can tell. We actually elect people to government that think there should be no government larger than it was in 1789. I was speaking of the Executive where we have had some visionaries in both parties.

As for the 10% approval rating and the 90% retention rate…blame gerrymandering and a mute Constitution that allows it.

No, I blame an electorate too ignorant to know what gerrymandering is. Nothing reflects the stupidity of the American electorate more than blithely accepting their representation being stolen from them by a system that a three year old could figure out is absurd. Oh sure, let's leave apportionment up to the victors of an election so they can use it to reinforce their grip on power. What could go wrong? And the fix is so easy. We're just too ignorant to insist on it.

Okay. How much time do you spend thinking about politics…how much time would you be willing to spend going to meetings, sitting on committees, holding hearings, attending hearings, speaking to groups about the evils of Gerrymandering….

Are you willing to leave your job for a week or two and picket your State Capitol in 4 years when in 50 states they should be redrawing boundaries…then are you willing to look at the boundaries and hold hearings, attend meetings, and try to figure out why they insisted on dividing that neighborhood on the other side of town but not this one near you????

Most people do not spend anywhere near as much time as we do on this stuff and (if you want to call this effort) would be willing to put in a tenth of the effort we put into this. They want to go home, turn on the game and try to figure out how to pay the mortgage in between at-bats.

This is probably the best argument for term limits; not the supposed corruption that magically lands on politicians. If you limit them to 6 years, they will care a lot less about party patronage (but they will also care a lot less about becoming a rep since their career will be doing something else).

My main objection to becoming an anti-gerrymandering evangelical is that the word has too many darn syllables. Five! C'mon, that's brutal. It doesn't fit on a t-shirt. No, I'm afraid I am a poor choice to play resurrectionist for democratic principles which probably never had general acceptance in the first place. I have too little patience.

There are no good arguments against term limits, imo. It would be better if we didn't need them, if we could be trusted to keep in the people who merit their positions and vote out the ones who don't. Clearly we cannot be trusted to do that job properly. Term limits creates a condition in which people are forced to go to Washington to do something, rather than to be something. Term limits are, unfortunately, no more easy to implement than anti-gerrymandering legislation. It does fit on a t-shit, though. And it's much simpler to understand than gerrymandering. Perhaps if Bill Gates ever decides to do something useful with his money he'll fund an effort to make some kind of systemic change in government, along with Buffet and Soros and Bloomberg and the other supposedly socially conscious billionaires. Launch a major ad campaign to get people mad at the right things. They're already mad. If we could only get them to be mad at something that made sense.

We’ll see.

As for term limits…
Anyone who is eligible to run for an office should be able to run for an office; let the people decide.

What the term-limit crowd should be pissed about is that every freaking commission we have is staffed by someone who is appointed. And while it’s true that they have to have congressional approval, the constitution didn’t envision all of these commissions that are, in fact, necessary for society to function (i.e. FAA, i.e.NASA, i.e. NPS). So a vote for the FAA security chief who is doing zilch to quell the 1.5 hour wait I had the other day did get voted on by the Senate but are you going to hold your senator accountable for this guy who will still have his job well after the senator may be term limited? In other words, the bureaucrat that is hurting you is not term limited but the Senator who voted to appoint him 3 years ago is losing his job…just cuz?