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

[candycorn]

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?

Drumpf. Too much to lose any other way.
In 2016, it will not happen. No way; no how.
I understand the predicament someone who doesn't like either major party nominee faces and I think we should overhaul the system to arrive at better candidates (for one thing, the process is too damn long). But we should keep both feet in reality when deciding on whom to vote for while we are in the voting booth this November.

Okay, so you think the House will choose Trump. I don't. I think the House would choose Mr. Johnson. I don't see there as being all that much to lose by choosing him. The man has been a state Governor after all and most of his positions are consistent or quite close to those of the existing GOP leadership, far more so than are those of Trump or Mrs. Clinton.

And you're more than welcome to harbor that opinion. Here is what has to happen though, About 140 million votes will be cast in November. To deprive either of the two major parties of a majority, there has to be a very improbable 269-269 split. Very hard to do by accident. And then you have to get a majority of states (none of which Mr. Johnson) in a 3 way race. If enough states were to vote for Johnson to deprive Ms. Clinton or Mr. Drumpf of a majority....the Senate's pick for VP would be acting president.

 

[Zander]

Well, one option is to not vote. The other currently existing option most likely will be Gary Johnson who will be on every ballot in the U.S.

• Is the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson a Plausible Alternative to Trump and Clinton?, by David French, National Review
  
• Gary Johnson on the Issues
  
• Libertarian Gary Johnson in double digits in race against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump: poll
  
• Gary Johnson, Republican Presidential Candidate

I once was a Libertarian. I don't generally consider voting for a Lib, but suddenly I find myself having no choice but to consider the Libertarian candidate as I'm not keen enough on Mrs. Clinton's platform to commit now to voting for her and it's not likely Mr. Sanders will get the nomination.

Given that it's essentially too late for anyone else -- even if they have the ~$10M it costs to do so -- to register and actually get on all the ballots in the nation, Mr. Johnson is the only plausible alternative, unless one considers as plausible the possibility that the nation's dissatisfied voters will write in a person on their ballots and 50% +1 of voters do so, and they all write the same name. I don't know about you, but I'm not counting on that.

So what do you think of Gov. Johnson?

Jumping the gun a bit aren't we? Nobody has been nominated as the party's candidate yet.

You're hilarious.

It is over. The Democratic Party decided to nominate hiLIARy a year ago. They don't even pretend that the dumb fucks who support them have a voice...."Super Delegates" is a euphemism for "you are too stupid to decide". Your party decides, not the voters.

On the other side of the same wooden nickel, the brain trust at the GOP got their ass handed to them. Because of that , they'd rather see hiLIARy win than Trump.....then they can say "see, we told you".

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Whine and stomp your feet all you like, the fact remains -- and again that operative word was "fact" -- neither party has nominated its candidate yet.

Poor pedantic fool.

 

[sakinago]

Well, one option is to not vote. The other currently existing option most likely will be Gary Johnson who will be on every ballot in the U.S.

• Is the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson a Plausible Alternative to Trump and Clinton?, by David French, National Review
  
• Gary Johnson on the Issues
  
• Libertarian Gary Johnson in double digits in race against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump: poll
  
• Gary Johnson, Republican Presidential Candidate

I once was a Libertarian. I don't generally consider voting for a Lib, but suddenly I find myself having no choice but to consider the Libertarian candidate as I'm not keen enough on Mrs. Clinton's platform to commit now to voting for her and it's not likely Mr. Sanders will get the nomination.

Given that it's essentially too late for anyone else -- even if they have the ~$10M it costs to do so -- to register and actually get on all the ballots in the nation, Mr. Johnson is the only plausible alternative, unless one considers as plausible the possibility that the nation's dissatisfied voters will write in a person on their ballots and 50% +1 of voters do so, and they all write the same name. I don't know about you, but I'm not counting on that.

So what do you think of Gov. Johnson?

Johnson is okay, I would prefer a rand Paul, or Stephen dumaush. But if there is no third party general election ticket, then I do not vote in the general, I concentrate on senate and congress, if I can find candidates I like

 

[Elvis Obama]

I'm not sure what this thread is about. A legitimate third party? Kinda late in the day, isn't it? A decision that, because there's no time for a legitimate third party bid, people should throw their weight behind the Libertarian candidate? Why would they do that?

Vote for the Dems or Repubs or it's just a protest vote. This time around though we've got a new category, a let's stop Trump vote. Kristol and pals are, pathetically, trying to pull the Wizard of Oz that they call conservatism from the brink of death, aka irrelevance. They want to put up a candidate, which they insist will not be a protest candidate. They may decide that Mr. Johnson represents their best chance, but not to win. They will not deny that whoever they support will be a Stop Trump candidate. Is there such an initiative for Hillary? No. Hence the false equivalency which underlies this thread. Barring an FBI dagger to her heart, Hillary will have no problem consolidating the Democratic party around her. The astonishing hatred that the right has for Hillary is matched by a distrust of her in the middle and the left, but it's only the right which gleefully swallows the koolaid. Donald Trump as an alternative will make the pragmatic choice obvious to anyone who might otherwise be on the fence about Hillary.

 

[Pogo]

Well, one option is to not vote. The other currently existing option most likely will be Gary Johnson who will be on every ballot in the U.S.

• Is the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson a Plausible Alternative to Trump and Clinton?, by David French, National Review
  
• Gary Johnson on the Issues
  
• Libertarian Gary Johnson in double digits in race against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump: poll
  
• Gary Johnson, Republican Presidential Candidate

I once was a Libertarian. I don't generally consider voting for a Lib, but suddenly I find myself having no choice but to consider the Libertarian candidate as I'm not keen enough on Mrs. Clinton's platform to commit now to voting for her and it's not likely Mr. Sanders will get the nomination.

Given that it's essentially too late for anyone else -- even if they have the ~$10M it costs to do so -- to register and actually get on all the ballots in the nation, Mr. Johnson is the only plausible alternative, unless one considers as plausible the possibility that the nation's dissatisfied voters will write in a person on their ballots and 50% +1 of voters do so, and they all write the same name. I don't know about you, but I'm not counting on that.

So what do you think of Gov. Johnson?

Jumping the gun a bit aren't we? Nobody has been nominated as the party's candidate yet.

You're hilarious.

It is over. The Democratic Party decided to nominate hiLIARy a year ago. They don't even pretend that the dumb fucks who support them have a voice...."Super Delegates" is a euphemism for "you are too stupid to decide". Your party decides, not the voters.

On the other side of the same wooden nickel, the brain trust at the GOP got their ass handed to them. Because of that , they'd rather see hiLIARy win than Trump.....then they can say "see, we told you".

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Whine and stomp your feet all you like, the fact remains -- and again that operative word was "fact" -- neither party has nominated its candidate yet.

Poor pedantic fool.

Prove me wrong.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, one option is to not vote. The other currently existing option most likely will be Gary Johnson who will be on every ballot in the U.S.

• Is the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson a Plausible Alternative to Trump and Clinton?, by David French, National Review
  
• Gary Johnson on the Issues
  
• Libertarian Gary Johnson in double digits in race against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump: poll
  
• Gary Johnson, Republican Presidential Candidate

I once was a Libertarian. I don't generally consider voting for a Lib, but suddenly I find myself having no choice but to consider the Libertarian candidate as I'm not keen enough on Mrs. Clinton's platform to commit now to voting for her and it's not likely Mr. Sanders will get the nomination.

Given that it's essentially too late for anyone else -- even if they have the ~$10M it costs to do so -- to register and actually get on all the ballots in the nation, Mr. Johnson is the only plausible alternative, unless one considers as plausible the possibility that the nation's dissatisfied voters will write in a person on their ballots and 50% +1 of voters do so, and they all write the same name. I don't know about you, but I'm not counting on that.

So what do you think of Gov. Johnson?

Jumping the gun a bit aren't we? Nobody has been nominated as the party's candidate yet.

You're hilarious.

It is over. The Democratic Party decided to nominate hiLIARy a year ago. They don't even pretend that the dumb fucks who support them have a voice...."Super Delegates" is a euphemism for "you are too stupid to decide". Your party decides, not the voters.

On the other side of the same wooden nickel, the brain trust at the GOP got their ass handed to them. Because of that , they'd rather see hiLIARy win than Trump.....then they can say "see, we told you".

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Whine and stomp your feet all you like, the fact remains -- and again that operative word was "fact" -- neither party has nominated its candidate yet.

Poor pedantic fool.

Prove me wrong.

Well, barring unknowns manifesting themselves, it's almost certain that Trump and Mrs. Clinton will the be the respective nominees of their parties. Given that, one'd be foolish not to today act and think in terms of their becoming exactly that, that is, it's silly to base most positions and commentary that particular technicality, even though in a few contexts, that technicality is literally all that matters to any material extent.

Are you correct in saying that neither party has indeed named those two individuals as their respective nominees? Of course you are.

I think the other member is saying you are splitting hairs at this point in time to assert as presently material to one's thought processes that technicality's not having come to pass. Is phrasing that concept as "poor pedantic fool" a responsible mode of adult commentary/rebuttal? Absolutely not.

 

[2aguy]

The choice is simple...we know that hilary is corrupt and incompetent from her past experiences wielding power....Trump is new and has no actual record of public office..

You do not reward past criminals and incompetents with higher office...that is how we keep getting into this mess....you elect Trump to keep hilary out...then you can Primary Trump in 4 years if he screws up.......

It is as simple as that.

 

[Pogo]

Jumping the gun a bit aren't we? Nobody has been nominated as the party's candidate yet.

You're hilarious.

It is over. The Democratic Party decided to nominate hiLIARy a year ago. They don't even pretend that the dumb fucks who support them have a voice...."Super Delegates" is a euphemism for "you are too stupid to decide". Your party decides, not the voters.

On the other side of the same wooden nickel, the brain trust at the GOP got their ass handed to them. Because of that , they'd rather see hiLIARy win than Trump.....then they can say "see, we told you".

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Whine and stomp your feet all you like, the fact remains -- and again that operative word was "fact" -- neither party has nominated its candidate yet.

Poor pedantic fool.

Prove me wrong.

Well, barring unknowns manifesting themselves, it's almost certain that Trump and Mrs. Clinton will the be the respective nominees of their parties. Given that, one'd be foolish not to today act and think in terms of their becoming exactly that, that is, it's silly to base most positions and commentary that particular technicality, even though in a few contexts, that technicality is literally all that matters to any material extent.

Are you correct in saying that neither party has indeed named those two individuals as their respective nominees? Of course you are.

I think the other member is saying you are splitting hairs at this point in time to assert as presently material to one's thought processes that technicality's not having come to pass. Is phrasing that concept as "poor pedantic fool" a responsible mode of adult commentary/rebuttal? Absolutely not.

I don't think it's "almost certain" at all, particularly in Rump's case.

There's a reason I keep bringing up the campaign season of 1912. That was "almost certain" too, and yet it wasn't.

 

[320 Years of History]

You're hilarious.

It is over. The Democratic Party decided to nominate hiLIARy a year ago. They don't even pretend that the dumb fucks who support them have a voice...."Super Delegates" is a euphemism for "you are too stupid to decide". Your party decides, not the voters.

On the other side of the same wooden nickel, the brain trust at the GOP got their ass handed to them. Because of that , they'd rather see hiLIARy win than Trump.....then they can say "see, we told you".

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Whine and stomp your feet all you like, the fact remains -- and again that operative word was "fact" -- neither party has nominated its candidate yet.

Poor pedantic fool.

Prove me wrong.

Well, barring unknowns manifesting themselves, it's almost certain that Trump and Mrs. Clinton will the be the respective nominees of their parties. Given that, one'd be foolish not to today act and think in terms of their becoming exactly that, that is, it's silly to base most positions and commentary that particular technicality, even though in a few contexts, that technicality is literally all that matters to any material extent.

Are you correct in saying that neither party has indeed named those two individuals as their respective nominees? Of course you are.

I think the other member is saying you are splitting hairs at this point in time to assert as presently material to one's thought processes that technicality's not having come to pass. Is phrasing that concept as "poor pedantic fool" a responsible mode of adult commentary/rebuttal? Absolutely not.

I don't think it's "almost certain" at all, particularly in Rump's case.

There's a reason I keep bringing up the campaign season of 1912. That was "almost certain" too, and yet it wasn't.

Do you have in mind the contest between Taft and Roosevelt wherein Taft's allies engaged in "delegate chicanery" that resulted in Taft getting the GOP nomination and Teddy creating the "Bull Moose Party"? Or are you thinking of the contentious nomination (some 40+ rounds of convention voting) of Wilson by the Democrats?

I think the 1912 campaign processes -- from both parties -- are illustrative of what can happen, but I also think there are a number of key factors that were in play then and that are not in play right now. Those factors include:

• Roosevelt's having in 1908 agreed to yield to and support Taft, and thus following through with his promise, even though he could have won re-election, or at the very least the GOP nomination, in 1908.
• Roosevelt, a former President who was still well enough liked, having by 1912 become not only disillusioned but also downright pissed at Taft's efforts to undo his progressive initiatives, opting to create his own party -- the "Bull Moose Party" or, by its proper name, the Progressive Party -- and run in the general election against Taft.
• The presence of what amounted to a a contest for primacy among the triumvirate of "king makers" in the Democratic Party, the triumvirate having been formed by Bryan, a very popular figure, "throwing a wrench" into the works at the Democrats' convention by supporting Wilson.

Even so, at the moment, notwithstanding all the haranguing about whether the GOP will line up behind Trump, while it is worth understanding what sorts of things may conceivably happen, at this point in time, we have no indication that any of them will indeed materialize into reality. If instead you've been party to some behind the scenes goings on that lead you to think the potentialities to which you allude are more than merely possible and are instead plausible to a material extent, then either do share or keep mum and give up this line of consideration until you can share what you know to be (or when that time comes "to have been") so.

Or in other words, yes, I agree with you that the actual nomination hasn't happened for either front runner, but barring your being willing and able to show that there's more than the mere possibility -- a possibility accruing, for now, largely from the fact that other unexpected outcomes have happened in the past -- of their not obtaining the nod from their respective parties, there's no point in our here and now addressing the exceptional likelihood that they won't.

 

[Votto]

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

As a Dim voter, the good part is you don't have to just choose one state to vote.

 

[Pogo]

Whine and stomp your feet all you like, the fact remains -- and again that operative word was "fact" -- neither party has nominated its candidate yet.

Poor pedantic fool.

Prove me wrong.

Well, barring unknowns manifesting themselves, it's almost certain that Trump and Mrs. Clinton will the be the respective nominees of their parties. Given that, one'd be foolish not to today act and think in terms of their becoming exactly that, that is, it's silly to base most positions and commentary that particular technicality, even though in a few contexts, that technicality is literally all that matters to any material extent.

Are you correct in saying that neither party has indeed named those two individuals as their respective nominees? Of course you are.

I think the other member is saying you are splitting hairs at this point in time to assert as presently material to one's thought processes that technicality's not having come to pass. Is phrasing that concept as "poor pedantic fool" a responsible mode of adult commentary/rebuttal? Absolutely not.

I don't think it's "almost certain" at all, particularly in Rump's case.

There's a reason I keep bringing up the campaign season of 1912. That was "almost certain" too, and yet it wasn't.

Do you have in mind the contest between Taft and Roosevelt wherein Taft's allies engaged in "delegate chicanery" that resulted in Taft getting the GOP nomination and Teddy creating the "Bull Moose Party"? Or are you thinking of the contentious nomination (some 40+ rounds of convention voting) of Wilson by the Democrats?

I think the 1912 campaign processes -- from both parties -- are illustrative of what can happen, but I also think there are a number of key factors that were in play then and that are not in play right now. Those factors include:

• Roosevelt's having in 1908 agreed to yield to and support Taft, and thus following through with his promise, even though he could have won re-election, or at the very least the GOP nomination, in 1908.
• Roosevelt, a former President who was still well enough liked, having by 1912 become not only disillusioned but also downright pissed at Taft's efforts to undo his progressive initiatives, opting to create his own party -- the "Bull Moose Party" or, by its proper name, the Progressive Party -- and run in the general election against Taft.
• The presence of what amounted to a a contest for primacy among the triumvirate of "king makers" in the Democratic Party, the triumvirate having been formed by Bryan, a very popular figure, "throwing a wrench" into the works at the Democrats' convention by supporting Wilson.

Even so, at the moment, notwithstanding all the haranguing about whether the GOP will line up behind Trump, while it is worth understanding what sorts of things may conceivably happen, at this point in time, we have no indication that any of them will indeed materialize into reality. If instead you've been party to some behind the scenes goings on that lead you to think the potentialities to which you allude are more than merely possible and are instead plausible to a material extent, then either do share or keep mum and give up this line of consideration until you can share what you know to be (or when that time comes "to have been") so.

Or in other words, yes, I agree with you that the actual nomination hasn't happened for either front runner, but barring your being willing and able to show that there's more than the mere possibility -- a possibility accruing, for now, largely from the fact that other unexpected outcomes have happened in the past -- of their not obtaining the nod from their respective parties, there's no point in our here and now addressing the exceptional likelihood that they won't.

That was so hoplelessly verbose, by the time I got to the end I had no idea where we ended up.

It's very simple. I was referring to a bellicose candidate from New York, described by his critics as an egomaniac, taking most of the primary elections easily by comfortable margins and then, being "almost certain", denied the nomination by the party's convention -- who then gave said nomination to the establishment guy from Ohio.

That's it. No reason to word it into the ground. Your presumption that Rump is the presumptive nominee based on primary results is reasonable in a normal year.

The key phrase: this is not a normal year.

 

[320 Years of History]

Poor pedantic fool.

Prove me wrong.

Well, barring unknowns manifesting themselves, it's almost certain that Trump and Mrs. Clinton will the be the respective nominees of their parties. Given that, one'd be foolish not to today act and think in terms of their becoming exactly that, that is, it's silly to base most positions and commentary that particular technicality, even though in a few contexts, that technicality is literally all that matters to any material extent.

Are you correct in saying that neither party has indeed named those two individuals as their respective nominees? Of course you are.

I think the other member is saying you are splitting hairs at this point in time to assert as presently material to one's thought processes that technicality's not having come to pass. Is phrasing that concept as "poor pedantic fool" a responsible mode of adult commentary/rebuttal? Absolutely not.

I don't think it's "almost certain" at all, particularly in Rump's case.

There's a reason I keep bringing up the campaign season of 1912. That was "almost certain" too, and yet it wasn't.

Do you have in mind the contest between Taft and Roosevelt wherein Taft's allies engaged in "delegate chicanery" that resulted in Taft getting the GOP nomination and Teddy creating the "Bull Moose Party"? Or are you thinking of the contentious nomination (some 40+ rounds of convention voting) of Wilson by the Democrats?

I think the 1912 campaign processes -- from both parties -- are illustrative of what can happen, but I also think there are a number of key factors that were in play then and that are not in play right now. Those factors include:

• Roosevelt's having in 1908 agreed to yield to and support Taft, and thus following through with his promise, even though he could have won re-election, or at the very least the GOP nomination, in 1908.
• Roosevelt, a former President who was still well enough liked, having by 1912 become not only disillusioned but also downright pissed at Taft's efforts to undo his progressive initiatives, opting to create his own party -- the "Bull Moose Party" or, by its proper name, the Progressive Party -- and run in the general election against Taft.
• The presence of what amounted to a a contest for primacy among the triumvirate of "king makers" in the Democratic Party, the triumvirate having been formed by Bryan, a very popular figure, "throwing a wrench" into the works at the Democrats' convention by supporting Wilson.

Even so, at the moment, notwithstanding all the haranguing about whether the GOP will line up behind Trump, while it is worth understanding what sorts of things may conceivably happen, at this point in time, we have no indication that any of them will indeed materialize into reality. If instead you've been party to some behind the scenes goings on that lead you to think the potentialities to which you allude are more than merely possible and are instead plausible to a material extent, then either do share or keep mum and give up this line of consideration until you can share what you know to be (or when that time comes "to have been") so.

Or in other words, yes, I agree with you that the actual nomination hasn't happened for either front runner, but barring your being willing and able to show that there's more than the mere possibility -- a possibility accruing, for now, largely from the fact that other unexpected outcomes have happened in the past -- of their not obtaining the nod from their respective parties, there's no point in our here and now addressing the exceptional likelihood that they won't.

That was so hoplelessly verbose, by the time I got to the end I had no idea where we ended up.

It's very simple. I was referring to a bellicose candidate from New York, described by his critics as an egomaniac, taking most of the primary elections easily by comfortable margins and then, being "almost certain", denied the nomination by the party's convention -- who then gave said nomination to the establishment guy from Ohio.

That's it. No reason to word it into the ground. Your presumption that Rump is the presumptive nominee based on primary results is reasonable in a normal year.

The key phrase: this is not a normal year.

You what's verbose? Verbosity is writing "a bellicose candidate from New York, described by his critics as an egomaniac, taking most of the primary elections easily by comfortable margins and then, being "almost certain", denied the nomination by the party's convention" when "Roosevelt" would have sufficed just fine.

 

[Pogo]

Prove me wrong.

Well, barring unknowns manifesting themselves, it's almost certain that Trump and Mrs. Clinton will the be the respective nominees of their parties. Given that, one'd be foolish not to today act and think in terms of their becoming exactly that, that is, it's silly to base most positions and commentary that particular technicality, even though in a few contexts, that technicality is literally all that matters to any material extent.

Are you correct in saying that neither party has indeed named those two individuals as their respective nominees? Of course you are.

I think the other member is saying you are splitting hairs at this point in time to assert as presently material to one's thought processes that technicality's not having come to pass. Is phrasing that concept as "poor pedantic fool" a responsible mode of adult commentary/rebuttal? Absolutely not.

I don't think it's "almost certain" at all, particularly in Rump's case.

There's a reason I keep bringing up the campaign season of 1912. That was "almost certain" too, and yet it wasn't.

Do you have in mind the contest between Taft and Roosevelt wherein Taft's allies engaged in "delegate chicanery" that resulted in Taft getting the GOP nomination and Teddy creating the "Bull Moose Party"? Or are you thinking of the contentious nomination (some 40+ rounds of convention voting) of Wilson by the Democrats?

I think the 1912 campaign processes -- from both parties -- are illustrative of what can happen, but I also think there are a number of key factors that were in play then and that are not in play right now. Those factors include:

• Roosevelt's having in 1908 agreed to yield to and support Taft, and thus following through with his promise, even though he could have won re-election, or at the very least the GOP nomination, in 1908.
• Roosevelt, a former President who was still well enough liked, having by 1912 become not only disillusioned but also downright pissed at Taft's efforts to undo his progressive initiatives, opting to create his own party -- the "Bull Moose Party" or, by its proper name, the Progressive Party -- and run in the general election against Taft.
• The presence of what amounted to a a contest for primacy among the triumvirate of "king makers" in the Democratic Party, the triumvirate having been formed by Bryan, a very popular figure, "throwing a wrench" into the works at the Democrats' convention by supporting Wilson.

Even so, at the moment, notwithstanding all the haranguing about whether the GOP will line up behind Trump, while it is worth understanding what sorts of things may conceivably happen, at this point in time, we have no indication that any of them will indeed materialize into reality. If instead you've been party to some behind the scenes goings on that lead you to think the potentialities to which you allude are more than merely possible and are instead plausible to a material extent, then either do share or keep mum and give up this line of consideration until you can share what you know to be (or when that time comes "to have been") so.

Or in other words, yes, I agree with you that the actual nomination hasn't happened for either front runner, but barring your being willing and able to show that there's more than the mere possibility -- a possibility accruing, for now, largely from the fact that other unexpected outcomes have happened in the past -- of their not obtaining the nod from their respective parties, there's no point in our here and now addressing the exceptional likelihood that they won't.

That was so hoplelessly verbose, by the time I got to the end I had no idea where we ended up.

It's very simple. I was referring to a bellicose candidate from New York, described by his critics as an egomaniac, taking most of the primary elections easily by comfortable margins and then, being "almost certain", denied the nomination by the party's convention -- who then gave said nomination to the establishment guy from Ohio.

That's it. No reason to word it into the ground. Your presumption that Rump is the presumptive nominee based on primary results is reasonable in a normal year.

The key phrase: this is not a normal year.

You what's verbose? Verbosity is writing "a bellicose candidate from New York, described by his critics as an egomaniac, taking most of the primary elections easily by comfortable margins and then, being "almost certain", denied the nomination by the party's convention" when "Roosevelt" would have sufficed just fine.

Those are the historical parallels. They're part of the context. That's part of what makes the comparison come to life. As does the reference to the Establishment guy from Ohio.

Posting the word "Roosevelt" ---- does not.

I didn't even mention that the same election featured a guy with wild distinctive hair.

 

[320 Years of History]

Well, barring unknowns manifesting themselves, it's almost certain that Trump and Mrs. Clinton will the be the respective nominees of their parties. Given that, one'd be foolish not to today act and think in terms of their becoming exactly that, that is, it's silly to base most positions and commentary that particular technicality, even though in a few contexts, that technicality is literally all that matters to any material extent.

Are you correct in saying that neither party has indeed named those two individuals as their respective nominees? Of course you are.

I think the other member is saying you are splitting hairs at this point in time to assert as presently material to one's thought processes that technicality's not having come to pass. Is phrasing that concept as "poor pedantic fool" a responsible mode of adult commentary/rebuttal? Absolutely not.

I don't think it's "almost certain" at all, particularly in Rump's case.

There's a reason I keep bringing up the campaign season of 1912. That was "almost certain" too, and yet it wasn't.

Do you have in mind the contest between Taft and Roosevelt wherein Taft's allies engaged in "delegate chicanery" that resulted in Taft getting the GOP nomination and Teddy creating the "Bull Moose Party"? Or are you thinking of the contentious nomination (some 40+ rounds of convention voting) of Wilson by the Democrats?

I think the 1912 campaign processes -- from both parties -- are illustrative of what can happen, but I also think there are a number of key factors that were in play then and that are not in play right now. Those factors include:

• Roosevelt's having in 1908 agreed to yield to and support Taft, and thus following through with his promise, even though he could have won re-election, or at the very least the GOP nomination, in 1908.
• Roosevelt, a former President who was still well enough liked, having by 1912 become not only disillusioned but also downright pissed at Taft's efforts to undo his progressive initiatives, opting to create his own party -- the "Bull Moose Party" or, by its proper name, the Progressive Party -- and run in the general election against Taft.
• The presence of what amounted to a a contest for primacy among the triumvirate of "king makers" in the Democratic Party, the triumvirate having been formed by Bryan, a very popular figure, "throwing a wrench" into the works at the Democrats' convention by supporting Wilson.

Even so, at the moment, notwithstanding all the haranguing about whether the GOP will line up behind Trump, while it is worth understanding what sorts of things may conceivably happen, at this point in time, we have no indication that any of them will indeed materialize into reality. If instead you've been party to some behind the scenes goings on that lead you to think the potentialities to which you allude are more than merely possible and are instead plausible to a material extent, then either do share or keep mum and give up this line of consideration until you can share what you know to be (or when that time comes "to have been") so.

Or in other words, yes, I agree with you that the actual nomination hasn't happened for either front runner, but barring your being willing and able to show that there's more than the mere possibility -- a possibility accruing, for now, largely from the fact that other unexpected outcomes have happened in the past -- of their not obtaining the nod from their respective parties, there's no point in our here and now addressing the exceptional likelihood that they won't.

That was so hoplelessly verbose, by the time I got to the end I had no idea where we ended up.

It's very simple. I was referring to a bellicose candidate from New York, described by his critics as an egomaniac, taking most of the primary elections easily by comfortable margins and then, being "almost certain", denied the nomination by the party's convention -- who then gave said nomination to the establishment guy from Ohio.

That's it. No reason to word it into the ground. Your presumption that Rump is the presumptive nominee based on primary results is reasonable in a normal year.

The key phrase: this is not a normal year.

You what's verbose? Verbosity is writing "a bellicose candidate from New York, described by his critics as an egomaniac, taking most of the primary elections easily by comfortable margins and then, being "almost certain", denied the nomination by the party's convention" when "Roosevelt" would have sufficed just fine.

Those are the historical parallels. They're part of the context. That's part of what makes the comparison come to life. As does the reference to the Establishment guy from Ohio.

Posting the word "Roosevelt" ---- does not.

I didn't even mention that the same election featured a guy with wild distinctive hair.

Well, be that as it may, I'm the person who asked the question and by the remarks I posted in the post you assert is verbose, you should have realized I have some sense of the context of the situation, and thus realized "Roosevelt" would be sufficient in reply to me. I would not have made the remark I did had you not made that "verbosity" comment.

 

[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..

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, one option is to not vote. The other currently existing option most likely will be Gary Johnson who will be on every ballot in the U.S.

• Is the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson a Plausible Alternative to Trump and Clinton?, by David French, National Review
  
• Gary Johnson on the Issues
  
• Libertarian Gary Johnson in double digits in race against Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump: poll
  
• Gary Johnson, Republican Presidential Candidate

I once was a Libertarian. I don't generally consider voting for a Lib, but suddenly I find myself having no choice but to consider the Libertarian candidate as I'm not keen enough on Mrs. Clinton's platform to commit now to voting for her and it's not likely Mr. Sanders will get the nomination.

Given that it's essentially too late for anyone else -- even if they have the ~$10M it costs to do so -- to register and actually get on all the ballots in the nation, Mr. Johnson is the only plausible alternative, unless one considers as plausible the possibility that the nation's dissatisfied voters will write in a person on their ballots and 50% +1 of voters do so, and they all write the same name. I don't know about you, but I'm not counting on that.

So what do you think of Gov. Johnson?

Johnson is okay, I would prefer a rand Paul, or Stephen dumaush. But if there is no third party general election ticket, then I do not vote in the general, I concentrate on senate and congress, if I can find candidates I like

There should be 4 or 5 parties participating in the process. Bring on the Socialists and the Constitutionalists. Force the winner to solicit "coalition" support. Just having a FEW elected officials that are NOT party whores would make a HUGE difference to the national dialogue and the workings of Congress and the Exec Branch. Just look at what one damn Socialist can do. Bernie was never EVER under the thumb of the party bosses. Neither was Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul for that matter.

And don't be mistaken -- there are 530 TOTALLY IRRELEVANT Congress critters. Because the 2 parties have FOUR people that RUN Capitol Hill. You don't have a pencil or a receptionist without their approval and NOTHING gets to the floor unless THEY want it to..

 

[candycorn]

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

As a Dim voter, the good part is you don't have to just choose one state to vote.

More GOP sour grapes.

I guess when 332-206 will be referred to as "the good old days" when HRC destroys Trump....you cling to whatever lie you believe most.

 

[candycorn]

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 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

 

[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 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.

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.

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.

 

[320 Years of History]

Gary Johnson will be the nominee. We work EXTRAORDINALLY hard to get our candidate on all 50 state ballots.

According to Mr. Johnson's remarks this past weekend, he's already the 50 states' ballots. I don't know if he's on the territories and D.C.'s ballots.