Poll: 6 in 10 dislike or hate Trump and Clinton.

[Asclepias]

If A and B are both less preferable choices but are pretty much guaranteed to win and you vote for saint C who has no chance to win, what exactly did you accomplish other than satisfying your personal choice?

I vote for the person who represented my interests. Why would I choose someone who doesn't?

Because not enough people are voting like you to guarantee that your choice has a chance?

It would be different if most people were aware. The next best option is to go with the person you feel will do the least harm but at least has a chance.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If the choice were only A or B you might have a point, but since it's not, you don't.

Sorry, I live in the real world, in a country with a two-party system where only a person from one of those two parties can win the top spot.

What world you live in, I couldn't say? TV or the movies I guess.

A third party candidate could easily win the top spot if those 6 out of ten people stopped allowing themselves to be herded like you.

Herded? No, unlike you we simply don't want to keep banging our heads on the pole.

And yet, strangely, that's exactly what you're advocating everyone do.

No. That's you wanting an option that does not exist, that is not viable.

You're the one telling people to keep choosing between the same two options that are ruining the country, not me.

 

[Jack4jill]

If A and B are both less preferable choices but are pretty much guaranteed to win and you vote for saint C who has no chance to win, what exactly did you accomplish other than satisfying your personal choice?

I vote for the person who represented my interests. Why would I choose someone who doesn't?

How do they represent you, when they can't actually win?

This guy is the best, although he can do absolutely nothing for me since he never even had a chance to win? Great idea.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If A and B are both less preferable choices but are pretty much guaranteed to win and you vote for saint C who has no chance to win, what exactly did you accomplish other than satisfying your personal choice?

I vote for the person who represented my interests. Why would I choose someone who doesn't?

Because not enough people are voting like you to guarantee that your choice has a chance?

It would be different if most people were aware. The next best option is to go with the person you feel will do the least harm.

If that's the attitude you accept, it never changes, does it. Perot had a break through in 92. He didn't win, but he took almost 20% of the vote which hadn't happened in decades. If Gary Johnson was given the same media time that Trump and Hillary are and participated in the debates with them he could very well pull off the same thing, if not improve on what Perot did given how disliked the other two are.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If A and B are both less preferable choices but are pretty much guaranteed to win and you vote for saint C who has no chance to win, what exactly did you accomplish other than satisfying your personal choice?

I vote for the person who represented my interests. Why would I choose someone who doesn't?

How do they represent you, when they can't actually win?

This guy is the best, although he can do absolutely nothing for me since he never even had a chance to win? Great idea.

These Republican and Democrats suck. They're ruining the country, but I'm going to keep voting for them anyway and hope that it suddenly changes because it makes perfect logical sense.

 

[Ringel05]

At present pace, it will soon be 8 in 10

Which makes you wonder how these two got their parties' nominations.

The election from Hell, maybe literally. Take your pick and hold your nose.

No, I don't have to hold my nose. There are other people besides Trump and Clinton running for president. If you ignore them just because "they can't win" then you're just as bad as the asshats who nominated those two in the first place.

The problem is nobody knows who they are and won't take the time to explore those options, the vast majority of voters are locked into the two party apparatus.

Agreed. The American voters are lemmings following each other off a cliff.

Emotion not logic drives politics, always has, always will.

The irony is that feelings can tell us something that logic can't about people. I think women know this because they know when you are misrepresenting yourself just by your interaction with them. Maybe elections are the same way sometimes. Our feelings may give us incite into the canidates themselves that our rational thinking can't.

Nice rationalization. Obviously you don't watch/listen to the vast majority of political ads and speeches, fear mongering and more fear mongering followed by more fear mongering.

 

[Jack4jill]

Sorry, I live in the real world, in a country with a two-party system where only a person from one of those two parties can win the top spot.

What world you live in, I couldn't say? TV or the movies I guess.

A third party candidate could easily win the top spot if those 6 out of ten people stopped allowing themselves to be herded like you.

Herded? No, unlike you we simply don't want to keep banging our heads on the pole.

And yet, strangely, that's exactly what you're advocating everyone do.

No. That's you wanting an option that does not exist, that is not viable.

You're the one telling people to keep choosing between the same two options that are ruining the country, not me.

In this country there are two options, A or B? Until you can change that, either pick one or know that you are throwing your vote away?

Demanding C when there is only A or B is childish, someone refusing to deal with reality.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A third party candidate could easily win the top spot if those 6 out of ten people stopped allowing themselves to be herded like you.

Herded? No, unlike you we simply don't want to keep banging our heads on the pole.

And yet, strangely, that's exactly what you're advocating everyone do.

No. That's you wanting an option that does not exist, that is not viable.

You're the one telling people to keep choosing between the same two options that are ruining the country, not me.

In this country there are two options, A or B? Until you can change that, either pick one or know that you are throwing your vote away?

Demanding C when there is only A or B is childish, someone refusing to deal with reality.

If that were true you might have a point, but since it's not, you don't.

 

[Jack4jill]

If A and B are both less preferable choices but are pretty much guaranteed to win and you vote for saint C who has no chance to win, what exactly did you accomplish other than satisfying your personal choice?

I vote for the person who represented my interests. Why would I choose someone who doesn't?

How do they represent you, when they can't actually win?

This guy is the best, although he can do absolutely nothing for me since he never even had a chance to win? Great idea.

These Republican and Democrats suck. They're ruining the country, but I'm going to keep voting for them anyway and hope that it suddenly changes because it makes perfect logical sense.

Logic? Your choice is A or B, and you choose C?

Logic is not your forte.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If A and B are both less preferable choices but are pretty much guaranteed to win and you vote for saint C who has no chance to win, what exactly did you accomplish other than satisfying your personal choice?

I vote for the person who represented my interests. Why would I choose someone who doesn't?

How do they represent you, when they can't actually win?

This guy is the best, although he can do absolutely nothing for me since he never even had a chance to win? Great idea.

These Republican and Democrats suck. They're ruining the country, but I'm going to keep voting for them anyway and hope that it suddenly changes because it makes perfect logical sense.

Logic? Your choice is A or B, and you choose C?

Logic is not your forte.

If the choice was only A or B you might have a point. Since it's not, you don't. Not sure why you keep rehashing that false dichotomy.

 

[Jack4jill]

Herded? No, unlike you we simply don't want to keep banging our heads on the pole.

And yet, strangely, that's exactly what you're advocating everyone do.

No. That's you wanting an option that does not exist, that is not viable.

You're the one telling people to keep choosing between the same two options that are ruining the country, not me.

In this country there are two options, A or B? Until you can change that, either pick one or know that you are throwing your vote away?

Demanding C when there is only A or B is childish, someone refusing to deal with reality.

If that were true you might have a point, but since it's not, you don't.

There is no C here, which is why C never wins.

I could vote for Ficus Tree, but just because I can write him in doesn't make him worth voting for. He can never win, never represent me at all.

Voting for C gets you zero, until that is C can win, and that's not here now, and maybe not ever.

 

[Asclepias]

If A and B are both less preferable choices but are pretty much guaranteed to win and you vote for saint C who has no chance to win, what exactly did you accomplish other than satisfying your personal choice?

I vote for the person who represented my interests. Why would I choose someone who doesn't?

Because not enough people are voting like you to guarantee that your choice has a chance?

It would be different if most people were aware. The next best option is to go with the person you feel will do the least harm.

If that's the attitude you accept, it never changes, does it. Perot had a break through in 92. He didn't win, but he took almost 20% of the vote which hadn't happened in decades. If Gary Johnson was given the same media time that Trump and Hillary are and participated in the debates with them he could very well pull off the same thing, if not improve on what Perot did given how disliked the other two are.

Your logic sounds great but like I said before its not considering human nature. There are a lot of ifs but the most important if is if people change their mindsets. Its a well known fact that is probably the hardest thing for humans to do. The failure of those "other" candidates actually makes it harder for another one to get elected in the future. People want to "win" as you pointed out. To them thats more important than getting it right.

Let me ask you a question. If you knew your vote for another would result in someone you really didnt want to win being elected, say Hitler, would you still cast your vote for another?

 

[Jack4jill]

If A and B are both less preferable choices but are pretty much guaranteed to win and you vote for saint C who has no chance to win, what exactly did you accomplish other than satisfying your personal choice?

I vote for the person who represented my interests. Why would I choose someone who doesn't?

Because not enough people are voting like you to guarantee that your choice has a chance?

It would be different if most people were aware. The next best option is to go with the person you feel will do the least harm.

If that's the attitude you accept, it never changes, does it. Perot had a break through in 92. He didn't win, but he took almost 20% of the vote which hadn't happened in decades. If Gary Johnson was given the same media time that Trump and Hillary are and participated in the debates with them he could very well pull off the same thing, if not improve on what Perot did given how disliked the other two are.

Your logic sounds great but like I said before its not considering human nature. There are a lot of ifs but the most important if is if people change their mindsets. Its a well known fact that is probably the hardest thing for humans to do. The failure of those "other" candidates actually makes it harder for another one to get elected in the future. People want to "win" as you pointed out. To them thats more important than getting it right.

Let me ask you a question. If you knew your vote for another would result in someone you really didnt want to win being elected, say Hitler, would you still cast your vote for another?

I believe he likes the Moral High-Ground, made of sand.

"My vote didn't matter, maybe even made things worse, but I feel good about myself." That and a fiver will get you drink at Starbucks, but it won't help the country at all.

Here, if you don't vote for the lesser evil, the greater evil wins.

 

[Jack4jill]

On reflection, there is a third-party here, the one half that doesn't vote.

Like Don't Taz Me, they also have zero representation and throw their votes away.

 

[jillian]

At present pace, it will soon be 8 in 10

Which makes you wonder how these two got their parties' nominations.

The election from Hell, maybe literally. Take your pick and hold your nose.

No, I don't have to hold my nose. There are other people besides Trump and Clinton running for president. If you ignore them just because "they can't win" then you're just as bad as the asshats who nominated those two in the first place.

The problem is nobody knows who they are and won't take the time to explore those options, the vast majority of voters are locked into the two party apparatus.

Agreed. The American voters are lemmings following each other off a cliff.

yes, only the gubmint haters who can't tell the difference between the candidates are correct.

There are major differences between them, doesn't make them any less desirable to the majority of Americans.

again, it depends on what matters to you. I don't dislike her. I think she'll be fine. and the issues that matter to me will be fine. unlike what would be the case if her opponent were elected.

 

[jillian]

If A and B are both less preferable choices but are pretty much guaranteed to win and you vote for saint C who has no chance to win, what exactly did you accomplish other than satisfying your personal choice?

I vote for the person who represented my interests. Why would I choose someone who doesn't?

Because not enough people are voting like you to guarantee that your choice has a chance?

It would be different if most people were aware. The next best option is to go with the person you feel will do the least harm.

If that's the attitude you accept, it never changes, does it. Perot had a break through in 92. He didn't win, but he took almost 20% of the vote which hadn't happened in decades. If Gary Johnson was given the same media time that Trump and Hillary are and participated in the debates with them he could very well pull off the same thing, if not improve on what Perot did given how disliked the other two are.

Your logic sounds great but like I said before its not considering human nature. There are a lot of ifs but the most important if is if people change their mindsets. Its a well known fact that is probably the hardest thing for humans to do. The failure of those "other" candidates actually makes it harder for another one to get elected in the future. People want to "win" as you pointed out. To them thats more important than getting it right.

Let me ask you a question. If you knew your vote for another would result in someone you really didnt want to win being elected, say Hitler, would you still cast your vote for another?

I believe he likes the Moral High-Ground, made of sand.

"My vote didn't matter, maybe even made things worse, but I feel good about myself." That and a fiver will get you drink at Starbucks, but it won't help the country at all.

Here, if you don't vote for the lesser evil, the greater evil wins.

I actually agree with that. even though we disagree as to what that greater evil is. on the other hand, I thought she should have been president eight years ago.

 

[jillian]

Just because you don't like either candidate doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else's choice is wrong. I know you are the self-esteem generation so you naturally think your opinion rocks and everyone else's opinion is wrong but in reality, that is not necessarily true.

The majority of the public has a poor opinion of both candidates. That's the whole basis of this discussion.

the majority of the public....but not the majority of each party.

 

[Asclepias]

Just because you don't like either candidate doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else's choice is wrong. I know you are the self-esteem generation so you naturally think your opinion rocks and everyone else's opinion is wrong but in reality, that is not necessarily true.

The majority of the public has a poor opinion of both candidates. That's the whole basis of this discussion.

the majority of the public....but not the majority of each party.

Interesting distinction.

 

[Ringel05]

Which makes you wonder how these two got their parties' nominations.

No, I don't have to hold my nose. There are other people besides Trump and Clinton running for president. If you ignore them just because "they can't win" then you're just as bad as the asshats who nominated those two in the first place.

The problem is nobody knows who they are and won't take the time to explore those options, the vast majority of voters are locked into the two party apparatus.

Agreed. The American voters are lemmings following each other off a cliff.

yes, only the gubmint haters who can't tell the difference between the candidates are correct.

There are major differences between them, doesn't make them any less desirable to the majority of Americans.

again, it depends on what matters to you. I don't dislike her. I think she'll be fine. and the issues that matter to me will be fine. unlike what would be the case if her opponent were elected.

Here's the reality of candidate promises (rhetoric), candidates will say anything to get elected, yes they might actually try to get some of their promises enacted but in most cases they know those promises will never get past committee so can therefore use the failure as ammunition against the opposite party.

 

[jillian]

Just because you don't like either candidate doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else's choice is wrong. I know you are the self-esteem generation so you naturally think your opinion rocks and everyone else's opinion is wrong but in reality, that is not necessarily true.

The majority of the public has a poor opinion of both candidates. That's the whole basis of this discussion.

the majority of the public....but not the majority of each party.

Interesting distinction.

it's the only one that matters at the end of the day.

and as of right now, Hillary has more than two million more votes than the Donald.