Politics and stuff

[Seeitsaveit13]

Maybe people would actually believe in the chance for a 3rd party after all this

Not a chance. He doesn't have the (D) or (R) next to his name. Americans are too damn stupid and will only vote for someone with a (D) or (R) next to their name. Not saying Gary Johnson is the answer, but he sure as hell seems like the answer over Donald and definitely more than Hillary

I'm not saying he would win. But if he could at least get a decent chunk of votes, it could possibly give some momentum to the idea of a 3rd party vote not being a "wasted vote" as most people (like yourself, no offense) just toss it away.

"I'd give it a try, but it would just be a waste"

If all the people that said that, just gave it a try, it wouldn't be a waste anymore.

There needs to be a push to get everyone that would vote for Johnson but think it's a wasted vote to actually pull the lever for him. I'd assume he'd get more than Ross did in '92. I'm just curious where those votes come from (Trump or Clinton), Perot won the election for Clinton.

Yea it would be interesting to find out who it would take them from. If he gets to 15 % and can get in the debate, it would be interesting to see how much he can get overall. This random 4th lady (can't remember her name) is getting a little traction, but no where near what Johnson is.

He's not going to win, but if he made enough noise it could be helpful going forward

[ReignOnU]

My uninformed gut reaction was that it would hurt Trump more, as the Tea Party would be all in for him. But Johnson definitely has a large appeal for some of the core Bernie voters. I could be off, but when it comes to Women's choice, same sex marriage, marijuana, and international military action, they are somewhat similar. The issues that would be contrasting are mostly guns, social services and economic based. So would those supporters trade off the gun laws and less of a focus on social services to avoid Hilary? Good question. I definitely think a lot of them would go for it.

[DRiccio21]

Johnson vote is a vote for Clinton essentially. and while i wouldn't classify myself as libertarian, that's the party i align closest with... i just refuse to place a label on my beliefs as thats what causes all the nonsense (imo)

[Seeitsaveit13]

Johnson vote is a vote for Clinton essentially.

In this specific election, it's likely that Johnson votes would hurt Trump more than Hillary, yes.

But enough votes for him may finally shake the belief that it has to be one or the other, leading to more productive results from future elections. At least, that's the hope.

[shel311]

I agree with Seeit in that a 3rd party candidate won't just come out and win out of nowhere, at least not in this climate. If it doesn't happen in this election, I can't see it happening any time soon. And of course it won't.

But those that say it's throwing away a vote so they vote for the Democrat or Republican or doing a great disservice IMO because it's going to have to be gradual thing. This election Johnson gets 10%, next one it's 15 or 20%, and so on and so forth. That's how it would most likely happen.

[Cnasty]

Why didn't Bernie run independently and make an even bigger dent in the results?

[shel311]

Why didn't Bernie run independently and make an even bigger dent in the results?

All of your Feel the Bern posts a while back should have been Feel the Johnson posts!!!

[GeorgesGoons]

Why didn't Bernie run independently and make an even bigger dent in the results?

I wish he would still. Couple him with running and Johnson having a decent showing maybe nobody will receive the required electoral votes and thro this whole thing into chaos.

[DRiccio21]

But enough votes for him may finally shake the belief that it has to be one or the other, leading to more productive results from future elections. At least, that's the hope.

you're either very young or haven't studied much history.

[DRiccio21]

But those that say it's throwing away a vote so they vote for the Democrat or Republican or doing a great disservice IMO because it's going to have to be gradual thing. This election Johnson gets 10%, next one it's 15 or 20%, and so on and so forth. That's how it would most likely happen.

this is a very honorable and logical way of looking at things, but politics have proven that they aren't either of those things.

imo, we would need to see a drastic destruction of the republican party to see a 3rd party really gain some traction. because until then the money from the traditional republican side would be too much for the 3rd parties to overcome.

i'd love to be on your side of gradual growth, but people have been saying that for 100 years (besides Roosevelt). there was Wallace, Nader, Perot, Ron Paul, etc etc just about every time there was a small swell of belief that those guys could lead to a viable alternative. but the lack of funding ends that real quick

[shel311]

i'd love to be on your side of gradual growth, but people have been saying that for 100 years (besides Roosevelt). there was Wallace, Nader, Perot, Ron Paul, etc etc just about every time there was a small swell of belief that those guys could lead to a viable alternative. but the lack of funding ends that real quick

But I guess the question is, if so many didn't view it as "throwing away their vote" to vote for a 3rd party, could it be different?

[DRiccio21]

i'd love to be on your side of gradual growth, but people have been saying that for 100 years (besides Roosevelt). there was Wallace, Nader, Perot, Ron Paul, etc etc just about every time there was a small swell of belief that those guys could lead to a viable alternative. but the lack of funding ends that real quick

But I guess the question is, if so many didn't view it as "throwing away their vote" to vote for a 3rd party, could it be different?

you're looking at it way too logically.

essentially votes are brainwashed/bought and regardless of ideologies if you can't get a swell of the population to be completely disgusted with the 2 parties yet, it probably never happens.

[shel311]

if you can't get a swell of the population to be completely disgusted with the 2 parties yet, it probably never happens.

True

Part of me likes to think we're in an information age with more and more people thinking independently so if this were to ever happen, it could be now, or soon.


Then I see that that Trump/Clinton will probably get, I don't know, 80-90% of the votes and I think, yea if that's the case we're about as far away as possible.

[DRiccio21]

Part of me likes to think we're in an information age with more and more people thinking independently so if this were to ever happen, it could be now, or soon.

this is actually a really valid point. i can agree with that too.

the one thing i always harp on when talking to clients and friends is that all this 'pain' that you see going on in the world is eventually going to lead to 2 options... mass destruction or an overwhelming flow of positive. and love has always overcome hate thru history.

we're on the cusp of a huge growth period as a society because the vast vast vast majority of people don't want a world of fear and hate. they want love. and when all the pain gets brought to the forefront you get growth and progress. so with that said, its entirely possible that we could get a swell of people who rebel and ask for better political choices. the problem with that is love over hate is a natural way of being where logic over illogical thought is more learned. we need a more educated and less dependent society to get more logical thought. the masses will become more educated globally simply due to access to information, like you said, so we are almost certainly going in the right direction... despite all the noise you hear.

[nick]

leave it to Eric Andre to be out of his fucking mind.

[Seeitsaveit13]

But enough votes for him may finally shake the belief that it has to be one or the other, leading to more productive results from future elections. At least, that's the hope.

you're either very young or haven't studied much history.

I realize the perception.

I realize the history. I'm assuming you mean "look at history, there's always been 2 parties etc" when you're suggesting I don't know history.

Doesn't mean it HAS to be that way.

My only argument that the "it's always gonna be like this" and the "it won't matter" statements are completely true... with that attitude. If people believe that way, then they're right. If that attitude goes away, you actually get a chance.

[Seeitsaveit13]

if you can't get a swell of the population to be completely disgusted with the 2 parties yet, it probably never happens.

True

Part of me likes to think we're in an information age with more and more people thinking independently so if this were to ever happen, it could be now, or soon.


Then I see that that Trump/Clinton will probably get, I don't know, 80-90% of the votes and I think, yea if that's the case we're about as far away as possible.

Agree with all of this

[ReignOnU]

If Sanders were to run 3rd party, Trump likely seals the bid as president (even with Johnson running). It's a numbers game. If Sanders acted like he talked, he'd run. But he backed off...

[Cnasty]

If Sanders were to run 3rd party, Trump likely seals the bid as president (even with Johnson running). It's a numbers game. If Sanders acted like he talked, he'd run. But he backed off...

This is the answer I was looking for on why he truly didn't run.

[DRiccio21]

But enough votes for him may finally shake the belief that it has to be one or the other, leading to more productive results from future elections. At least, that's the hope.

you're either very young or haven't studied much history.

I realize the perception.

I realize the history. I'm assuming you mean "look at history, there's always been 2 parties etc" when you're suggesting I don't know history.

Doesn't mean it HAS to be that way.

My only argument that the "it's always gonna be like this" and the "it won't matter" statements are completely true... with that attitude. If people believe that way, then they're right. If that attitude goes away, you actually get a chance.

my point was simply people have been saying what you're saying for about 100 years. as we get older we see issues and believe we are confronted with something different, but the republican/democrat thing and the hopeful 3rd party has been going on for a long time.

shel's point about technology changing things is about the only hopeful thing i can think of. information is power and it can certainly change everything.