Trump, Clinton or Third Party

[jamil]

Not to mention that Cuban isn't exactly a model of tact and decorum. So replace Trump with TrumpLight. Most excellent plan

I wouldn't mind people trying to get someone to run third party if that person actually has a chance of winning AND that person is better than Trump and Clinton. The last criterion is a very low bar though. I don't know much about Cuban but I can't imagine that he could be any worse than Trump, and certainly not Hillary. If he did run as a third party candidate I don't see the prospects becoming any less a Hobson's choice.

 

[jbombelli]

If this has already been mentioned, I apologize. It seems that there is a movement to get Mark Cuban to run as a third party alternative to Trump. Regardless of the merits/negatives of a Cuban candidacy, why is it so difficult for third party supporters to recognize that any third party candidate intended as a Trump alternative will ensure that Hillary wins? Some say that Trump is broadening the Republican base, but I am skeptical. He doesn't even have the support of the typical Republican establishment. I understand that this is a year of rejection of the establishment, but how many people out there in the heartland feel like the RNC and are going to stay home and not vote? I have a bad feeling that this is not going to end well. I hope I'm wrong.

The goal isn't to win. It's to make sure the business-as-usual gravy train remains intact by helping Hillary win, by splitting the Republican vote in a few key states. Think Ross Perot.

 

[rob63]

If this has already been mentioned, I apologize. It seems that there is a movement to get Mark Cuban to run as a third party alternative to Trump. Regardless of the merits/negatives of a Cuban candidacy, why is it so difficult for third party supporters to recognize that any third party candidate intended as a Trump alternative will ensure that Hillary wins? Some say that Trump is broadening the Republican base, but I am skeptical. He doesn't even have the support of the typical Republican establishment. I understand that this is a year of rejection of the establishment, but how many people out there in the heartland feel like the RNC and are going to stay home and not vote? I have a bad feeling that this is not going to end well. I hope I'm wrong.

It is not that they don't understand the risks. It is more that they don't believe the proposed cure has any chance of working; and even if it did it isn't going to be any better than the disease in the first place, so why not shoot for a miracle? You can disagree with it, but it is not irrational. It is born of desperation.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If this has already been mentioned, I apologize. It seems that there is a movement to get Mark Cuban to run as a third party alternative to Trump. Regardless of the merits/negatives of a Cuban candidacy, why is it so difficult for third party supporters to recognize that any third party candidate intended as a Trump alternative will ensure that Hillary wins? Some say that Trump is broadening the Republican base, but I am skeptical. He doesn't even have the support of the typical Republican establishment. I understand that this is a year of rejection of the establishment, but how many people out there in the heartland feel like the RNC and are going to stay home and not vote? I have a bad feeling that this is not going to end well. I hope I'm wrong.

"Why is it so difficult for third-party supporters to recognize that any third party candidate intended as a Clinton alternative will ensure that Trump wins?"

Why does everyone default a third-party movement to a Democrat win?

 

[rob63]

"Why is it so difficult for third-party supporters to recognize that any third party candidate intended as a Clinton alternative will ensure that Trump wins?"

Why does everyone default a third-party movement to a Democrat win?

I agree. If Condoleezza Rice were to run with someone like Jim Webb as a running mate I could see it happening. A pairing of moderates from each party could pull a lot of votes from each party. Dems are just as unhappy with their choice.

 

[T.Lex]

I was thinking of hand washing that happened a couple of millennia ago

You do realize, in context, he was right. He didn't understand or particularly want the result, but he abided by what the people wanted. The people wanted to do something wrong, so were allowed to do it. (The necessity of the thing is perhaps a different issue. Everyone involved had roles to play that were, more than usual, predestined.)

Your vote should count to you

It will. Even if my vote is silence. As Trump voters claim to have done, I'll make my decision fully informed.

For the #NeverRelevant non-voters keeping score, RCP's polling average for Clinton vs Trump has maintained its steady decline in the Clinton advantage. In the last several weeks it has declined past +7.2 to +6.8 and +6.5 to its current +5.7 - down from a post-Wisconsin high of +9.8 for Clinton. Could be a trend or something

I absolutely believe Trump has a solid chance against Clinton. But, part of me wonders if Vegas will stop giving odds at some point, because this cycle is so far removed from normal.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I've already gone on record stating that I would vote for Satan himself if it prevented Hillary from being elected.

THAT!!!

 

[Hoosier8]

I saw a "I'm ready for Hillary" bumper sticker the other day. I wanted to ram them.

Were they bent over?

 

[KLB]

I wouldn't mind people trying to get someone to run third party if that person actually has a chance of winning AND that person is better than Trump and Clinton. The last criterion is a very low bar though. I don't know much about Cuban but I can't imagine that he could be any worse than Trump, and certainly not Hillary. If he did run as a third party candidate I don't see the prospects becoming any less a Hobson's choice.

Well, Cuban thinks Bloomberg should run.

 

[jgreiner]

Well, I always look at it this way. Someone has to make up the left side of the bell curve. Hillary supporters fit that bill.

 

[Cygnus]

I saw a "I'm ready for Hillary" bumper sticker the other day. I wanted to ram them.

My God doc! DO NOT come out to New England you'd lose your driver's license.......Although Bernie has quite a few fans out here too.

 

[BugI02]

The goal isn't to win. It's to make sure the business-as-usual gravy train remains intact by helping Hillary win, by splitting the Republican vote in a few key states. Think Ross Perot.

How well you understand the real enemy, sir

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jbombelli again.

Dammit

 

[BugI02]

You do realize, in context, he was right. He didn't understand or particularly want the result, but he abided by what the people wanted. The people wanted to do something wrong, so were allowed to do it. (The necessity of the thing is perhaps a different issue. Everyone involved had roles to play that were, more than usual, predestined.)



It will. Even if my vote is silence. As Trump voters claim to have done, I'll make my decision fully informed.



I absolutely believe Trump has a solid chance against Clinton. But, part of me wonders if Vegas will stop giving odds at some point, because this cycle is so far removed from normal.

I respect you and your obvious acumen. I support your absolute right to choose your own path though I may disagree with it. That said, within the 'my conscience/principles won't allow me to vote for Trump' subset, the cynical me does see some (present company excepted) for whom being able to hold themselves blameless is paramount.

"Washing our hands of a difficult situation will not free us of guilt; it will only give us a false sense of peace." - J Best (I believe this gentleman is a lawyer)

 

[worddoer]

Why is it so difficult for third party supporters to recognize that any third party candidate intended as a Trump alternative will ensure that Hillary wins?

I support your absolute right to choose your own path though I may disagree with it. That said, within the 'my conscience/principles won't allow me to vote for Trump' subset, the cynical me does see some (present company excepted) for whom being able to hold themselves blameless is paramount.

"Washing our hands of a difficult situation will not free us of guilt; it will only give us a false sense of peace." - J Best (I believe this gentleman is a lawyer)

When I look into the history of Trump and Hillary, I cannot support either of them and will not vote for either of them. Their actions are against my personal convictions. The older I get, the more Libertarian I get. Maybe this year I will vote that way, not sure yet.

I find it quite revealing how others get mad and say how those who are not willing to compromise on their convictions are the ones at fault for allowing trump to loose. Basically, we need this win at any cost, so stop being so stuck on your convictions and get it done. If you don't give up on those old fashioned ideas of convictions and principals, then everything bad that happens is your fault.

If we cannot support those who believe differently than us because of their convictions, then our country is doomed. And if that is the way we now believe as a country, we deserve everything we get in the future. The point to the American experiment was to allow many groups of people, who believe differently, to live peacefully together by agreeing to disagree. So at what point in our history did we change from peaceful disagreement being a strength to it being not only a weakness, but almost evil or treacherous? Our country was founded with the ability for a multi-party system. Not a 2 party system only. At what point did Americans become so convinced that anything other than a 2 party vote was again almost evil or treacherous? What then happens if both of the 2 parties become interested in their own growth and power rather than serving the American public? Where else do we turn when no other options are supported?

I have already been called all sorts of names by a few of the trump supporters (not all). I do not understand how insulting, degrading and yelling at anyone who opposes you is supposed to win someone over to your side of the debate. And if you truly believe that any discussion with someone who disagrees will always be fruitless, then why bother at all. Is it because you get some satisfaction from bullying others?

If this is how we now act as Americans, then there is no redemption for this country. Although there are a few left who do follow principals even when they disagree with others, most do not. We no longer support inclusion, we support division. We no longer support debate, we support silencing all others who believe differently than us. We no longer support individuality, we support "group think" or "mob rule". We no longer believe in principals no matter the cost, we believe in winning no matter the cost...even if that involves morality and/or principals. We no longer believe in a representative republic, we believe in straight up democracy (which some argue is "mob rule").

Right now the argument I see on both sides is that we, as a nation, want "mob rule". However, we want our mob to be the ones ruling. We want whomever we support to force everyone else to agree with us. That never leads to more freedom or more liberty.

I have been told that if we allow XYZ into office, then our country is over. Only by voting for someone I cannot support do I save the country. My opinion is this. If the only choices I have is between two people who will still bring the country to ruin (in my opinion), but just in different ways, I am not voting for either of them. This issue is not new to this November's election. But it has been an issue since I started paying any sort of attention (which unfortunately was not until after 9/11).

If our country is in the place that year after year our choice is limited to the lesser of two evils, then we have already gone down the path of ruin far enough that we cannot be saved. This is a slow incremental death of a nation. It will not be overnight and most likely not involve a foreign power. Voting based on our own selfishness and greed rather than on constitutional principles is what has brought us here over many years. Rome did not fall in a day. We refused to learn from history it seems. So now we are in the middle of repeating it.

 

[BugI02]

...
I find it quite revealing how others get mad and say how those who are not willing to compromise on their convictions are the ones at fault for allowing [STRIKE]trump[/STRIKE] Cruz to [STRIKE]loose[/STRIKE] lose. Basically, we need this win at any cost, so stop being so stuck on your convictions and get it done. If you don't give up on those old fashioned ideas of convictions and principals, then everything bad that happens is your fault.

Does that amended first line seem at all familiar. I'm not that familiar with you so only you can say whether you are innocent of pushing that particular line of reasoning. 'We need to vote for a Constitutionalist or a strict conservative or a real republican or [insert favorite here] instead of Trump.

Something something glass houses something stones

Your post fairly reeks of the assumption that someone cannot be both a Trump supporter and have principles

If we cannot support those who believe differently than us because of their convictions, then our country is doomed [Do tell] And if that is the way we now believe as a country, we deserve everything we get in the future. The point to the American experiment was to allow many groups of people, who believe differently, to live peacefully together by agreeing to disagree.

~

 

[ArcadiaGP]

When I look into the history of Trump and Hillary, I cannot support either of them and will not vote for either of them. Their actions are against my personal convictions. The older I get, the more Libertarian I get. Maybe this year I will vote that way, not sure yet.

I find it quite revealing how others get mad and say how those who are not willing to compromise on their convictions are the ones at fault for allowing trump to loose. Basically, we need this win at any cost, so stop being so stuck on your convictions and get it done. If you don't give up on those old fashioned ideas of convictions and principals, then everything bad that happens is your fault.

If we cannot support those who believe differently than us because of their convictions, then our country is doomed. And if that is the way we now believe as a country, we deserve everything we get in the future. The point to the American experiment was to allow many groups of people, who believe differently, to live peacefully together by agreeing to disagree. So at what point in our history did we change from peaceful disagreement being a strength to it being not only a weakness, but almost evil or treacherous? Our country was founded with the ability for a multi-party system. Not a 2 party system only. At what point did Americans become so convinced that anything other than a 2 party vote was again almost evil or treacherous? What then happens if both of the 2 parties become interested in their own growth and power rather than serving the American public? Where else do we turn when no other options are supported?

I have already been called all sorts of names by a few of the trump supporters (not all). I do not understand how insulting, degrading and yelling at anyone who opposes you is supposed to win someone over to your side of the debate. And if you truly believe that any discussion with someone who disagrees will always be fruitless, then why bother at all. Is it because you get some satisfaction from bullying others?

If this is how we now act as Americans, then there is no redemption for this country. Although there are a few left who do follow principals even when they disagree with others, most do not. We no longer support inclusion, we support division. We no longer support debate, we support silencing all others who believe differently than us. We no longer support individuality, we support "group think" or "mob rule". We no longer believe in principals no matter the cost, we believe in winning no matter the cost...even if that involves morality and/or principals. We no longer believe in a representative republic, we believe in straight up democracy (which some argue is "mob rule").

Right now the argument I see on both sides is that we, as a nation, want "mob rule". However, we want our mob to be the ones ruling. We want whomever we support to force everyone else to agree with us. That never leads to more freedom or more liberty.

I have been told that if we allow XYZ into office, then our country is over. Only by voting for someone I cannot support do I save the country. My opinion is this. If the only choices I have is between two people who will still bring the country to ruin (in my opinion), but just in different ways, I am not voting for either of them. This issue is not new to this November's election. But it has been an issue since I started paying any sort of attention (which unfortunately was not until after 9/11).

If our country is in the place that year after year our choice is limited to the lesser of two evils, then we have already gone down the path of ruin far enough that we cannot be saved. This is a slow incremental death of a nation. It will not be overnight and most likely not involve a foreign power. Voting based on our own selfishness and greed rather than on constitutional principles is what has brought us here over many years. Rome did not fall in a day. We refused to learn from history it seems. So now we are in the middle of repeating it.

Regarding the bolded part... I could get behind this if it were any other combination of candidates. Cruz v Sanders? Rubio v Clinton? Kasich v Clinton? Those all have actual beliefs behind them.

I don't see Trump people as having any real beliefs. It's always the proverbial "middle finger" explanation. Outside of that... they've been lied to since the beginning. Nothing that's drawn them to him is real. It's all a con based on loud words and anger, rather than actual beliefs.

I can debate a Cruz/Rubio/Kasich/Clinton/Sanders supporter. You literally can't debate ideas with a Trump supporter. There are no ideas to debate.

 

[worddoer]

Does that amended first line seem at all familiar. I'm not that familiar with you so only you can say whether you are innocent of pushing that particular line of reasoning. 'We need to vote for a Constitutionalist or a strict conservative or a real republican or [insert favorite here] instead of Trump.

Your post fairly reeks of the assumption that someone cannot be both a Trump supporter and have principles.

If we cannot support those who believe differently than us because of their convictions, then our country is doomed [Do tell]

My post is addressing those (either democrat or republican) who believe that a vote for anything outside of those 2 parties is almost evil or treacherous. And this is because I have been personally called many names, insulted, degraded, and been called a traitor for considering voting for a 3rd party or writing in another candidate. I find it quite interesting that there are those who believe I am a traitor for voting differently than the populous. But I thought that was entirely what our system of government was built to allow. If there are enough people like me, our votes will make a different and enact change. If there are not enough of a given group, at least our voices were heard at some point, but no change will take place.

So, is your contention that if I have personal disagreements on a moral and principal level with a candidate, that I MUST vote for them anyway? Either because they are the lesser of an evil (a cliché used to explain my opinion only) and we must defeat what we perceive to be the greater evil, but allow the lesser evil to rule. Or because we MUST support a particular party regardless if that breaks with our personal morals and principals?

Am I no longer allowed to vote based on my personal beliefs and convictions in our supposed representative republic? If we are to ignore our personal beliefs and values just to vote against someone, then why even have personal beliefs at all. It is my belief that the compromise of personal morals, values and principals is what has brought our nation to this place to begin with.

Compromise: an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

If each and every election I have to "make concessions", or leave behind a piece of my personal morals, principals and values. At some point we will look back in our lives and realize that we have left so many pieces behind that there is nothing left of our morals, principals and values to begin with. I have decided that there is a line in the sand and this has adjusted who I will put on my ballot.

My assumption is not that a Trump/Bernie/Clinton supporter cannot have principles. My contention is this...there are many supporters who are calling names and demeaning those who, due to personal beliefs, will not vote for their named candidate. How does doing such things win people over to your side.

My contention is this.....Whomever your candidate is, do not vote just to beat the other side. Vote based on your morals, principals and values.

Vote for whomever your morals, principals and values support. I support your right to do so. But why cannot we (as a nation) support someone else's right to vote differently as well? Why are you suddenly a traitor if you don't agree or vote like us? This makes me concerned that our nation no longer understands liberty. If we do not understand liberty, how can we protect it? If we do not understand liberty, how will it ever survive?

Oh...and as far as the last line quoted above about our country being doomed if you cannot support those who believe differently than you..... Let me rephrase that. You do not need to support them by agreeing with them. But if we cannot live civilly and peacefully together with those we disagree with, then our country is doomed. How can we increase freedom and liberty if we are not willing to allow others to do what they believe is right even if we disagree with it? If I will not allow someone else to use their 1st amendment rights (or any number of other rights) to say or do things I disagree with, then do I really support freedom and liberty?

Liberty: the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely