US General Election Megathread: Trump vs Clinton

[USS Monitor]

Not really, I expect Clinton to win, just by a larger margin. Trump's share will no doubt be much lower, though.

It's Johnson's home state, I really feel he can win it if he focuses his campaign solely there!

I don't think that would be a worthwhile thing to do, even if it worked. If the Libertarians want to be nationally relevant, then they need to build up the party nationwide, not just focus on a particular state.

[USS Monitor]

Can I just say, that I'm shocked that Republican Primary voters voted for a literal fascist? And no, I'm not comparing Trump to Hilter. What I'm saying is that is it fair to say that the Republican Party is no longer the party of a limited Government, but just a butch of racist and nationalist reactionaries? How can anyone consider Trump's political views as advocating a limited Government?

GOP has never been the party of limited government. They just want government to stick its nose in different things from the Dems.

The spout a bunch of small-government rhetoric to try to lure libertarians in, but they NEVER follow through and actually have small government.

[Gauthier]

Can I just say, that I'm shocked that Republican Primary voters voted for a literal fascist? And no, I'm not comparing Trump to Hilter. What I'm saying is that is it fair to say that the Republican Party is no longer the party of a limited Government, but just a butch of racist and nationalist reactionaries? How can anyone consider Trump's political views as advocating a limited Government?

GOP has never been the party of limited government. They just want government to stick its nose in different things from the Dems.

The spout a bunch of small-government rhetoric to try to lure libertarians in, but they NEVER follow through and actually have small government.

Small enough that it can't touch business, but large enough to wedge tight inside a woman's uterus.

[Novus America]

Can I just say, that I'm shocked that Republican Primary voters voted for a literal fascist? And no, I'm not comparing Trump to Hilter. What I'm saying is that is it fair to say that the Republican Party is no longer the party of a limited Government, but just a butch of racist and nationalist reactionaries? How can anyone consider Trump's political views as advocating a limited Government?

GOP has never been the party of limited government. They just want government to stick its nose in different things from the Dems.

The spout a bunch of small-government rhetoric to try to lure libertarians in, but they NEVER follow through and actually have small government.

Very true.

[USS Monitor]

Johnson got 1% of the vote in 2012 and I'd say the candidates are about 500% worst this year so

Yeah. That's how math works.

Libertarians want to deregulate math and give consumers more choices.

[West Verrica]

Libertarians want to deregulate math and give consumers more choices.

lmao

[West Verrica]

I don't think that would be a worthwhile thing to do, even if it worked. If the Libertarians want to be nationally relevant, then they need to build up the party nationwide, not just focus on a particular state.

Can you imagine how great for the party it would be if they actually won a state though. They would get so much recognition. It's very difficult for them to be a nation movement in my eyes right now, they just don't have the resource or the ballot access to come close to competing with their competition.

[USS Monitor]

I don't think that would be a worthwhile thing to do, even if it worked. If the Libertarians want to be nationally relevant, then they need to build up the party nationwide, not just focus on a particular state.

Can you imagine how great for the party it would be if they actually won a state though. They would get so much recognition. It's very difficult for them to be a nation movement in my eyes right now, they just don't have the resource or the ballot access to come close to competing with their competition.

It wouldn't be the first time that 3 different candidates won states, yet we still have a two-party system.

Part of what the LP has going for it is that it has a persistent presence all over the country. It's not like the whole thing revolves around Gary Johnson and this election. He could get hit by a bus and the party would still exist. New Mexico could get nuked off the map and the party would still exist. If a Libertarian moves to a new state, they don't need to find a new party to vote for because chances are there will be Libertarian candidates they can vote for in their new state.

We don't know who the party is going to nominate in 2020 or what state they will be from, so it makes sense to build the party simultaneously across as many states as possible.

In Massachusetts, where I live, libertarianism isn't particularly dominant in the local culture; but there are still unique opportunities for the LP because the GOP is too weak to hold up their end of the two-party system. Other states have their own political quirks that someone might be able to take advantage of. You never know where someone might be able to get their foot in the door and snag a seat in Congress or something like that, so it's good to cast a wide net.

Incidentally, if the Libertarian Party REALLY wanted to win a state, they could just have all their people move to Wyoming and take over. The membership of the LP is only slightly less than the population of Wyoming, and some of the population of Wyoming is children too young to vote.

[West Verrica]

It wouldn't be the first time that 3 different candidates won states, yet we still have a two-party system.

Part of what the LP has going for it is that it has a persistent presence all over the country. It's not like the whole thing revolves around Gary Johnson and this election. He could get hit by a bus and the party would still exist. New Mexico could get nuked off the map and the party would still exist. If a Libertarian moves to a new state, they don't need to find a new party to vote for because chances are there will be Libertarian candidates they can vote for in their new state.

We don't know who the party is going to nominate in 2020 or what state they will be from, so it makes sense to build the party simultaneously across as many states as possible.

In Massachusetts, where I live, libertarianism isn't particularly dominant in the local culture; but there are still unique opportunities for the LP because the GOP is too weak to hold up their end of the two-party system. Other states have their own political quirks that someone might be able to take advantage of. You never know where someone might be able to get their foot in the door and snag a seat in Congress or something like that, so it's good to cast a wide net.

Incidentally, if the Libertarian Party REALLY wanted to win a state, they could just have all their people move to Wyoming and take over. The membership of the LP is only slightly less than the population of Wyoming, and some of the population of Wyoming is children too young to vote.

I would love to see a seat in Congress go to a libertarian anywhere, the problem is that their aren't any and yes the direction the GOP is heading is a YUGE opportunity, but I fear it might be wasted if the party doesn't concentrate its efforts. The best way for the party to make gains is to make the party seem more viable to voters who don't want to waste their vote, and the best way to do that is to get people in office and to take states.Also you should look into the free state project!

Edit: Wording (still great with 'em)

[Atlanticatia]

I'd never vote for a Libertarian. I'd even take a moderate-leaning Republican over one any day. They're too crazy on economics and seem to be isolationists (and not just on war), but on international diplomatic organisations like the UN etc.

I also am not a huge fan of the social libertarian approach, I prefer the social progressive approach - where you're proudly in support of cultural progressivism and ending all forms of intolerance and prejudice as well as institutional oppression - not just taking a hands-off approach to social issues. Like, I want abortion publicly funded and private companies mandated to publicly accommodate everyone regardless of identity - not just no government intervention in social issues.

[AiliailiA]

I don't think that would be a worthwhile thing to do, even if it worked. If the Libertarians want to be nationally relevant, then they need to build up the party nationwide, not just focus on a particular state.

Can you imagine how great for the party it would be if they actually won a state though. They would get so much recognition. It's very difficult for them to be a nation movement in my eyes right now, they just don't have the resource or the ballot access to come close to competing with their competition.

Libertarians have been elected. At the local level, though I think also in New Hampshire (?) at the state level.

That's actually a better route to national power than simply getting on the ballot in every state, for the Presidency. The strength of the two big parties, their resilience against even huge losses at the Federal level, is their entrenchment at every level from Federal down to State to even local government.

Many government jobs that really should be on the basis of merit (civil service jobs) are elected positions in the US, and grossly incompetent county clerks, county sheriffs, and county assessors get into their small positions of power by running as Democrats or Republicans. There's not much power there, but there's a salary and a quite amazing immunity from being sacked.

The Libertarian party is well ahead of the Greens in contesting the inglorious positions of elected government: the local and state offices. Forget the Presidency, that's way out of reach until your third party has proven itself "down ballot".

Anyone can run for President.

I previously sourced this: in the 2012 Presidential election, Robert Dietz, Dean Morstad, James Terrance and Cecil Roth all ran for President in Maryland. They got one vote each. Meanwhile Santa Claus (also a write-in) got 426 votes.

[AiliailiA]

I'd never vote for a Libertarian. I'd even take a moderate-leaning Republican over one any day. They're too crazy on economics and seem to be isolationists (and not just on war), but on international diplomatic organisations like the UN etc.

I also am not a huge fan of the social libertarian approach, I prefer the social progressive approach - where you're proudly in support of cultural progressivism and ending all forms of intolerance and prejudice as well as institutional oppression - not just taking a hands-off approach to social issues. Like, I want abortion publicly funded and private companies mandated to publicly accommodate everyone regardless of identity - not just no government intervention in social issues.

An "affirmative action" policy against social injustices. I broadly agree.

We have to go easy on that though. We should take the opportunities when they arise, fight the battles which we might win, but avoid the losing battles. As social progressives, we cannot ignore economics (lest we be abandoned by voters who care about our agenda, but care more about their wallets). Addressing wealth inequality is the broadest base to address all other inequalities: it's to empower everyone with "money as speech" and "money as power" and if government could do that there would only be some outlying cases of egregious discrimination remaining to be lopped off with fines or prison sentences.

You and I are going to argue I think, but probably not this time.

[West Verrica]

Libertarians have been elected. At the local level, though I think also in New Hampshire (?) at the state level.

That's actually a better route to national power than simply getting on the ballot in every state, for the Presidency. The strength of the two big parties, their resilience against even huge losses at the Federal level, is their entrenchment at every level from Federal down to State to even local government.

Many government jobs that really should be on the basis of merit (civil service jobs) are elected positions in the US, and grossly incompetent county clerks, county sheriffs, and county assessors get into their small positions of power by running as Democrats or Republicans. There's not much power there, but there's a salary and a quite amazing immunity from being sacked.

The Libertarian party is well ahead of the Greens in contesting the inglorious positions of elected government: the local and state offices. Forget the Presidency, that's way out of reach until your third party has proven itself "down ballot".

Anyone can run for President.

I previously sourced this: in the 2012 Presidential election, Robert Dietz, Dean Morstad, James Terrance and Cecil Roth all ran for President in Maryland. They got one vote each. Meanwhile Santa Claus (also a write-in) got 426 votes.

The idea was not that the libertarian party stop focusing on local positions, but rather that during the general election they should focus on winning a single state rather than on many states all at once. If they won this state they would inevitably gain a lot of positive press and general awareness for the party. Even greater than that they might start to seem like a viable party to some who previously wouldn't vote with them because of not wanting to waste their vote.

[Kelinfort]

Why vote for Johnson if you're centre left to left wing?

[Theodolia]

Why vote for Johnson if you're centre left to left wing?

There is literally no reason

[Ostroeuropa]

Why vote for Johnson if you're centre left to left wing?

Corporate militarism is pretty out there compared to simple free market economics. At least he'd end corporate welfare. That IS a move to the left from Clinton. They might make the calculation that Johnson is the best third party candidate to back in terms of viability.

[West Verrica]

Why vote for Johnson if you're centre left to left wing?

I guess if you don't trust hillary or don't like her stance on foreign policy(johnson is a non-interventionist) or drugs(johnson wants people to be able to do what ever they want with their bodies) it might be reasonable.

[Kelinfort]

Why vote for Johnson if you're centre left to left wing?

I guess if you don't trust hillary or don't like her stance on foreign policy(johnson is a non-interventionist) or drugs(johnson wants people to be able to do what ever they want with their bodies) it might be reasonable.

Then vote for Jill Stein, not Gary Johnson.

[The House of Petain]

Why vote for Johnson if you're centre left to left wing?

Corporate militarism is pretty out there compared to simple free market economics. At least he'd end corporate welfare. That IS a move to the left from Clinton. They might make the calculation that Johnson is the best third party candidate to back in terms of viability.

I'm not sure how the president -any president- would do that, but ok. Sure let us ignore reality and during election time say the president will do whatever the supporters want to hear. I mean that is what Bernie and his fans have been doing.

[The House of Petain]

Honestly, thanks Sanders for giving Trump ammunition. Really appreciate it!

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... nders.html

Is Sanders supposed to kiss Clinton's ass?

You think Trump wouldn't have said those things with or without Sanders? Really?

Of course not. The effect is greater though when it's coming from Sanders instead of Trump.

At the end of the day, we all know this primary is over. It's mathematically impossible for him to win. All he is doing is dragging effort and energy away from combating Trump to combating Trump and Sanders. Sanders should get over it. More Democrats favor Hillary over Sanders, sucks to be him.

[Cymrea]

Is Sanders supposed to kiss Clinton's ass?

You think Trump wouldn't have said those things with or without Sanders? Really?

Of course not. The effect is greater though when it's coming from Sanders instead of Trump.

At the end of the day, we all know this primary is over. It's mathematically impossible for him to win. All he is doing is dragging effort and energy away from combating Trump to combating Trump and Sanders. Sanders should get over it. More Democrats favor Hillary over Sanders, sucks to be him.

More superdelegates certainly favoured Clinton over Sanders the last time they were polled. Nevada has shown that it doesn't really matter what voters want.

[Gauthier]

Is Sanders supposed to kiss Clinton's ass?

You think Trump wouldn't have said those things with or without Sanders? Really?

Of course not. The effect is greater though when it's coming from Sanders instead of Trump.

At the end of the day, we all know this primary is over. It's mathematically impossible for him to win. All he is doing is dragging effort and energy away from combating Trump to combating Trump and Sanders. Sanders should get over it. More Democrats favor Hillary over Sanders, sucks to be him.

If he's a sore enough loser he'll encourage his fanboys to go 1968 at the DNC.

[West Verrica]

I guess if you don't trust hillary or don't like her stance on foreign policy(johnson is a non-interventionist) or drugs(johnson wants people to be able to do what ever they want with their bodies) it might be reasonable.

Then vote for Jill Stein, not Gary Johnson.

USS Monitor said she didn't like Jill steins lack of experience.

Personally I don't think Jill stein is a non-interventionist (my understanding is she wants to assist marginalized populations everywhere) and while she says she isn't for the war on drugs I think she is mainly thinking in regards to marijuana and not harder drugs.

Edit: I thought I would add some to this despite not thinking anyone will read it. I refreshed my self on Jill Steins policy and I found a couple more things that I dislike. Namely that she is in favor of Gun control, I can't tell her stance on free trade (she's obviously against 'free trade deals' but as am I), She says she is for disarming North Korea, She has some weird ideas on jobs (against casinos, directly creating jobs, subsidizing green jobs), and requiring the hiring of minorities and women.

[Kelinfort]

Then vote for Jill Stein, not Gary Johnson.

USS Monitor said she didn't like Jill steins lack of experience.

Personally I don't think Jill stein is a non-interventionist (my understanding is she wants to assist marginalized populations everywhere) and while she says she isn't for the war on drugs I think she is mainly thinking in regards to marijuana and not harder drugs.

The Green Party is avowedly anti intervention in almost every single case.

I understand you may think their policies on drugs isn't as good as the Libertarians, but the Libertarians have economic positions antithetical to the left in almost every way.

[West Verrica]

More superdelegates certainly favoured Clinton over Sanders the last time they were polled. Nevada has shown that it doesn't really matter what voters want.

also 3 million more of the popular vote thus far, and 300 some normal delegates.
Edit: such good at words