That's the logic that gets Donald Trump elected President with 40% of the popular vote.

 

What does the world look like today if Nader doesn't swing the 2000 election to Bush? Does the US ever invade Iraq? Is the entire Middle East destabalized to the point that we end up with ISIS? If the Iraq War doesn't happen, and we don't have the "everyone gets $300" tax break, is the deficit as high as it is?

 

That's the issue with not voting for Clinton in a swing state (in California or Illinois, sure, go ahead and vote your conscience). If you are scared of a Trump Presidency, and you cast a vote in a swing state for Johnson or Stein or write-in somebody, you are in essence casting a vote for a Trump Presidency. Because the choice is ultimately a binary one. On November 8, 2016, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are going to be the next President of the United States.

Not if a third party candidate can steal a state or two...if you can somehow get to that, then you don't get anyone with enough delegates potentially and it could be none of them that get elected. I often wonder what would happen if a high profile person ran independent. It probably wouldn't work because if it was a high profile dem or republican, they'd canabilize their base and the other candidate would win enough, but if that candidate could steal a few dem and a few repub states, it would work out brilliantly.

 

And no, if I think both candidates are crap, I won't vote for either candidate. It helps that I'm in California so no matter what I do, my vote doesn't matter. Probably a tougher decision if I were in Ohio or Florida.

Not if a third party candidate can steal a state or two...if you can somehow get to that, then you don't get anyone with enough delegates potentially and it could be none of them that get elected. I often wonder what would happen if a high profile person ran independent. It probably wouldn't work because if it was a high profile dem or republican, they'd canabilize their base and the other candidate would win enough, but if that candidate could steal a few dem and a few repub states, it would work out brilliantly.

 

And no, if I think both candidates are crap, I won't vote for either candidate.

 

If that happened (peeling off enough states to keep anyone from hitting 270), the vote gets thrown to the House so whichever party controls the House will just choose their candidate anyway. This year would mean we get President Trump.

 

You're right that it wouldn't work because there just isn't a natural constiuency to build around a spoiler candidate that would fall between the current Democratic and Republican parties. Maine's last two governor races which resulted in a proto-Trump winning are a case study of how third party cannibalization ends up working. California's new-ish "jungle primary" system where the top two vote-getters regardless of party in the primaries make it to the general has had some similar results--you have say five Democrats running in a pretty blue district in their primary and all split the votes pretty evenly while there's only two Republicans. Because the Democrats split their vote so many ways, only Republicans would be on the ballot despite Democrats collectively making up a much larger percentage of the vote.

If that happened (peeling off enough states to keep anyone from hitting 270), the vote gets thrown to the House so whichever party controls the House will just choose their candidate anyway. This year would mean we get President Trump.

 

You're right that it wouldn't work because there just isn't a natural constiuency to build around a spoiler candidate that would fall between the current Democratic and Republican parties. Maine's last two governor races which resulted in a proto-Trump winning are a case study of how third party cannibalization ends up working. California's new-ish "jungle primary" system where the top two vote-getters regardless of party in the primaries make it to the general has had some similar results--you have say five Democrats running in a pretty blue district in their primary and all split the votes pretty evenly while there's only two Republicans. Because the Democrats split their vote so many ways, only Republicans would be on the ballot despite Democrats collectively making up a much larger percentage of the vote.

See, this is the wild card...I don't know whether the republicans would still vote Trump (if they were able to maintain control, especially given the Trump backlash). I presume the Dems would pass the torch to Hillary, though. And the reason I ask this is, if the make-up was right, you could have a republican come into the race as a big wild card to throw this to the house so that the house republicans pick someone other than Trump.

 

Again, probably a moot point. I do think if a Romney entered the field as an independent, he'd win at least a few states (and could even impact some of Hillary states) but net net, he probably mainly takes items away from Hillary and probably hands Hillary a state or two she wouldn't have won otherwise (due to the split vote). For it to really work, you'd have to have Romney and Sanders both running as independents (so they both cannibalize each other). If we had those four candidates, I truly believe we would have the house picking who the president is.

 

I can see why Romney would do it, but unless something bad (that is new) comes up on Hillary, I can't see Bernie (or some other dem leaning person) taking a similar path. Would be interesting though and hey, its already been a crazy election so why not add to that craze.

Romney would take Utah for sure.

 

Most states are past their ballot access stage at this point though.

Guys, this is all nonsense. All of it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/s...n-leader-alepp/

 

So Gary Johnson can't name a single foreign leader, including Vincente Fox.

 

Five minute candidate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/s...n-leader-alepp/

 

So Gary Johnson can't name a single foreign leader, including Vincente Fox.

 

Five minute candidate.

 

This is my surprised face:

I have discussed Johnson's pitfalls but this WaPo bit is ridiculous:

 

"The former governor of New Mexico, an admitted marijuana smoker, embarrassed himself in an interview earlier this month, asking “and what is Aleppo?” when asked what he would do about the bloody Syrian-Russian offensive against that city."

 

They sure as s*** wouldn't call HRC "an admitted alcohol drinker."

 

To be fair, alcohol isn't illegal in the vast majority of the country.

 

Buuuuuut that's out of place. It would have been like writing "George Bush, a former alcoholic"

To be fair, alcohol isn't illegal in the vast majority of the country.

 

Buuuuuut that's out of place. It would have been like writing "George Bush, a former alcoholic"

 

I sure haven't seen a lead referring to Obama as an admitted cocaine user.

I sure haven't seen a lead referring to Obama as an admitted cocaine user.

Were you asleep during all of 07-08?

I sure haven't seen a lead referring to Obama as an admitted cocaine user.

 

The crux of the matter is the fact that Johnson has been smoking pot frequently and it's a large draw for the Libertarian Platform amongst college voters.

 

Is it stupid? Yeah.

 

It also doesn't detract from the fact that Gary Johnson can't name a single foreign leader.

and why are we ignoring that Gary Johnson couldn't name ONE SINGLE FOREIGN LEADER? Hahahaha

and why are we ignoring that Gary Johnson couldn't name ONE SINGLE FOREIGN LEADER? Hahahaha

 

Clearly it is being ignored in a thread where it is being discussed.

Clearly it is being ignored in a thread where it is being discussed.

 

come on. you made it about the pot-smoking instead of the actual massive issue with his competency.

 

His lack of understanding with foreign affairs is well known. After missing the debates, his relevance is negligible.

Yet a number of you plan on voting for him...

What is this group you're placing me into?

 

Also it's hilarious that you went to "nobody cares about him not being able to name a foreign leader" when I acknowledged his lack of understanding internationally yesterday, before this story even came out. Read up the page before you make your comments that are detached from reality.

 

why so defensive and angry bro?? haha

Next time you're left without recourse just move onto the next thread.

 

 

so angry.

come on. you made it about the pot-smoking instead of the actual massive issue with his competency.

 

I didn't mention his pot smoking at all.

why so defensive and angry bro?? haha

 

You are the only going after people for not posting what you said they should be posting. You tell us.

I didn't mention his pot smoking at all.

My bad. Mixed it up with rabbit's post.

You are the only going after people for not posting what you said they should be posting. You tell us.

 

The deflection is strong.

 

 

The deflection is strong.

 

You walked into a thread talking about Johnson and world leaders, and asked why people aren't talking about Johnson and world leaders. That sums it up nicely.

You walked into a thread talking about Johnson and world leaders, and asked why people aren't talking about Johnson and world leaders. That sums it up nicely.

 

I'm pretty sure the thread is about Gary Johnson, and the current topic became world leaders when he couldn't name one.

 

Oh! He also couldn't name a supreme court justice in the same town hall event. Weld says "Kennedy" after GJ flounders again. Then slowly, Johnson follows with..... You guessed it, Kennedy.

 

My question is this. In light of the revelation that Gary Johnson has absolutely no graphics on high school level foreign policy, and may just have no grasp on policy period, how do his supporters justify their votes?

So Weld comes out and says Merkel, which I highly doubt, and the 16 campaign where VPs answer for their top of ticket continues.

Johnson seems like a cool dude, but he's way out of his depth here. Not as out of depth as Trump, but still. His knowledge is superficial at best.