Is it time to get behind a third candidate, and if so, who would that be?
I don’t know the answer to the question I posed above. I just know that I’ve been pondering it more and more lately.
So I thought it would be a good topic for discussion [ducks; gets out of way of flying fecal matter].
One more thing: I don’t sense that the GOP bigwigs can be relied on to propose a good alternative, nor do I think anyone will convince Trump to drop out.
[NOTE: We all probably should listen to the recent CNN town hall meeting with the Libertarian candidates (there were earlier ones, as well):
See also this.]
Even in this bizarre election, I’m still hugely skeptical of the possibility that any third party candidate would have the remotest chance. Or that there could possibly be a single candidate that would be broadly appealing enough for a coalescence of the dissatisfied. I’m not convinced that someone like Gary Johnson would be able to achieve a broad appeal.
But I’d be thrilled to be proven wrong.
It would be extremely hard to do. I mean, you could certainly try to rally the disenfranchised behind Gary Johnson (Libertarian) or Jill Stein (Green), but I don’t really love either platform. I’m close to being a libertarian myself, and could vote for Johnson, but I would be quite worried about the Libertarian Party’s worldview when it comes to foreign policy (many of them are open borders, live and let live types, which on the world stage, I believe is close to suicidal… We can’t just turtle here in NorthAm and pretend the outside problems don’t exist or can’t come here, and it would also be equal folly to think we should wait on an invading force before being willing to fight back… Strategically, you want to fight enemies on soil that is not your own).
And while I voted Green as a joke in the last gubernatorial election in OH (Will never, ever vote for Kasich again), I do not actually believe in their platform. It was effectively a protest vote for my part, since the race wasn’t close, and wasn’t going to be.
So I could maybe, MAYBE cast a confidence vote in Johnson, but I really don’t think that is going anywhere…
That leaves some kind of write-in campaign, which unless you’re name is Murkowski in an AK Senate race, isn’t going to work… It would be hell to organize something like that.
I’d be open to the option, myself, but I don’t see an actual point at which voting 3rd, or write-in, is anything other than an enabling vote for Hill-o-beans.
Yep, that’s me over there on the wall looking discouraged…
No third party can win. It is still a binary choice. The Dems are so loyal that I wonder if Stein and Johnson can really hurt Hillary. Johnson really will draw potential Trump voters.
Look to the Center.
Romney is the obvious choice. Jim Webb. Both cutting ties to the GOP and Dems to form a recognizable Center agenda that’s also distinct from either party pole.
But a feasible viable 3rd option, and increasingly so with the late entry, doesn’t begin with the candidate. It depends foremost on a sufficient social activist movement to carry and drive the campaign proper while competing head on throughout the arena versus the Democrat-front Left, Trump-front alt-Right, and likely the GOP itself.
That’s where a Center-Left Jim Webb or Jim Webb type is practical. It’s obvious from current observation (and my personal activist experience) that conservatives can’t be counted on to supply the activism necessary to realize a viable 3rd option. Anti-Left liberals will be needed.
Cornhead:
Funny, but it’s my impression that Johnson could draw a lot of Democrats, potentially more of them than Republicans.
I know a lot of Hillary-disliking Democrats. They would have voted for Rubio in a heartbeat, but they will never, never ever, vote for Trump.
I haven’t seen any polls that say from where Johnson’s support comes, more Democrats or more Republicans. I’d be very curious.
As a Broncos fan, it reminds me of the Superbowl with the Seahawks when Denver self-destructed in the first 10 minutes. I’ve never seen a football game end in the opening minutes of the first quarter, but I just turned the TV off as I knew Denver was toast. They never recovered. I get the same feeling about the election. It seems to be over in the first week of August. As of now, HRC sweeps just about every state.
I’m stockpiling ammo and thinking about buying gold. I know what HRC and the Dems are bringing to the table and it’s not good.
Why vote GOP on the downticket as, has been amply shown, those people will just sell out to the Dems agenda? The end of the US is here.
@Neo:
I would actually be surprised if support for Johnson wasn’t close to an even mix of the disenfranchised on the left and right. The Libertarian platform is appealing to many on both sides of the aisle.
That said, I just don’t honestly think he can garner enough overall support to play anything more than spoiler, and I do believe that there are more #NeverTrumpers out there than #NeverHillary types.
I would love to be proven wrong. If Johnson looks like he could get enough support to toss the election to the House, or to even get elected, I would probably vote for him in a heartbeat.
when i looked at the figure of 14756 dollars .Than I have no other choice but to accept , what i saw .They have been doing this for a year and get rid of their debts.. Yesterday they purchased new Aston Martin …
See More this Site………>>> Fox05.Tk
Neo:
If Trump dropped out, or was forced out, an awful lot of Trump supporters would be bitterly disappointed. Doing so would effectively hand the election to Hillary, no matter who the new GOP nominee was.
If they were going to force him out, the time to do so was at the convention (or before!). It didn’t happen; chances are slim to none that it will happen now. If they didn’t have the guts to do it when it would have been easier, they’re not going to do it now.
In re third parties: as far as I recall, we haven’t had a third party win the Presidency since 1864. (It’s not often recalled that Lincoln didn’t really run as a Republican in 1864; it was an ad-hoc party, similar to Teddy’s Bull Moose party in 1912.) Since then, we’ve had Teddy Roosevelt, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, and other luminaries (e.g. Norman Thomas) run as third-party candidates; none came anywhere close to winning.
I don’t think a third-party can win… and, although this election year might be more fertile ground for such than we’ve seen in a while, I don’t see Johnson and Weld winning the ground game here. (I could be wrong; I hope I am.)
I’m expecting Massachusetts to go strongly for Hillary, meaning my vote won’t count for much. But we’ll see.
nyght:
“That said, I just don’t honestly think he can garner enough overall support to play anything more than spoiler”
Unexpected results is what activism is for.
That being said, this is the reasonable target for a 3rd option:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#no270
physicsguy:
“Why vote GOP on the downticket as, has been amply shown, those people will just sell out to the Dems agenda?”
How can the GOP be expected to effectively fight for an agenda when the constituents they need to compete as activists to seize control of critical social nodes that are necessary to fight for that agenda instead habitually concede those social nodes with hardly a whimper of protest, let alone real activist resistance?
Especially the campus, where concession causes ripple effect that either empowers or handicaps elected officials.
It’s not likely that a third party candidate would win this election, but there is so much discontent with the two major parties that now is the time to build up a third party. It may lose this time but do well enough to be set up for a win next time. At the moment, the Libertarian Party is the only reasonable alternative for those who are not far left. I would love to see a Conservative Party alternative, but where is it? Trying to build up a third party from scratch at this late date probably would fail miserably. The LP has a good chance of doing well. If you don’t like the LP’s platform, join the party and start working to change it.
This is all so very pathetic. The self-righteous have killed any chance of stopping Hillary. It is suicidal. You’re going to tell me we cannot trust Trump, but we can trust Hillary. Makes me feel better,yeah.
The country is dead. It just has not stopped breathing yet. But Hillary will disconnect the life-support devices come January.
“Start working to change it”? So very absurd, so very last-minute, so futile.
Frog: Sad!
Daniel in Brookline:
I am in complete agreement that the time for the GOP to have “forced” Trump out or gotten strongly united behind a good alternative to him was long, long ago. I ‘ve said that right along.
However, I do not think it inevitable that a third-party candidate would be futile now. I’ve always known a lot of the most fervent Trumper’s would NEVER vote for anyone but Trump, but what percentage meet that description? I believe that (a) a lot of them are usual non-voters, and therefore may not be necessary for a victory; (b) some are Democrats and leftists (c) some will go for a decent alternative in desperation; and (d) the alternative can pull a lot of Democrats who are very unhappy with Hillary, and that could balance the loss of the Trumpers.
In addition, the third party person doesn’t have to win, just has to throw the election to the House.
It’s a longshot, though, I admit. But that could change.
Eric:
In my lifetime, this is the best performing 3rd party candidate I’ve ever seen on the national stage.
On the plus side, he and his 18.1% of the vote were enough to be the first 3rd party candidate to win a county since ’68.
Perot got 19 million votes, and not a single electoral college vote. He got plenty of press, was on the big stage for the debates, etc. Even performed well in the debates, as I recall.
Look, if Johnson starts getting into the 20% range in the polls, and earns a spot on the stage, I’d very much start to look at voting for him.
Sans that, my vote is locked in as a vote against Hillary, because I view that whole-heartedly as the lesser of two evils.
And I am not an activist. It’s not a role I’m comfortable in/with. I am a student of history, love military strategy, love flying and everything to do with airplanes, and happen to be both good at, and enjoy math. I’m a nerd, and have no desire to be either a leader, or an activist.
I’m also a cynic. I look at the math involved here, and am constantly slapped by the reality that none of this matters, because on some level, the numbers and figures have to be grounded in reality.
And I look at history, and see time and again the fall of empires, how they happen, what the typical mindset is, etc… The fall of the HRE has so many unbelievable parallels to what is happening to us right now, both from a fiscal, but also a moral standpoint.
We are sunk because the math tells us that we are broke and the answer of both parties is to spend more.
The general populace both doesn’t understand, and can’t be bothered to care about the where this is going. The solutions would require sacrifices no one is willing to make. The reasons can’t be rationally tweeted in 180 characters (Unless you perhaps count “Winter is Coming” memes…).
I hear so many people talk about electing the right people, or pushing the right buttons, and the cynic in me cannot help but throw my hands up and ask, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
A story for you that my father told me about my grandfather…
My grandfather was German, and was born in the early 1900s. He was a musician, not an activist, not political, etc. Had a good job, was respected, etc. But he left Germany in the early 30s, and came here, to America, where he became a citizen, played in the symphonies orchestra of several major US cities, married, had a child, lost a wife, remarried…
My dad, in his youth, when he was very much a hippie and a musician in the summer of love, asked my grandfather once why he left Germany when he did, what with all the promise of the early 30s and the Bauhaus movements, etc.
My grandfather just looked at his son soberly, and said, “I saw what was coming.” He picked up everything he had, left his family behind, and fled the very beginnings of fascism.
Our situation is not 1930s Germany’s position. But I’ll be damned if I don’t sometimes look around at the apathy of my generation and the one after, and I don’t feel the same way…
No matter who becomes president, no matter what the congress is or does, no matter which judges are appointed, and no matter what “rights” are invented and brought under the blanket of equal protection, nor for which special interest group…
Our debt will bury us.
Frog:
NO one here has told you “we cannot trust Trump, but we can trust Hillary.” Why would you even imagine it?
What about third-party alternative do you not understand? This thread is to discuss whether such an alternative could win.
Wondering if you saw Peggy Noonan’s latest column and what you thought about it. It was not behind the paywall if you link to it from morning edition of RCP.
What was it they said about FDR? A second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament–something like that. The character of the president matters more than whether they can mark off the policy boxes on an ideological checklist, because the pressures of the office will test the character even more than the intellect. Trump is a dangerously stupid egomaniac and not to be trusted. Hilary can be trusted to do the leftist thing, but she will, as Ace said, be bad within normal parameters. I expect to vote for Gary Johnson, a successful businessman and two-term governor, reasonable and articulate. At worst, he would govern as a liberal Republican. At this point, I’ll take that.
And I’m not handing the election to Hilary Clinton. Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states (kudos to Libertarians for their hard work there.) If Hilary wins, that will be the responsibility of– the people who voted for her!
Neo: Just my way of saying a 3rd party run is futile. Futile in the extreme. A way to stop the stronger enemy is by dividing one’s forces?
We seem to have been reduced to hope and prayer that electoral Salvation may come at the last minute. Four years after Obama was re-elected. The country has had its chances. It is like a cancer patient who has refused chemotherapy, but now with advanced metastatic disease changes her mind. Too late.
I guess everyone has to do something to occupy their dreams between now and October when things get serious.
” This thread is to discuss whether such an alternative could win.”
Let me help everyone out.
No.
No.
Never.
Not a bit.
Not a chance.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
Okay?
What’s next?
Or, as President Bartlett reminds us….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXerGxRfRc
Ive been saying the same thing for months Frog, to people voting for Gary Johnson, but being Trump seems to be torpedoing his own candidacy fairl well on his own. Im wondering why I should have to hold my nose to vote for someone so repugnant
Frog:
Trump is the Mexican cancer “cure.” Read the testimonials. Your results may vary, not approved by the FDA….
As long as were talkin’ analogies.
Both candidates have practically unheard of negatives for any presidential race in our lifetimes.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html
So, there is space, a market, if you will, for an alternative that could appeal to both traditionally Dem and Republican voters.
Libertarian has a lot that we can disagree with, but the same is true for Dems. But, given the awful choices today, the LP might must be close enough to swing those disaffected voters from both parties.
Johnson and Weld are not perfect, but they were both two term GOP governors, and they largely governed as moderates (with an eye to less government not more) rather than libertarian ideologues (e.g. they’d probably choose responsible, experienced members for their cabinet). They may have quirks we are uncomfortable with (e.g. Johnson has used marijuana in the recent past), but they seem to have more integrity, aptitude, temperament, etc. that is woefully missing from the other two candidates.
Even if the Senate would turn Dem, if we had a GOP House, it is a good probability we’d have a working check and balance, that would allow movement on some critical issues, particularly on the financial side.
They need 15% popular support across a few polls around debate time, in order to get a place on stage, which is probably the biggest hurdle to them for getting their message out, as being at the debates means media attention, and provides “legitimacy” in many peoples’ minds.
One scenario, as Eric provided a link for, is that no candidate gets 270 ec votes, and it goes to the House for President and the Senate for VP.
Another is, of course, that they win outright – which might be possible with how new discoveries seem to come out about clinton / obama / the Dems, and trump continues down the path he follows.
Also forgot to mention the LP has infrastructure in all 50 states and D.C., iirc.
“Look, if Johnson starts getting into the 20% range in the polls, and earns a spot on the stage, I’d very much start to look at voting for him.” – lonely nyght
That is precisely the quagmire response.
“IF a third party reaches this point (fill in the blank), I will consider it”
Problem is, if we ALL wait, we NEVER get to that point.
Our wished for leaders will not offer us a “viable” solution on a platter – those days are past us.
We have to move on our own.
Speaking for 6 sound conservatives, we will be voting for Trump. In my personal sphere, the only people I know planning to vote for Johnson are in the Social Justice Warrior class of conservatives. Their biggest criticisms are ALWAYS aimed at fellow conservatives and in the public realm (especially Facebook, though I’m not on it much), not a peep about the Democrats. Someone alluded to Ace and for me, his “poisoned chalice” description is the most apt. Some believe the Republic CAN survive the poison in a Hillary presidency, some others (me and mine) believe we MAY survive a Trump presidency. Gamble, either way.
Trump wins = disaster.
Hillary wins = catastrophe.
Third party alternative wins = calamity.
The problem isn’t a lack of leadership, which is simply a reflection of the state of the electorate. The problem is a divided, balkinized electorate typified by ignorance, magical thinking and a profound lack of common sense. Ted Cruz, Scott Walker and Carly Fiorina’s lack of support demonstrate this to be true.
A house divided cannot remain standing.
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” A. Lincoln
“Our debt will bury us.” – lonely nyght
If this is your core issue, why wait to consider the Libertarians.
Seriously…
“As governor, Johnson followed a strict small government approach. According to former New Mexico Republican National Committee member Mickey D. Barnett, “Any time someone approached him about legislation for some purpose, his first response always was to ask if government should be involved in that to begin with. He vetoed 200 of 424 bills in his first six months in office” – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
Eric: From your lips to God’s ear. I would be so happy to see Romney and Webb step in to take the reigns away from the Cheeto and the Witch. Johnson, in my opinion, is goofy and unimpressive, and has not a chance.
Thank you for that phrase, “anti-left liberal” which is the most economical way I’ve ever come across to describe me and so many frustrated and despairing American voters.
“A disaster of biblical proportions,…. dogs and cats living together….” Different thread, same song.
Harry the Extremist–because of the 2 other branches of government and the Press. Conservatives haven’t had a prayer for the last 7-1/2 years. Perhaps a ridiculous Trump would be cause for those 3 entities to work in favor of the Republic. The last years have proved that a Democrat president will ensure that the Constitution is just some old relic, to be ignored. Perhaps something as absurd as this man (Trump) becoming President could result in a return to the wisdom of our Founders. A stretch? For sure. But I personally believe the federal government has gotten so out-of-hand, it is but a shadow of what was intended or is sustainable where the principle of liberty is concerned.
There is zero chance that anyone can achieve a congressional consensus of support for a “strict small government approach”…
Barring extreme events, I consider Hillary’s election a done deal.
However again I ask, if stopping Hillary and saving the Supreme Court is the big deal Trump and everyone keep claiming, how about Trump step down for the good of the country and the party?
How about let Mike Pence run for prez instead? He’s Trump’s pick, a reasonable governor lacking all the crazy baggage Trump has accumulated.
There would be a lot of Republicans and Democrats grateful for an alternative to Trump and Hillary.
Probably it would too weird and not enough to win, but it would leave the Republicans in better shape to come back in later elections, rather than as the party which ditched their principles, commonsense and the Constitution, and hitched a ride with Trump.
Nonetheless you can bet most of the Trump supporters railing against the NeverTrump would sit out that election.
For those who want to try and fix this mess
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
For those who want to wring their hands and say all is lost, carry on.
Mark Levin has been talking about convention of states since January 2015. I haven’t heard a single other conservative ever mention it.
Gary Johnson’s not sure we should have fought in World War II. And he thinks the threat from radical Islam is “overblown”. Don’t think many Republican voters would line up with those positions.
Forget it…the pipe dream of “the perfect” candidate has met the harsh reality of what we have before us.
So…you’ll get either Trump or Hillary.
Pick your poison and stop wasting everyone’s time with 3rd party “perfect candidate” BS.
Sharon W:
Yes he and has other then Beck the rest have ignored the process, not good for ratings? I don’t know their reasons.
The process is part of the Constitution but that matters not for some here.
John: No one is talking about a perfect candidate.
We are discussing an alternative to the worst Republican candidate in living memory, arguably the worst since the Party began.
The stakes, as most here agree, are extraordinarily high. Yet according to Nate Silver who has an excellent record of calling presidential elections, Hillary would have a 93% chance of winning if the election were held today.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-projection-2016-8
Of course we can just barrel merrily down that road and off the cliff. In fact we probably will.
But if we want alternatives to that sad fate, it’s time to discuss them now.
Huxley–the only alternative I’m looking for at this time, is for the Congress, Supreme Court and Press to fulfill their sanctioned roles. Perhaps with a Trump presidency, people (the general populace–yes, even the so-called “educated”) will discover the truth about the Republic, how and why it was framed as it was, and perhaps that wisdom will be applied in some measure. Likely? No. But what is likely under a Democrat president is a furtherance of destruction of the Republic. That is the sad truth.
John Schindler on Trump as the Kremlin’s man:
http://observer.com/2016/08/yes-american-spies-really-think-trump-is-putins-guy/
Ann says:
Gary Johnson’s not sure we should have fought in World War II. And he thinks the threat from radical Islam is “overblown”.
On the surface Johnson is a laid back, pot smoking, dreamer. And I certainly have trouble with the open borders, quasi pacifist Libertarian platform. However, Gary Johnson the man is something else. He’s been a VERY high achiever in business – a millionaire in his 20’s – has pushed himself physically to the extreme, having climbed every mountain of importance in the world including Everest, is a first rate skier, a sky diver, and has been an all around excellent athlete. There is something to be said for a man who lives life to the fullest – AT NO ONE ELSE’S EXPENSE.
In May, after Trump became the obvious winner, I left the Republican Party and registered Libertarian, along with Mary Matlin and who knows how many others. I have no illusions about a 3rd Party and especially the Libertarians. My vote will be part protest and part hope. Johnson is nothing if not a fiscal conservative, so there’s that. The gamble is that should world conditions worsen after a very long shot Johnson victory (I know – talk about dreaming) that he is smart enough, and man enough, to not let reality mug him, and the country.
This is solely a case of voting for the person, ideology be damned.
John Guilfoyle:
Strawman alert!
No one—no one—is talking about, or expecting, a “perfect” candidate or anything near it.
Did you recycle that argument from 2012 about Romney? Because that’s the last time it might have been relevant, because those who objected to him were nitpicking and looking either for perfection or something way too close to it to be a realistic expectation.
Of one thing I’m certain: both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are so far from perfection that almost any other candidate would be head and shoulders above them without needing to come anywhere near perfection. There’s a lot of room at the top.
Sharon: I don’t know how a Trump presidency would work — I doubt well — but my point is that we are not going to find out. If we stick with Trump we are heading straight to Hillary’s America.
If that bothers you or anyone else here, it might be nice to consider alternatives, however unllikely.
Or we can shut our eyes and hope Trump somehow wins, then hope Trump somehow doesn’t turn out to be the vicious, incompetent fellow who is running under Trump’s name today.
But if Trump supporters are going to lecture, hector and harangue the rest of us that we must vote for Trump or lose Court and the Republic, then IMO they owe us an explanation for why we shouldn’t consider alternatives to Trump now that Trump’s campaign looks close to doomed and Trump is still making stupid, mean-spirited mistakes alienating everyone but his koolaid drinkers.
Huxley:
“Nonetheless you can bet most of the Trump supporters railing against the NeverTrump would sit out that election.”
Some, but I disagree with “most”.
It appears to me that most Trump supporters at this point are only reluctantly for Trump. Where they’re firm is #NeverHillary.
Give them a more attractive Center alternative to Trump, and their #NeverHillary will carry over.
However, that’s not to say Trump supporters can be taken for granted. The Center alternative must offer better account of populist concerns and a sufficient competitive caliber, which is to say activist caliber.
Interesting piece at Politico — Clinton’s third-party headache:
Huxley-I expect Hillary to win. I despise her and I’ve always thought Trump is a bozo (as President material–I hold no opinion of him personally). However, in the very beginning I do think he served to change the dynamic of what was discussed and how, with regard to immigration–a big issue for me, living in the created by government 3rd world country of Los Angeles. For myriad reasons, that Neo has formidably expressed, we ended up with Trump. Either he or Hillary will be president. You and I can disagree about how successful pitching a 3rd party candidate, etc, would be. For me, past elections (the Republican candidates who have lost to date, especially Romney in 2012) prove it would be a losing venture. As I stated, only hope from where I sit is a Trump presidency that brings about the changes necessary in the infrastructure. Like chemotherapy that almost kills you, but you end up surviving the cancer.
We don’t know, don’t have a clue, what is going on at GOP HQ.
Something is up at HQ, or else the NeverTrumpsters are looney and desparate in their agitation.
It appears to me that most Trump supporters at this point are only reluctantly for Trump. Where they’re firm is #NeverHillary.
Eric: I specifically limited my claim to “those Trump supporters railing against NeverTrump,” not the more moderate reluctant supporters.
Ann: Romney lost to Obama in 2012 but I doubt he would lose to Hillary in 2016. Nor would most reasonable Republican candidates.
This is a very different election. Democrats are running against the third-term curse, four more years of Obamacare and a sluggish economy plus more ongoing lies and scandals. Obama, a skillful candidate with a genius for manipluating liberals, is not the candidate; the deeply unlikeable, scandal-ridden Hillary is.
Luckily for the Democrats, Republicans chose Trump to be their candidate.
“Mark Levin has been talking about convention of states since January 2015. I haven’t heard a single other conservative ever mention it.” – Sharon
Levin has been proposing that and similar (constitutional convention) for some time, at least as far back as 2012, iirc..
Not sure if they work the same way – 2/3rds of states’ reps to the convention are needed to pass any resolution.
Not sure how states select their reps – an issue, because not all states with GOP Governors have GOP dominated legislatures, nor GOP state attorney general.
Governors would have to stick their necks out, and we’ve seen some who jumped onto the trump train, and others who hardly provided resounding endorsements, if at all, to Cruz when needed.
Huxley:
“Eric: I specifically limited my claim to “those Trump supporters railing against NeverTrump,” not the more moderate reluctant supporters.”
I include them, too.
Many Trump supporters railing against #NeverTrump are doing so not foremost with faith in Trump. Rather, they’re channeling their passion for #NeverHillary with the pragmatic view that there’s no viable 3rd option.
Like I said, give them a viable 3rd option and their #NeverHillary should carry over.
Some of my conservative friends are bewildered that Obama’s favorability has risen in the past year from the low 40s to the low 50s. How can this be?
I give Trump most of the credit. I remember last year that as every critical story against the Obama administration broke, Trump crushed the news cycle by saying something stupid or outrageous or both. So everyone talked about Trump instead of Obamacare, Benghazi, Hillary’s server or whatever.
Furthermore, while I grant Obama is a dishonest demagogue, he sounds smooth and calm — presidential in a word. Contrast that with Trump who sounds flat-out nasty and deranged to those outside his core constituency — unpresidential, to use another word.
“People love to complain about the duopoly, but it doesn’t exist solely because plutocrats prefer it. There’s a real-life, organic right-left cultural and economic divide in this country that has evolved over decades. While the plight of the white working class is important, there’s a lot more to this argument. One side still clings to partisanship, but has abandoned the philosophical debate.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438702/donald-trump-two-party-system-being-destroyed
If Johnson makes it to the debate stage, here’s how it should go:
“Thank you. My name is Gary Johnson, and I’m here to tell you two things that most of your already know. First of all, these other two candidates are awful people with no ideas and no principles, people who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the White House. Secondly, and this is important, as long as the federal government is oversized and too powerful, both parties are always going to run candidates like this, because the wrong kind of people are attracted to power. As the Libertarian candidate for president, if elected, I will do everything I can to reduce the power of the federal government over your lives. Now, that may mean some hard choices. Some things will have to return to the state level, and some things will be out of the hands of government completely. I understand that worries some people. But the alternative is government in the hands of dangerous people.”
Maybe it’s not all over quite yet. Hillary had a sort of press conference today (first time in 260 days) and even Slate thought it was problematic:
Huxley, Sharon W, Ann — I wouldn’t count the Donald out yet. He has a great force acting in his favor — contempt. The utter contempt of Obama and the rest of the Eloi have for the American people (“No ransom was paid. People think it’s ransom, but it’s not ransom. Nothing to see here. Move along.”) and the utter contempt the Jihadists have for the West and its security services.
@Ann – We cannot count on it being over until the day after the election. It is way too volatile to predict.
When we think trump has nailed his own coffin, something pops on clinton. A wild card are those clinton emails and any other ISIS inspired attacks here on the continent.
Also, expect the MSM to turn up the heat a bit on clinton if she looks to be getting too far ahead too quickly – they want a horse race, not a forgone conclusion at this point, imho.
Add in third party rising as another wild card (according to conventional “wisdom”).
This has been an unpredictable / unconventional year, and as mentioned above, there is a marketplace for a third party.
I believe it is questionable whether either Johnson or Welch are truly Libertarians. They seem to be quite willing to use government where it fits their agenda; and some of their agenda appears questionable.
In my opinion Jim Webb has many of the characteristics of Donald Trump. Only his temper is truly nasty. Never.
I have no idea whether a well-organized third party effort could succeed. Nor do I have a personality in mind–there are those that I like, but they are “damaged goods” as the saying goes. Still, given where we are now, there are clearly a lot of available votes clustered around the center of the the spectrum, if the right person and organization could reach and persuade them. I give many of the early Trump supporters credit for now realizing that simply voting your frustrations is a dubious strategy that can lead to unforeseen results. I have spoken to people who voted for him in the primaries out of pique, with no notion that he would actually win. And others who truly believed that he would be able to clean up his act if he did win. On the other side, it is reasonable to think that there are those who would walk away from HRC given a reasonable alternative. Although the chances of another option grow bleaker by the day, there are examples of complex situations that were turned around in short order, given the right leadership and commitment.
If HRC wins, I believe it would be a propitious time to organize an alternative party for the next cycle.
” Some things will have to return to the state level, and some things will be out of the hands of government completely. I understand that worries some people. But the alternative is government in the hands of dangerous people.” – Nick
Would be a very nice conclusion. Might add a few more adjectives along side “dangerous”.
One other thought about LP, and thanks for Oldflyer in reminding me of it…”votes clustered the center” (must admit that Eric has been saying something similar).
Part of why there is a “marketplace” for the LP to fill, is that not only is there dissatisfaction with the candidates, but there is a perception that the major parties have been “captured” by more radical elements within each. It has to do with how we are dividing ourselves up across several dimensions into enclaves of likemindedness.
Came across this idea a while back, but don’t have links to the articles that talk to this. They surmised that it is a sizable population, based on the growing number of people who identify as “independent”, as opposed to Dem or GOP, vs 10 and 20 years ago.
If Hillary wins, an Article V convention will be the only legal means left to avoid an eventual civil war.
“If we stick with Trump we are heading straight to Hillary’s America.” huxley
That may well be true, especially given the balkinization on the right. But if so, the same logic applies to voting for an alternative; can’t win with Trump and can’t win without his supporters. As, who can appeal to establishment republicans, conservatives and Trump’s supporters? Who can bring consensus to a fractured right?
“If HRC wins, I believe it would be a propitious time to organize an alternative party for the next cycle.” – Oldflyer
Agree. Removing the remnants of trump would be like removing a tatoo. It would be painful and even when it is “gone” there remains a faint outline. But, as a new party, needs to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are legitimate problems / concerns underlying what brought trump, and the new party would need an answer for those.
Probably true even if trump wins, as there wouldn’t seem to be a home in the GOP for those of us who are philosophically abandoned. Just promises to be too far apart, and it remains to be seen what little ground there would be in common. Reality is trump’s team would eventually push out even reluctant followers, if the present examples are anything to go by.
No matter who wins, Article V Convention of States is necessary to restore the balance between the States, the Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary. Currently the Constitution is whatever the most powerful branch says it is at that moment.
So I guess normalization of Soviet style population control works more than I thought it ever could….I must of had thought too highly of my fellow citizens… No wonder the left always wins even when it loses…
Amazing
Let first listen carfully to Melania Trump
Gaps in Melania Trump’s immigration story raise questions
You have a choice in U.S. Presidential election.
Just in case somebody hasn’t heard it yet, Libertarian campaign slogan: Don’t go for the Left nut, don’t go for the Right nut, go for the Johnson!
What about the Constitution Party:
http://www.constitutionparty.com
NeverTrumpers have a choice- they can bail on the election by backing Clinton or one of the lesser candidates and lose both the House and the Senate too, or they can swallow their bile and vote for Trump.
I simply don’t understand giving up, but to each his own.
And let me say this- if the NeverTrumpers didn’t want Trump, they needed a leader to step forward to take the nomination at the convention by walking the walk. In my opinion, there was a candidate that might have been able to pull it off by drawing enough party support for the rules change, but that candidate basically carped from the sidelines the entire Spring- Mitt Romney. It is too late now- you are stuck with Trump, and attempts to undermine him will only backfire on the rest of the slate.
And this idea, outlined in some of the comments above, that Trump’s support is somehow outside the Republican base is horsesh*t. A majority of Trump’s voters are paleo-conservatives like Buchanan- a good number of them are the Tea Party folk. However, if Trump loses badly, Republicans can simply accept that they won’t win the White House again for a generation at least- by the time Clinton runs for reelection, she will have at least 5 million newly minted naturalized citizens to vote for her at a rate of 95%.
Yancey Ward:
One could just as easily write this instead, if Trump’s standing doesn’t rebound:
If Trump continues to look as though he will lose in a landslide, the argument for holding one’s nose and backing him disintegrates, and backing someone else comes to seem the more realistic chance of defeating Hillary.
We are not there yet, of course, but we could get there. At the moment, Trump looks like a loser, and once he looks like a sure loser an alternative becomes the only hope.
As for Johnson, his support is mostly going to come from the right of center area, and I would guess looking at some of the poll breakdowns, that it is 75/25 potential Republican support vs potential Democratic support. However, the thing to remember- unless Johnson could actually win states Obama carried in 2012, he has no chance of throwing the election into the House. Looking at the polls, the best he could do is win some smaller states Romney won in 2012, or even give those states to Clinton, too.
Some disaffected independents might vote for Johnson rather than for Clinton, but most disaffected Democrats who are NeverHillary will vote Stein, but it is pretty clear to me that there are more NeverTrumps than NeverHillarys, by at least a factor of 3.
If you don’t want Trump, but want to be able to vote for another Republican, you need Trump to drop out. I don’t see any other plausible way to win without Trump.
Neo,
The difference is that Trump is the nominee, not anyone else, and he has more support than there are NeverTrumpers by at least a factor of 4. The positions are not symmetrical.
Yancey Ward:
I don’t think anyone knows the composition of the majority of Trump’s support. I’ve never seen a breakdown about how many are paleoconservatives—never even seen a single poll that attempts to measure that demographic. So I’d really be interested where you get the stats that allow you to say that. The most I’ve ever seen about that are older polls, not recent ones but polls from when the primaries were happening, that measure the percentage of people who voted for Trump who call themselves “conservative.” That doesn’t even begin to measure paleoconservatives vs. other conservatives.
Here’s a poll that attempts to measure the degree of conservatism (but not “paleo”):
More interesting info here:
Doesn’t sound like a bunch of paleoconservatives or Tea party folk to me.
And this business of “if Trump loses badly, Republicans can simply accept that they won’t win the White House again for a generation at least”—have you not been paying attention? Most people who don’t like Trump say that if Hillary wins, it’s curtains for Republicans—and also the same is true if Trump wins, but that’s moot because Trump will not win and never had a chance of winning. But the point is that almost everyone is on the same page about the danger of a Hillary win—the disagreement is about how best to stop her.
I am a late Trump supporter and think that the NeverTrumpers are afraid their government rice bowl might get broken. I’m old enough that I will not have to live with the consequences of a Hillary win for long. I do have children and grandchildren, though. I am a gun owner and am more or less libertarian but not the “Big L” type. Hillary is so corrupt that I doubt she could finish a term but anything is possible these days.
@Yancy – polling that splits out where the LP is drawing support away from is hard to come by. But comparing RCP Average for clinton vs trump and the clinton vs trump vs johnson shows about ~4% draw from each to johnson.
That is corroborated by this recent article…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/05/libertarian-ticket-eyes-opening-after-conventions-and-debate-stage-slot.html
Note: As mentioned in the article, if some high profile GOP names do endorse Johnson, that may change the picture significantly.
Neo:
YancyW is blowing angry Trump smoke? Inconceivable!
@Yancy – your argument that those disatisfied with clinton would go green party has some merit.
However, like those on the GOP side, they are probably all waiting for a “viable” alternative. If Johnson and the LP look like there is momentum, that might we be what they need to move.
Not sure anyone knows enough to predict it one way or the other.
BUT, if it is enough to prevent either of the awfuls from 270, then it opens up a pathway to an alternative.
Neo & Huxley…gang look…I don’t like the choices either. And no, I don’t think my point is a ‘straw man.’
The harsh light of post-conventions reality IS Trump vs Hillary. Unless one of them drops dead…dance with the one you think least evil.
There are no other viable alternatives this late in the game. So…who do you hate least? Because if you vote for anyone but them, the one you hate most wins.
The problem is the voters, specifically the Trump voters (I’m referring to the actual supporters, not the nose-holders). They need to get burned, badly, to realize that childish revenge fantasies aren’t enough to elect someone.
When they get their heads straight, we may start making some progress. In the meantime, our job is to make sure the have no place to hide from self-reflection. No excuses, no conspiracies.
Just straight-up responsibility for nominating a clown.
er, they* have no place to hide.
Frog Says:
This is all so very pathetic. The self-righteous have killed any chance of stopping Hillary.
I agree. Trump supporters are the worst.
John Guilfoyle is correct. I’m mystified and disheartened by every development in this election, not least the smug, self-indulgent, arrogance of the NeverTrump crowd.
To be clear: there is a binary choice here. Trump or Clinton. For those of a right of center inclination: they can be for Trump, or they can be actively favor Clinton (i.e. vote for her) or passively for Clinton (i.e. vote third party, vote for a write in or not vote). Those are the only alternatives.
Ted Cruz was right: one should vote one’s conscience. But if that vote is not for Trump, it is (to some degree) “for” Clinton. It is acknowledging one prefers, however slightly, a Clinton Presidency to a Trump Presidency. It is intellectually and morally dishonest to deny or obfuscate this simple fact.
When listening to the puerile blatherings of the NeverTrumpers, I’m reminded of Milton Friedman’s famous rejoinder to socialists/progressives/etc. (paraphrased slightly): Where is this angel? Where is this white knight who shall swoop in and deliver us from our disheartening binary choice? Were he or she to exist, they would have long since appeared.
Gary Johnson is not viable. Period. He has virtually no money, minimal name recognition and is attached to a party saddled with kooks. No, Romney is not going to endorse him. I would happily bet my modest life savings on that. And no, he will not reach the threshold to get into the debates.
I also find it a little ironic that so many conservative commentators/bloggers bemoan the choice between two people who are well past their prime while being sympathetic to a ticket of has-beens; governors who left office 13 and 19 years ago and have both run only quixotic campaigns since.
All that being said, I personally remain undecided between voting Trump, voting Johnson, writing in a name or not voting. It is of minimal importance as I live in a fairly solid blue state. However, if I end up not voting for Trump, I will do so freely acknowledging my act implies I prefer a Clinton Presidency, however slightly.
NeverTrumpers need to knock off their disingenuous preening and concede the same.
Yancey Ward Says:
NeverTrumpers have a choice-
Even now, with the end in sight, you pricks are here barking orders and threats at us. Come November, Mr. Ward, it won’t be OUR credibility which is completely gone, it will be yours.
And then, we won’t have to listen to another word you say.
“Less than a third of his supporters say they are involved with the Tea Party movement.”
Thank you, neo, for this invaluable piece of information. I had a conversation with a less-rabid-than-usual Trump supporter over this very topic.
My hypothesis was that since most Tea Party were middle-class, upstanding and decent citizens, most of them would probably be AGAINST Trump, and not for him.
Everyone loves it when their views are confirmed.
Mike K Says:
“I am a late Trump supporter and think that the NeverTrumpers are afraid their government rice bowl might get broken.”
This is a common myth among Trump supporters: that everyone against Trump is doing it out of impure motives. That is a too-convenient and self-serving rationalization, because it automatically makes their arguments morally invalid, while portraying Trump supporters as righteous crusaders.
I note also that it’s highly improbable so many Republicans are living off the government. We’re talking about some sizable portion of the base here, like in the millions, not some collection of disgruntled government employees who are about to be disenfranchised.
IMO, the exact opposite is true (on the NeverTrump side): they are driven away from Trump by the man’s fundamental indecency. If it was a mystery to you, THAT is why these people could vote for McCain and Romney, even though they weren’t excited about them, but not for Trump. McCain and especially Romney were viewed as basically decent men, even if they were poor candidates.
Trump is neither a decent man nor a good candidate.
Ackler Says:
“When listening to the puerile blatherings of the NeverTrumpers…”
Well, that convinced me! I can see now that I was wrong, and your logic is superior! LOL
Pro tip, pal: YOU are the ones who need NeverTrump votes. We don’t need you. YOU are the ones trying to sell your candidate. We don’t need to buy him.
When SJWs insult you, have you ever once come away persuaded? Why the hell do you think that would work on us? Like you vs. SJWs, it just angers us.
Your shitty salesmanship is a topic you will have 4 long, long years to ponder. If I were you next time, I’d go with honey instead of vinegar.
P.S. If you nominate another asshole in 2020, you’ll get the same results.
Oldlflyer:
“In my opinion Jim Webb has many of the characteristics of Donald Trump. Only his temper is truly nasty. Never.”
Really? I didn’t know that about Webb. His popular reputation isn’t that.
On the Center-Left side, my personal preference is Joe Lieberman because he passed the litmus test by standing up firm with integrity for the Iraq intervention while other Democrats – especially President Clinton whose case and enforcement against Saddam his successor dutifully carried forward – were caving into partisan pressure to betray the nation. On that basis alone, I traveled from out of state to volunteer for Lieberman’s last Senate campaign. In naming a Center-Left partner to draw in anti-Left liberal activists, however, I thought Webb would carry more practical clout.
Oldflyer:
“I have no idea whether a well-organized third party effort could succeed. Nor do I have a personality in mind—there are those that I like, but they are “damaged goods” as the saying goes.”
More damaged than Trump and Clinton? Or Obama 2012 for that matter?
Like I’ve said, look at the movement, not just nor primarily at the man (and woman).
A common error by conservatives, including GOP operatives, has been to narrowly attribute an imperfect candidate’s success primarily to the candidate, while puzzled why an apparently superior candidate lost.
Look at the backing social activist movement, not just the candidate nor, for that matter, the candidate’s campaign proper. For 2015-2016, GOP operatives committed the fundamental error of going to school on Obama’s 2012 campaign proper while insufficiently accounting for the social activist movement that carried the Obama campaign.
A viable 3rd option necessarily begins with a sufficient social activist movement to carry and drive forward a good-enough candidate’s good-enough campaign proper.
Oldflyer:
“If HRC wins, I believe it would be a propitious time to organize an alternative party for the next cycle.”
The propitious time is not if then. It’s right now.
The best available setting to undertake the establishment of a long-term viable 3rd option for the mainstream – whether or not it succeeds in 2016 to win outright or at least throw the election to the House – is within the 2016 election in order to build from the current concentration of focus, energies, hope, and pliable enough political conditions of yet open possibilities, to carve out and reserve an expandable working space in the political landscape.
As with any social competition, eg, the business world, the activist game is dynamic. There are windows of opportunity for creators to maximize impact both proximately and for the long-term establishment of a viable alternative course.
On the other hand, waiting out the window of opportunity limits a creator to an insufficient alternative course.
Especially starting this late, a viable alternative is unlikely to be an overnight success. Building it necessarily will be iterative and progressive. But striking now while the iron is hot will set the course for a viable alternative. On the other hand, wait-and-see will set an insufficient alternative course that will likely be killed off due to the disadvantages incurred to self and the advantages conferred to the opposition from waiting for the window of opportunity to pass.
Trump essentially *was* a third party candidate. The party was unable to defend itself (the Democrats did, in fact, defend themselves from the Sanders Insurgency).
The conditions that make Trump’s “attack” successful also make a 3rd party non-viable: the Republican coalition is split at several levels and there (very, very likely) isn’t time to put it back together before the election.
Trump has to win–or Hillary wins.
Richard Saunders:
“He has a great force acting in his favor – contempt. The utter contempt of Obama and the rest of the Eloi have for the American people (“No ransom was paid. People think it’s ransom, but it’s not ransom. Nothing to see here. Move along.”)”
Trump appears to share that contempt. His mirroring tack of parroting base rhetoric, irrespective of merit, is adapted from the Democrat-front Left tack.
Richard Saunders:
“and the utter contempt the Jihadists have for the West and its security services”
Trump claims to be anti-ISIS, yet has opposed boots on the ground and peace operations. Like Obama, Trump seems disinterested in solving the root causes of the Assad regime and Iran and appears poised to pick up from Obama in favor of Russian interests:
https://kyleorton1991.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/russia-needs-the-islamic-state-to-save-assad/
Amend comment at August 6th, 2016 at 7:29 am:
On the other hand, wait-and-see will set an insufficient alternative course that will likely be marginalized if not killed off due to the disadvantages incurred to self and the advantages conferred to the opposition from waiting for the window of opportunity to pass.
Matt_SE:
“My hypothesis was that since most Tea Party were middle-class, upstanding and decent citizens, most of them would probably be AGAINST Trump, and not for him.”
Creation of a viable 3rd option is a prime opportunity to jumpstart a this-time GOP-distinct Tea Party 2.0 movement that is both social activist across the participatory spectrum and electoral on its own terms.
A main error that derailed the Tea Party movement was being distracted and detouring into GOP entry. They traded social activism, the Tea Party movement’s essential justification for being, for elected office through the GOP. In so doing, the Tea Party dropped their chief means for social reform – activism the power of the people – and reneged on its promise supply needed activism to the GOP.
Re-gathering with practical lessons learned, this time distinct from the GOP, would speed up the foundational infrastructure construction for a viable 3rd option in terms of the 2016 election and immediately direct agenda for the 3rd option long term.
Neo & Huxley…gang look…I don’t like the choices either. And no, I don’t think my point is a ‘straw man.’
The harsh light of post-conventions reality IS Trump vs Hillary. Unless one of them drops dead…dance with the one you think least evil.
There are no other viable alternatives this late in the game. So…who do you hate least? Because if you vote for anyone but them, the one you hate most wins.
John Guillfoyle:
Your point that neo and I are looking for a “perfect candidate” is a straw man. I’m not looking for a perfect candidate. You could throw a rock at the GOP leadership and pick a candidate I would prefer over Trump.
Trump IMO is such a degraded individual he is not only unfit to be president, his candidacy is going to stain the Republican Party for years, maybe decades, as a party which will flock to a lying, mean-spirited, braggart, con man, strong man with no principles beyond a lifelong commitment to his ego.
Normally I try to avoid such harsh language in discussions like this, but I want to be sure you understand my position. I see almost no upside to Trump, win or lose, and increasingly it looks certain Trump will lose, barring extreme events.
Also I reject the Binary Choice as applying to anything other than a pure Game Theory scenario. The reality is my red vote in blue California counts for virtually nothing in the Electoral College. As a contribution to the popular vote, I’d prefer Trump, in the far-fetched possibility that he win, not have my vote and be a molecule less certain he has a mandate.
Because if you vote for anyone but them, the one you hate most wins.
If only I had such power! Obviously I don’t.
In any event the moral component is missing from the Binary Choice. I find it morally wrong to vote for a man I consider horrifyingly unfit for the office. If morals don’t matter and only power counts, this argument is meaningless.
In Catholic school we were taught the difference between Sins of Commission and Sins of Omission. For example, it’s a sin to shoot someone on 5th Avenue and it’s a sin not to help someone who has been shot. Nonetheless, as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:
In general, according to St. Thomas [Aquinas], the sin of omission consisting as it does in a leaving out of good is less grievous than a sin of commission which involves a positive taking up with evil.
I’m no longer Catholic but on this score Thomas A. still makes sense to me.
Yes, according to Catholic theology there is a provision for picking the lesser of two evils, but the difference ought to be great enough to surpass the grievousness of “taking up with evil,” which is how I see voting for Trump
“Gary Johnson is not viable. Period. He has virtually no money, minimal name recognition and is attached to a party saddled with kooks. No, Romney is not going to endorse him. I would happily bet my modest life savings on that. And no, he will not reach the threshold to get into the debates. “ – Ackler
Dude, that is remarkably like the “common wisdom” on trump when he entered the race.
Repeating that kind of argument lost it’s credibility.
This year is different.
Not saying these things WILL happen, only that they COULD happen.
You can be upset that the rest of us are openly questioning the rationale that we MUST pick trump to stop clinton. Fine. That is your choice, as you evidently think trump is “acceptable”.
Many of us don’t. And neither do we find clinton “acceptable”.
We may not all have the exact same reasons, but, we all share the idea that there is a threshold that both candidates have passed (we never were looking for perfection either), realize that the alternative is going to be a compromise, and, therefore, not be a perfect fit on all dimensions – we are long past that point anyway.
Also, we question the binary framework we are being sold, as, given the above, it is not working for us.
Big Maq:
“Also, we question the binary framework we are being sold, as, given the above, it is not working for us.”
I look at the 2016 general election foremost as a contest of social activist movements within the bigger picture of the activist game. In that context, I think the Russians input on any side, Democrat-front Left and Trump-front alt-Right, to undermine the US.
From that perspective, the Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right would emphasize the binary framework for the 2016 general election in order to dissuade a 3rd option because their social activist movement colonizes the political space seized from conservatives of the Right.
The biggest threat by conservatives to reclaim their usurped political space is with a social activist movement formed via a viable 3rd option in the 2016 general election. The alt-Right wants to prevent that happening to keep the Right’s usurped political space on which to build their version of America.
@Eric – without even putting it in activist movement framing, it is clear that there is an incentive for those in both camps to keep people thinking it is either one or the other and that no other option is “viable”.
And it is precisely the question of “viability” as the pre-condition that is locking us into a quagmire, as nobody then wants to move “first”.
Both sides know what they are doing very well.
“In Catholic school we were taught the difference between Sins of Commission and Sins of Omission.” – huxley
Right. Catholic, Christian or not, or even, as I’d argue, those without a formailized faith, likely hold similar values. Why? Because, like the laws of mathematics, it seems to be a universal truth.
And, as you further point out, essentially, two “wrongs” don’t make a “right”. It just creates escalation.
I don’t see a realistic third party candidate now.
The only vaguely realistic possibility, and a slim one at that, is for Trump to step down willingly (albeit with much behind-the-scenes armtwisting) and pass the baton to Mike Pence.
It would be unprecedented, of course, but once upon a time the Wise Men of the Republican Party persuaded Richard Nixon to step down as President and Nixon was sensible enough and patriotic enough to do so.
Trump is not particularly sensible nor is he genuinely patriotic IMO, so I wouldn’t expect him to step down on either score.
However, he is strongly attached to his image as a winner and if it sinks in deep enough that he could be wiped out in November with a McGovern-like loss, he might consider it. He could leave the race on a statesman-like note and retain some influence in the GOP.
But all this is a long-shot, I concede.
“McCain and especially Romney were viewed as basically decent men, even if they were poor candidates.” – Matt-SE
A lot of good points here. On this one, I’ll add that McCain and Romney also consistently demonstrated that they were (by behavior, history, philosophically, and rhetorically) largely conservative.
They were not “pure” by any means, but we knew that they were not going to try to sway radically far from that standard, despite the (over wrought and misguided) cat calls of “RINO!!!”. (Some still use that name in defense of trump – if one can believe it!).
“I don’t see a realistic third party candidate now. “ – huxley
Well, that is the point I’m trying to make. We are locked in by our own snapshot in time of what is “viable” or “realistic”.
Embedded in that view is the assumption that nobody else will change their position.
But, with dissatisfaction in both candidates so high, is that really true?
I’d like trump to step down, and I do see that as a potential path. So, yes, we can say a few “Hail Marys” and hope, but I’m not waiting for that possibility, thus, looking at other options that do have a path, as well.
Well, that is the point I’m trying to make. We are locked in by our own snapshot in time of what is “viable” or “realistic”.
Big Maq: Then we disagree on that score.
Gary Johnson taking off and winning this election is even less likely IMO than Trump straightening out and winning.
“Amid an otherwise disastrous week for Donald Trump, the GOP nominee got to tout some good news yesterday on the money front. July fundraising numbers released by both campaigns show that Trump is catching up to Clinton, raising about $80 million (between his campaign and the party) compared to Clinton’s $90 million haul last month.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-clinton-bounce-real-n622791
Does that sound like “self-funding” to you?
Another boast bites the dust.
No better demonstration need be sought of why a third party alternative is not viable, than the adamancy of the opposing views on this blog.
Reluctant proponents of the view that at this late date and, given the dynamics at play, that only a binary choice is viable are met with a response of, that is only true because it is believed to be true.
An objective rationale in support of the choice being either Trump or Clinton is met with subjective wishful thinking. Reason is entirely inadequate, when faced with positions derived from emotion.
“Gary Johnson taking off and winning this election is even less likely IMO than Trump straightening out and winning.” – huxley
Our difference is not so much the likelihoods, it is on what we are willing to do to get the outcome we feel we need.
I’m not rejecting the idea of trump stepping aside.
But I am encouraging everyone to consider and discuss another option than the two traditional (but awful) choices in front of us.
If we don’t begin there, because we assume it has no chance (what most thought when trump entered the race) then we are only left with hoping trump steps down.
This year is very different and we cannot leave our old assumptions about how things work and are off the table – we need to challenge them for the next three months.
I am arguing that our own attitudes and assumptions get mirrored back to us. Change our attitudes, we change the reflection.
No, it isn’t a good time to get behind a third candidate. However, after all of you assure Hillary Clinton’s victory, there will be plenty of time to construct a new party or select a candidate during Hillary’s first term as President of the United States.
Big Maq:
Much that seems unlikely may still be possible, particularly this year. Agreed.
But what are your arguments beyond “It’s possible!” for Johnson’s chances other than reiterating that most of us dismiss him?
Third-party presidential candidates have just about always worked out as spoilers.
What candidate in any election anywhere has won with such a late start. It may have happened somewhere, but not in US Presidential elections to my knowledge.
@GB – not wishful thinking – an identification of the reason why we are locked in a quagmire, even with widespread dissatisfaction on both sides with the two traditional candidates.
It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and very much an argument that a trump or clinton supporter would like us all to adopt.
Not “It is”… “Yours is”.
…after all of you assure Hillary Clinton’s victory…
You way overestimate the power of NeverTrumpers. We’re a fringe group and mostly we know it.
Trump is getting clobbered on the basis of his own, many, horrible, continuous self-inflicted wounds.
As far as I’m concerned, the citizens who have guaranteed Hillary’s victory are Trump and those who voted for such an obviously defective candidate.
However, I should add that those primarily responsible for Hillary’s victory will of course be Hilllary voters by far.
It is to the credit of the Republican Party IMO that there is a NeverTrump contingent. Other than the Bernie voters who basically think Hillary is icky, no such principled opposition exists to electing an obvious felon, if not traitor, to the White House.
“This thread is to discuss whether such an alternative could win.”
With Johnson or Stein … not a chance. They are not viable 3rd party candidates.
But then you have so many saying Hillary and Trump are not viable candidates.
This is our 2016 election. We are the laughing stock of the world today.
Or who knows maybe someone will hack the voting machines and elect Johnson or Stein!
Big Maq,
We are admittedly locked in a quagmire but not because so many believe our choice at this point to be binary.
We are locked in a quagmire because the electorate is divided and balkinized. Recognition of that reality is not a ‘mistaken belief’.
First principles; Trump and Clinton being the major party nominees with 16 initial republican candidates unable to surpass Trump is not a metric of Trump’s superiority but of the electorate’s concretized divisions.
We on the right cannot reach consensus and all else, most especially Trump’s nomination, extend from that reality.
Any refusal to acknowledge that reality, equates to wishful thinking.
John Guilfoyle:
The strawman to which I was referring was your idea that anyone here was looking for a perfect candidate.
Not even close to the truth.
Big Maq:
“without even putting it in activist movement framing, it is clear that there is an incentive for those in both camps to keep people thinking it is either one or the other and that no other option is “viable”.”
The activist framing is key because activism-averse conservatives are inclined to rationalize that they can wait episodically to begin an alternative party after the election.
If the dominant frame of events was traditional electoral politics, that option might make sense, but it isn’t.
The dominant frame is activist which subsumes electoral politics. The contest is continuous and the core opposition on both sides is activist from the same intolerant school. Which means that conservatives now inclined to wait to create are making a critical error at a point they already have little to no room for error.
The window of opportunity to create a viable alternative is now. Every present moment that conservatives delay further closes the window of opportunity for both the proximate electoral contest and the greater, long term activist contest.
Yet activism-averse conservatives embracing their self-chosen helplessness seem inclined to slip the fury of the Democrat-front Left and Left-mimicking Trump-front alt-Right in the arena. That’s a mistake. To become competitive for real and prevent their political obsolescence, they need to seize and utilize the temporary energies of the 2016 general election to power the creation of a viable alternative.
“We on the right cannot reach consensus and all else, most especially Trump’s nomination, extend from that reality. “ – GB
It is not a lack of recognition that a consensus on the right cannot be reached, that is already factored into the net negative of trump in the polling.
It is precisely that lack of consensus that suggests there is a “marketplace” for an alternative.
What is preventing everyone who is completely dissatisfied with trump is the IDEA, the ASSUMPTION, that they ONLY have two choices – trump or clinton.
At this point it is about stopping BOTH trump AND clinton.
The same dynamic is playing out in the Dem party – net negative for clinton.
If they were to break out of that binary choice paradigm, they will move too.
The Libertarian Party, with Johnson and Weld on the ticket, is neither’s ideal, but has appeal for those disaffected voters on both sides looking for an alternative.
It is a path available to stopping clinton and trump, if we all get off the binary choice train.
Will it happen, IDK. But, I DO know that if we on our side don’t even begin to seriously discuss options, we will be getting either trump or clinton – and that is increasingly looking like clinton, but who knows – this year is different and old assumptions and patterns don’t seem to apply.
They don’t seem to apply and why should we let the old assumptions behind of a binary choice hold.
Big Maq:
Geez. Are you a graduate of est or the Landmark Forum? I am. I feel like I’m back in a seminar room getting the Hunger Project pitch that if only we would create a “context” for ending world hunger by 1997, we would end world hunger, instead of believing there will probably always be hungry people.
There’s something to be said for thinking outside the box, but as Damon Runyon once said, “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s how the smart money bets.”
“It is precisely that lack of consensus that suggests there is a “marketplace” for an alternative.” Big Maq
The proposition that a lack of consensus on the right suggests that there is a “marketplace” for an alternative… rests upon the presumption that an acceptable alternative exists, which can bring consensus to division. In prior elections, that type of consensus building in political compromise was the norm. The republican primary process just past, demonstrated that to no longer be true.
This is because the major divisions on the right want mutually exclusive solutions. Conservatives want constitutional, small governance. Establishment republicans want continuance of the status quo. Trumpsters want it all to burn because they believe the rot to be too deep and widespread.
Any one of those precludes the others. That is why an alternative consensus around a third party alternative to Trump isn’t viable. The lack of consensus is based in fundamental disagreement. You can’t support Trump. I couldn’t support Rubio. Die hard Trumpsters won’t support Cruz.
Wishful thinking on a scenario so decision goes to the House …
Romney takes Utah, Wisconsin, and maybe Ohio.
Kasich takes Ohio and Wisconsin and maybe Utah
There is no binary choice, because this isn’t a two-party election. One of the major parties failed to nominate a candidate from among its ranks. Oddly enough, there’s a Republican candidate for VP, but not for president. At least, not in any ideological sense. And there’s reason to doubt whether there’s a GOP presidential candidate in terms of viability. It’s too soon to tell, but it may be the case the a vote for Trump is a pro-forma protest vote, the same as a vote for Johnson would be.
Guys, who are essentially arguing it is not “viable” so therefore not worth considering…
You can argue about “viability” every which way. You can keep asking for proof on something that is impossible to prove, if we are keeping our historic and prevailing assumptions (even though they failed to hold in the nomination process). That’s something like asking me in 1990s, in a world of PCs, to prove the viability of an iPad.
OF COURSE, it requires a movement of people to an “acceptable” alternative.
I am arguing that if the two we face are “unacceptable” then we ought to consider an alternative, at the very least.
A “viability” concern is a “first mover” concern. The “I won’t move because I don’t see that everyone else would move” thought process. And, if EVERYONE behaves on the same basis, it is self-fulfilling.
Of course, if you actually find trump acceptable, you would precisely want to put down any thoughts about “viability”, and feed the binary quagmire we are in.
Now, if people start actively considering and discussing alternatives, a movement can get started.
It is in our hands if we open our eyes, ears and minds.
I’m still trying to decide who to vote for. Perhaps the Constitution party. I’m not voting Trump nor Clinton, that’s for sure.
Trump fans – you aren’t helping with your threats and taunts. I can’t vote for the vengeance candidate.
I can’t make predictions – Trump could acutally win. His character has been shown to be the kind that shouldn’t be given his own military,
(Continued), internal police apparatus or nuclear arsenal. But obviously many of you disagree.
Whats interesting though is now I’m starting to see just a bit of a desperate gleam in the eyes of some of his more famous pundit supporters. It’s certainly possible he’ll lose and this could go down as one of the stupidest things that has ever happened. And they know their credibility and careers will go down with him.
What Trum supporters don’t want to talk about is the Civil War 2 that is necessary to permanently get rid of the Leftist alliance, which includes H Rod Damn Clinton.
Or did they think beating her in an election was enough to get rid of her? That’s what Republicans thought of John Fing Kerry, yet look where he is right now…
Trump fans — you aren’t helping with your threats and taunts.
Alt Right sympathizers and activsts and agents, are used to throwing the Left’s ridicule back at Leftists and SJWs, while watching the SJWs (the trash heap of the Left’s hierarchy) squirm around.
However, what they have forgotten is that they are talking to Republicans and conservatives, as well as patriots. They aren’t talking to SJWs or Leftists or #NeverTrumpers (this is not twitter, and many of us aren’t part of the twitter Leftist inspired tagging of cattle).
Using the same tactic no matter who you face, is an amateur’s mistake. Makes the mortal fools all too predictable. Which is only merely an embarassing mistake in sports and in games. But in a war against evil, the consequences are going to be somewhat more painful and more permanent.
Just for frame of reference, when people call you a #NeverTrumper, they’re really ridiculing you like the way they ridiculed Michelle Obama for has tagging Nigerian girls back. And if you don’t realize it, that’s another mark they put in their book as them “one upping you”. Male dominance games are petty as they are stupid, online at least. They aren’t so much male, as they are female verbal competitions, except driven by the male instinct to win.
A dark and lonely nyght Says:
August 5th, 2016 at 3:42 pm
Your grandfather was one of the many who saw what was happening and had the courage to pick up and leave.
But he had America to run to.
Now, where do we go?
“as Damon Runyon once said, “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s how the smart money bets.”” – huxley
Don’t know if the Landmark Forum comparison is good or bad.
But, here are some quotes for folks to also consider…
“If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading” – Budda
“Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
“Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
“Adversity is the first path to truth.” – Lord Byron
Besides, hasn’t the “smart money” assumptions been wrong about trump all the way to nomination?
“Johnson, in other words, is caught in an election cycle Catch-22: To get acknowledged by pollsters, he needs higher numbers, but he won’t get higher numbers until the pollsters acknowledge him. Something needs to give, and we think it should be the pollsters, who can see better than anyone the dissatisfaction with the major party candidates.” – Chicago Tribune Editorial Board – “Let Libertarian Gary Johnson debate Clinton and Trump”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-gary-johnson-libertarian-debate-edit-20160805-story.html
Here’s a new candidate for those looking for a middle way, Evan McMullin. He seems to have some big money backing, but needs a herculean effort to get on the ballot.
Check this out:
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/08/former-cia-op-evan-mcmullin-to-launch-independent-presidential-bid/