Assumption: 1) DNC Candidate is Hillary Clinton 2) RNC Candidate is Donald Trump 3) there are no third party candidates with a legitimate chance of winning 4) There are all the regular third party candidates, green, libertarian, etc....
Not a chance of me ever voting for Shrillary, but I already know that Oregon's electoral votes are going to the DNC nominee, so my (normally conservative) vote will have zero impact on the end result. Therefore, I'll vote for the third party candidate who represents my views the best, probably someone from the Constitution Party, and will be able to comfortably and honestly say I didn't vote for Drumpf.
Exactly. I don't want the lesser of two evils. I want to vote for the person I actually want to win. If everyone did, we might elect someone we all want to win.
I'm a conservative and I would never ever vote for Hilary. Unless of course she was running against Trump.... FML
I understand what you're saying. Unfortunately I don't see that happening ib my lifetime. So I'd rather pick someone that could become president instead of someone with just as good chance as my buddy sittingnext to me.
I will vote for Trump even though I can not reasonable expect Oregon to do so. This time just perhaps enough of my fellow citizens will wise up and reject the Democrat. It has happen a few times in history, it is not impossible. While Trump is not the ideal candidate, the downside is not nearly as atrocious as making the Commander in Chief out of the liar.
I'd simply rather vote FOR who I want to win, period. I have no interest in voting for Trump or Hillary. I find them both utterly repugnant. There is no lesser evil - they're both evil.
There are certainly some qualities in Trump that I like. He's a businessman. He's self funded (owes no favors). He's a citizen vs. a career politician. Some of his policies make sense. I do see him as able to negotiate better for the USA. He doesn't seem to be a warmonger. On the issue of lack of policies or talking off the cuff, it ultimately matters if you can picture the guy dealing with the issues thrown his way by general circumstances. For the most part it doesn't seem like he's incapable of making good decisions. Unfortunately, his hateful rhetoric and plans for hispanics and muslims are completely unacceptable.
We have never had a truly evil Republican President, we had a crooked SOB and they forced him to resign. We have had list of Democrat idealist that were near evil, including the current. So the system works best when we select the Republican, the system does not work well when we screw up selecting the Democrat.
If you believe that voting only has value if your selection wins, then sure. I'm of the opinion that it's important for all viewpoints to be represented and heard, even those of the minority, so if I agree with a candidate--even one I know will not be the popular choice--I will vote accordingly.
I don't necessarily think voting only has value if you're person wins. I just believe In trying to vote for the lesser of two evils that's actually has a chance of winning. If Sanders was a nominee, I wouldn't even have to care, because I'd vote for whoever the republican nominee was because he would be the lesser of two evils.
He's going to need someone who can liaison between the White House and Congress. Every presidency requires this. In most cases it's the Chief of Staff, but sometimes it's the VP. I don't care much for the republicans, though I think they show a deep bench and some seriously qualified guys - like Kasich and Christie and even Jeb Bush. Of all the republicans, Kasich is the most tolerable to me. He seems to be pragmatic and not so much an ideolog about things. His agenda isn't to overturn Roe or to overturn gays in the military or marriage, etc. Kasich as VP makes sense because he's been both executive (governor) and congressman with leadership role. He knows how congress works. The president will have an agenda, which means legislation to introduce (president can do that), and votes to count/whip/court. Kasich would be really good at handling the legislation as it progresses through congress. Rubio would be fine at it, too, as would Cruz. In general, I'm perfectly happy if no legislation gets passed. They really do need to pass the spending bills, and that's plenty.
Denny, your filter is set too tight. You and those like yourself help elect the Democrat by default way to often.
Nope. You republicans stayed home last time, and the democrat won. Get your party to nominate a winner. Not my job.
The problem for Trump is getting both Democrats and Republicans to go along with anything he wants to do. It's not like the Republican establishment likes Trump. On the other hand, Bill Clinton had a hostile congress. A congress so hostile it impeached him. Yet he was able to get things done. He knew how to control the PR and he knew how to hold a hammer over the republicans' heads and coerce them to go along. It didn't hurt that he "triangulated" and allowed the republicans some wins as well. That's leadership.
And while I understand the logic behind that philosophy, it's primarily based in the existence of that philosophy. That is to say, if everyone voted for someone with whom they actually agree rather than against someone with whom they disagree, then there would be more than two candidates with "a chance of winning". I believe that the "lesser of two evils" mindset is what chokes this country's political process, so I refuse to engage in it.
