I won’t say anyone...but anyone out of the current group for sure.I expect this will be 90% "Anyone vs Trump".
I could be wrong, but I don't think that is the point of this particular pole.I expect this will be 90% "Anyone over Trump".
This. I’ve voted 3rd party the last 3 elections. 08 and 12 in Illinois. 16 in Minnesota.I’m on #TeamPete. If not him, then 3rd Party**
**(as a CA resident, my vote really doesn’t make a material difference in the GE. if I lived in a “swing state” my calculus would be different.)
That's pretty much what I chose. I don't know their stances on issues very well yet, but I know I'm not going to vote for Trump.Biden and then independent in the other three.
I think that's going to be the board.That's pretty much what I chose. I don't know their stances on issues very well yet, but I know I'm not going to vote for Trump.
The real interest for me is- which candidates depress turnout (if any)? And which ones generate the best? Does Sanders connect with independents/conservatives better or worse than the others relative to our small community? I expect a ~90% turnout for DEM either way, but I suspect some have more general favorability than others.I expect this will be 90% "Anyone over Trump".
That's likely accurate. To me, Sanders isn't really viable because of age and failing health, Buttigieg has the sexuality thing working against him(like it or not, people will judge him for it. Personally, it's not my cup of tea, but it's his life, not mine), Warren has some questionable stances(again, need more info), and Biden is also fairly old, but in decent shape.I think that's going to be the board.
In the end, I don't think many will go with 3rd party or not vote. They'll vote for the person that has the shot at beating Trump.
It does now, right? Since several states recently passed bills granting all their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote overall?**(as a CA resident, my vote really doesn’t make a material difference in the GE. if I lived in a “swing state” my calculus would be different.)
That only kicks in when there are enough states signed on to reach 270 electoral votes. So far they are short of that number.It does now, right? Since several states recently passed bills granting all their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote overall?
I have to imagine that if anyone has a chance to dip into the 50% of voters who don't turn out because 'all politicians are the same' it's Sanders. That's a big part of how Trump pulled off his winThe real interest for me is- which candidates depress turnout (if any)? And which ones generate the best?
That compact doesn't go into effect until enough states have signed on to reach 270 EC votes. I'm not a law talkin guy but I assume it would get bogged down in legal challenges at that point.It does now, right? Since several states recently passed bills granting all their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote overall?
I thought I remember something about a coalition of states doing this a while back, but don’t know if that’s something CA has agreed too. In any case, D votes dominate population centers (i.e. SF, LA proper) so there’s no real way for R - or “other” - votes to make a difference.It does now, right? Since several states recently passed bills granting all their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote overall?
Has there ever been ~90% voter turnout for any candidate? Looks like the election of Rutherford Hayes tops the list at 82% overall voter turnout.The real interest for me is- which candidates depress turnout (if any)? And which ones generate the best? Does Sanders connect with independents/conservatives better or worse than the others relative to our small community? I expect a ~90% turnout for DEM either way, but I suspect some have more general favorability than others.
Just speaking purely of the realistic 'big 4' candidates on the Dem side right now, I'd consider voting for Sanders in a GE. I wouldn't vote for Trump; didn't in 2016 either. I probably wouldn't get out of bed for any other scenario, unless a good Green, Libertarian or Independent ran.
You take that back.At this point I've got Trump rated below most candidates, although he's still ahead of Marianne Williamson and Lyndon LaRouche.
This is the interesting question.The real interest for me is- which candidates depress turnout (if any)? And which ones generate the best? Does Sanders connect with independents/conservatives better or worse than the others relative to our small community? I expect a ~90% turnout for DEM either way, but I suspect some have more general favorability than others.
Just speaking purely of the realistic 'big 4' candidates on the Dem side right now, I'd consider voting for Sanders in a GE. I wouldn't vote for Trump; didn't in 2016 either. I probably wouldn't get out of bed for any other scenario, unless a good Green, Libertarian or Independent ran.
Exactly...2016 for example...with Hillary and Trump as an option, I chose 3rd party. While that may look bad without context...when you see that I live in TN and Trump was going to destroy her here...my 3rd party vote was pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of electoral math.Its also flawed in the sense that context really matters.
If you are in Michigan, for example, and you opt for a 3rd Party candidate - that has a much higher impact on the election than say, someone who lives in California, or Alabama.
So, if all of the 3rd party voters in the poll live in states where the outcome is pre-determined - it does not really give us a sense of how apathetic the electorate is towards two flawed candidates.
Cauliflower?I would vote for a head of lettuce over Trump. Cabbage would be closer but would still get my vote.
We could use a vegetable with this much culinary dexterity in the White House.Cauliflower?I would vote for a head of lettuce over Trump. Cabbage would be closer but would still get my vote.
We get it. No need to elaborate.I would spend a weekend in jail before I voted for Biden, Bernie or Liz. Just terrible candidates.
How so? Im not sure I understand this one at all.I can't get over thinking that all of these candidates are a sign of recklessness on the part of the American voting public.
Clinton won the popular vote because of Sanders supporters. More Sanders supporters turned out for her in 16 than Hillary supporters did for Obama in 2008, after Bernie enthusiastically endorsed her despite being betrayed by the party. Big misconceptions about 2016. The DNC party chieftains wanted to have their cake and eat it too, well they got their cake.Isn't what we're really asking here more like: "If you don't get the Democrat candidate nominee you want, will you waste your vote and vote for a 3rd party candidate / stay home"? That feels like what this question is asking.
Is this pulling back up the 2016 Sanders supporters who didn't vote for Clinton in the General Election?
I think they're reckless choices because of the policies they seek to implement.How so? Im not sure I understand this one at all.
Removing Trump is a priority for a lot of folks. If Trump wins again while NOT winning the popular vote, that could push more states to sign on. To that end, there's some value in voting for the "not Trump" candidate who is most likely to beat Trump (eg. the Dem candidate) even in states like CA.That only kicks in when there are enough states signed on to reach 270 electoral votes. So far they are short of that number.It does now, right? Since several states recently passed bills granting all their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote overall?
3rd party votes aren't wasted votesIsn't what we're really asking here more like: "If you don't get the Democrat candidate nominee you want, will you waste your vote and vote for a 3rd party candidate / stay home"? That feels like what this question is asking.
Is this pulling back up the 2016 Sanders supporters who didn't vote for Clinton in the General Election?
As someone that has vote 3rd party in a presidential election (Harry Browne) I can tell you that while it was nice to vote my conscience, the guy had no shot and it did nothing to further the cause.3rd party votes aren't wasted votes
It shouldn't matter if they have no shot, your vote is just a representation of the platform you'd like to see implemented... not the best choice of who you think everyone else is voting for. If I were placing a bet on the winner, yea that would be a waste, in that case but thats not what we're doing.As someone that has vote 3rd party in a presidential election (Harry Browne) I can tell you that while it was nice to vote my conscience, the guy had no shot and it did nothing to further the cause.
Yeah that was my point. I don't think the Libertarian party is any better off that I (and a few others) voted for Harry Browne in 1996. According to wikipedia the Libertarian party currently has no members in Congress, or governorships, and over the past decade, has had less than 10 members elected to state legislatures or other state office.It shouldn't matter if they have no shot, your vote is just a representation of the platform you'd like to see implemented... not the best choice of who you think everyone else is voting for. If I were placing a bet on the winner, yea that would be a waste, in that case but thats not what we're doing.
It does matter to some extent too because it gives funding to parties that reach certain thresholds and builds them up for the future.
Same here (TN). While I thought HRC would have done a great job as POTUS, she had zero chance of getting any electoral votes from this state. My 3rd party vote was not about any candidate at all, but just lashing out at the Dems because they had written off states like ours a decade ago.Exactly...2016 for example...with Hillary and Trump as an option, I chose 3rd party. While that may look bad without context...when you see that I live in TN and Trump was going to destroy her here...my 3rd party vote was pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of electoral math.
Yea they're definitely not doing too well (Greens either in my case)... sadly thats more of a failing of the party as a whole, but increases in funding/recognition would hopefully help that. I'd rather keep trying in my tiny way than vote for D's and R's who outright oppose the issues I'm most concerned about.Yeah that was my point. I don't think the Libertarian party is any better off that I (and a few others) voted for Harry Browne in 1996. According to wikipedia the Libertarian party currently has no members in Congress, or governorships, and over the past decade, has had less than 10 members elected to state legislatures or other state office.
That's likely a good topic for discussion. And maybe more what the OP was getting at.3rd party votes aren't wasted votes
Go ahead and start the topic @KiddLattimerThat's likely a good topic for discussion. And maybe more what the OP was getting at.
Yea no problem, I'll set it up in a bitGo ahead and start the topic @KiddLattimer
Make your case why you think what you think. Assuming you're willing to discuss it and not just lock it down with a definitive statement.