PDA

View Full Version : Third parties polling at 12%



CWSmith
08-21-2016, 11:43 AM
On the news this AM they showed poll results where the 2 leading 3rd-party candidates together poll at 12%.

I'm not questioning their right to run. I am questioning the wisdom in voting for them if you know they cannot win.

Can anyone say the world is better because Nader ran in 2000?

Neither Clinton nor Trump is what many of us really want, but there are huge differences between them. If a vote for the 3rd party candidate only empowers others to cast the deciding vote, can anyone justify a decision to vote for the 3rd parties?

Keith Wilson
08-21-2016, 12:10 PM
Well, if you live in Mississippi or Massachusetts or California, a third-party vote is pretty safe if it makes you feel better. In a state that might be close, IMHO it would be totally irresponsible, particularly in this election. One of two people will be the next president, barring entirely unforeseen events. Work for the greater good when you can, but for the sake of your friends, neighbors, and country, you have a duty to vote for the lesser evil. Otherwise we may get the greater one.

It appears, however, that Ms. Stein is drawing mainly from the left, Mr. Johnson from the right, and their presence isn't having much overall effect.

Gerarddm
08-21-2016, 02:37 PM
They don't get into the debates without polling at 15%, each.

CWSmith
08-21-2016, 03:03 PM
Nader received less than 3% of the total vote in the 2000 election. He got 100,000 votes in Florida where Gore lost to Bush by 537 votes (and a hanging chad).

Various polls disagree on whether Nader was a factor, but he drew 200x the difference between the two main candidates. Does anyone really believe that a 2-way race might not have moved one half of one percent of those votes in one direction more than the other?

There will come a time in this election when the voters had better get serious and understand the consequences of a protest vote.

jack grebe
08-21-2016, 03:08 PM
I will vote for whom ever I think is best in my opinion.

I don't give a damn what others think. I don't have to vote lesser of
Evils.

Sky Blue
08-21-2016, 03:56 PM
you have a duty to vote for the lesser evil

uh, no

delecta
08-21-2016, 04:18 PM
In a state that might be close, IMHO it would be totally irresponsible, particularly in this election.

Wow. aren't you being totally selfish? You do understand that it might take time for a movement to build.

Your voting advice is abhorring, short term and self serving. Typical partisan, be proud when you vote for the criminal.

hokiefan
08-21-2016, 04:38 PM
Wow. aren't you being totally selfish? You do understand that it might take time for a movement to build.

Your voting advice is abhorring, short term and self serving. Typical partisan, be proud when you vote for the criminal.

In the end either Clinton or Trump will be president. You can help choose or leave that up to the growups. Your choice.

delecta
08-21-2016, 04:47 PM
In the end either Clinton or Trump will be president. You can help choose or leave that up to the growups. Your choice.

If you're implying that you are one of the grown ups I have to laugh, grown ups plan for the future, you are a short term kind of guy.....also know as selfish and self serving. If the grown ups actually cared about the future of this country we would have two different choices to vote for.

johnw
08-21-2016, 04:57 PM
Well, if you live in Mississippi or Massachusetts or California, a third-party vote is pretty safe if it makes you feel better. In a state that might be close, IMHO it would be totally irresponsible, particularly in this election. One of two people will be the next president, barring entirely unforeseen events. Work for the greater good when you can, but for the sake of your friends, neighbors, and country, you have a duty to vote for the lesser evil. Otherwise we may get the greater one.

It appears, however, that Ms. Stein is drawing mainly from the left, Mr. Johnson from the right, and their presence isn't having much overall effect.

Suppose you are a Republican, and abhor both candidates equally. Might it be better to support Johnson, on the grounds that only a migration out of the Republican party gives a voice to people with your beliefs?

This is the sort of thing that makes a real realignment possible. I personally think that most voters will come back to one of the major parties on election day, and that the Republican Party can survive one bad election, but I admit I could be wrong. If a realignment is happening, it can only happen if people abandon one of the major parties.