The Trump Candidacy

[ChiComCat]

there are more than two candidates you can vote for, but there are only two that can win.

of course. and what I would love is for the outside parties to slowly gain market share, so that someday my kids don't have a 2 horse race. its a long play but still

Agree with this.  3rd party in the debates this year would be progress.  I would like to see a 3rd party campaign like crazy in Maine or Nubb to get on the Electoral scorecard too.

[Cartierfor3]

human beings are very stupid and need a "good v evil" to process everything, cf3

they are all squawks probably. buncha snob hill idiots

[Tobias]

that's why pokemon go is so great #3rdparty

[star seed 7]

In this two horse race, I'll be voting for someone I detest because the other scares the crap out of me. That's a sad state of affairs.

why does everyone just lap up the notion of a 2 horse race?

I agree cf3.  Vote your conscience

[catastrophe]

there are more than two candidates you can vote for, but there are only two that can win.

I think this is Hilldawg's new campaign slogan.

I'm seriously sick of this self fulfilling prophecy, though. It's the same mindset that has tried to suppress every worthwhile movement: "Sure, change would be nice but it's not like there is much we can do to make a difference with so many other people currently entrenched."

[Emo EMAW]

Time to do a roll call of posters on this blogsite who are still gonna vote Trump. 'nounce yo'self

I'm more curious who is voting for Donald because they think he represents them or will make a good president vs. those that just want to make sure it's not Hillary or status quo.

I don't think you appropriately captured both sides of this Venn diagram.

Ok. Well clean it up for me or tell me where I messed up please.

You didn't include special interest folks.

You didn't include folks that think he would make a better president than Hillary at some things that are important to them (not necessarily special interests).

[Cartierfor3]

In this two horse race, I'll be voting for someone I detest because the other scares the crap out of me. That's a sad state of affairs.

why does everyone just lap up the notion of a 2 horse race?

I agree cf3.  Vote your conscience

[SdK]

Time to do a roll call of posters on this blogsite who are still gonna vote Trump. 'nounce yo'self

I'm more curious who is voting for Donald because they think he represents them or will make a good president vs. those that just want to make sure it's not Hillary or status quo.

I don't think you appropriately captured both sides of this Venn diagram.

Ok. Well clean it up for me or tell me where I messed up please.

You didn't include special interest folks.

You didn't include folks that think he would make a better president than Hillary at some things that are important to them (not necessarily special interests).

Fair enough. But I think most of those two things could fit into my first circle, better president and represents them.

[Emo EMAW]

Time to do a roll call of posters on this blogsite who are still gonna vote Trump. 'nounce yo'self

I'm more curious who is voting for Donald because they think he represents them or will make a good president vs. those that just want to make sure it's not Hillary or status quo.

I don't think you appropriately captured both sides of this Venn diagram.

Ok. Well clean it up for me or tell me where I messed up please.

You didn't include special interest folks.

You didn't include folks that think he would make a better president than Hillary at some things that are important to them (not necessarily special interests).

Fair enough. But I think most of those two things could fit into my first circle, better president and represents them.

Also someone could be both of the things you mentioned.

[SdK]

Time to do a roll call of posters on this blogsite who are still gonna vote Trump. 'nounce yo'self

I'm more curious who is voting for Donald because they think he represents them or will make a good president vs. those that just want to make sure it's not Hillary or status quo.

I don't think you appropriately captured both sides of this Venn diagram.

Ok. Well clean it up for me or tell me where I messed up please.

You didn't include special interest folks.

You didn't include folks that think he would make a better president than Hillary at some things that are important to them (not necessarily special interests).

Fair enough. But I think most of those two things could fit into my first circle, better president and represents them.

I mean we are talking about voting for Trump here, I don't need a more complex diagram for people to explain themselves than the man himself
 Hur Hur Hur

[SdK]

Time to do a roll call of posters on this blogsite who are still gonna vote Trump. 'nounce yo'self

I'm more curious who is voting for Donald because they think he represents them or will make a good president vs. those that just want to make sure it's not Hillary or status quo.

I don't think you appropriately captured both sides of this Venn diagram.

Ok. Well clean it up for me or tell me where I messed up please.

You didn't include special interest folks.

You didn't include folks that think he would make a better president than Hillary at some things that are important to them (not necessarily special interests).

Fair enough. But I think most of those two things could fit into my first circle, better president and represents them.

Also someone could be both of the things you mentioned.

Ok. Well I think it's you and cat27. So why will you be voting for Mr. Trump?

[SdK]

Time to do a roll call of posters on this blogsite who are still gonna vote Trump. 'nounce yo'self

I'm more curious who is voting for Donald because they think he represents them or will make a good president vs. those that just want to make sure it's not Hillary or status quo.

I don't think you appropriately captured both sides of this Venn diagram.

Ok. Well clean it up for me or tell me where I messed up please.

You didn't include special interest folks.

You didn't include folks that think he would make a better president than Hillary at some things that are important to them (not necessarily special interests).

Fair enough. But I think most of those two things could fit into my first circle, better president and represents them.

Also someone could be both of the things you mentioned.

Ok. Well I think it's you and cat27. So why will you be voting for Mr. Trump?

And honestly I'm just curious, I hope you don't get attacked for or have to defend your position over and over.

[sys]

of course. and what I would love is for the outside parties to slowly gain market share, so that someday my kids don't have a 2 horse race. its a long play but still

our system is set up to be a two party system.  if another party gained share, one of the two existing major parties would recede.  for multiple parties to coexist long-term, we would likely need to shift to a parliamentary system.

[wetwillie]

I'm fine with two parties, I just want the moderate party to replace the Republican Party. 

[sys]

I'm seriously sick of this self fulfilling prophecy, though. It's the same mindset that has tried to suppress every worthwhile movement: "Sure, change would be nice but it's not like there is much we can do to make a difference with so many other people currently entrenched."

it can change over time, but not over the next 100 days.

[CNS]

there are more than two candidates you can vote for, but there are only two that can win.

of course. and what I would love is for the outside parties to slowly gain market share, so that someday my kids don't have a 2 horse race. its a long play but still

If you and others honestly want that, you need to support something that gets money under control in the campaign process.  Check out Wolf Pac.  http://www.wolf-pac.com/

[star seed 7]

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm fairly confident that Citizens United will get reversed after Hillary gets to pick a couple of justices, anyway. No need to give money to Wolf Pac.

[sys]

John Harwood reports that Paul Manafort, the supposed adult in charge of the campaign who can curtail the candidate’s self-destructive impulses, is “not challenging Trump anymore. Mailing it in,” and the other staff is (metaphorically, one assumes) “suicidal.” Ali Vitali confirms Harwood’s report, and adds that the situation is “way worse than people realize.” According to Dana Bash, these staffers “feel like they are wasting their time.”

This is sad for the Trump staffers, who have worked so hard to give an unstable demagogue control of the executive branch.

heh.

[CNS]

I'm fairly confident that Citizens United will get reversed after Hillary gets to pick a couple of justices, anyway. No need to give money to Wolf Pac.

I don't share your faith.  I mean, she would be cutting her, and her political bro's, own throats. 

[sys]

If you and others honestly want that, you need to support something that gets money under control in the campaign process.  Check out Wolf Pac.  http://www.wolf-pac.com/

proportional representation would make about a million times more of a difference than "getting money under control".

[CNS]

Time to do a roll call of posters on this blogsite who are still gonna vote Trump. 'nounce yo'self

I'm more curious who is voting for Donald because they think he represents them or will make a good president vs. those that just want to make sure it's not Hillary or status quo.

I don't think you appropriately captured both sides of this Venn diagram.

Ok. Well clean it up for me or tell me where I messed up please.

You didn't include special interest folks.

You didn't include folks that think he would make a better president than Hillary at some things that are important to them (not necessarily special interests).

So, if he maintains fed lands but is quick to the nuke button, you guys all good?

[CNS]

If you and others honestly want that, you need to support something that gets money under control in the campaign process.  Check out Wolf Pac.  http://www.wolf-pac.com/

proportional representation would make about a million times more of a difference than "getting money under control".

There are several things that need to change but I don't believe that any will until the money is changed.  There is zero incentive to change until the representation of actual constituents means more to individual campaigns, and the parties themselves, than they do now.

[sys]

I don't believe that any will until the money is changed.  There is zero incentive to change until the representation of actual constituents means more to individual campaigns, and the parties themselves, than they do now.

while admitting that i haven't looked at the issue much, afaik, the evidence that large amounts of money impacts election results is pretty skimpy (not having minimum threshold amounts does, but arguably may be more of a symptom than a cause).  if you know of evidence to the contrary, please make me aware of it.

[sys]

but regardless, without proportional representation, the money you are talking about will impact who wins primaries and which of the major parties wins generals, not the establishment of a multi-party stasis.