I may have to vote for Trump

[LetterRip]

I never believed it possible, but the coordinated lies and distortion media campaign against Sanders is pissing me off enough that I'd rather Trump win than vote for Hillary.  The man absolutely disgusts me and is almost everything I stand against, and yet, he is beginning to seem the morally superior alternative to Clinton.

[Wayward Son]

I wouldn't worry too much about it, LetterRip.

No matter how immoral Hillary and the media may get, I'm confident that Trump will do something even more immoral and/or incredibly stupid before the election.  I have faith in him.  (Well-founded, I think.) 

[yossarian22c]

I wonder if Clinton is wise enough and Sanders magnanimous enough that if he fails to win the primary that she will select him as VP.  I can't think of anyone else that brings anything to her ticket.  She is the Establishment and Sanders on the ticket is at least a nod to all the young support he has gotten.  VPs can't bring a home state really anymore but Sanders is probably worth a point bump in a bunch of key states just from increased turnout.  But no matter how crappy her campaign gets against him I am also confident that Trump is worse.

[DJQuag]

You can count me in on the Bernie or Bust train. She's just another slimy establishment politician, and her campaign against Sanders (not to mention her political record) has proven it.

She can't face off against him based upon the wisdom she's shown in the past, because compared to him she's shown very little.

A decent article in defense of Bernie or Bust.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/153151-bernie-or-bust-is-not-a-silly-argument-for-marginalized-individuals

[scifibum]

Warren is a possible VP pick if Clinton wants to throw a bone to Bernie supporters.

[DJQuag]

Quoted from above article for emphasis.

"If Clinton loses to Trump in November, just remember: It is not the fault of a marginalized person who refuses to vote for someone invested in their oppression. It is the fault of a two-party system that prevents real change. It is the fault of white moderates like Clinton who — in aiming to please "everyone" — continuously uphold the status quo. It is Trump's fault for being terrible. #BernieOrBust may be a sexist temper tantrum coming from some people, but for many marginalized folks, it's an understanding that the "lesser of two evils" argument is no longer a valid one, and that ultimately, we will have to work outside the system if we even hope to stay alive."

[AI Wessex]

and that ultimately, we will have to work outside the system if we even hope to stay alive.

"hope to stay alive"?  That's more than a bit dramatic and almost comically absurd if you're a middle or upper income white person.  But if you're not, what do you gain from "dropping out"? 

I'm not sure who wrote that article, but if you're black, Hispanic or Muslim, Sanders won't necessarily have your back any more than any other President.  His main interests are in not fighting wars that create more war (which I agree with him on) and trying to clean up Wall Street (not business in general, just Wall Street). 

But if you're black, hungry or sick, forget it if any Republican is in charge, because walking away won't help you find a policeman, doctor or a meal when you need it.  I don't dispute that Clinton is the status quo candidate and comes with a lot of baggage, but it's hard for me to imagine a Bernie supporter saying to themselves that it's him or nothing when they can see what lurks on the other side.  But if you do walk away, just make sure you're white, have money and a gun if you want to survive.

[cherrypoptart]

I feel ya because if John Kasich or any other establishment candidate managed to pilfer the nomination out from under Cruz or Trump I would be more likely to vote for Bernie than any of them or just not vote at all or write in a candidate although there is no way I'd vote for Hillary.

[AI Wessex]

I feel ya because if John Kasich or any other establishment candidate managed to pilfer the nomination out from under Cruz or Trump I would be more likely to vote for Bernie than any of them or just not vote at all or write in a candidate although there is no way I'd vote for Hillary.

That's fine, because a vote against Hillary or no vote won't hurt her chances much.  BTW, I forgot to offer my condolences on the loss of your casino.  But if you want to get rich all at once buy a lottery ticket for $1 or put $1 bet on Trump to win the election and hope to get lucky.

[cherrypoptart]

How much worse could Trump be for black unemployment than Obama?

We gave Obama a try. Something new, something different. Worth a shot perhaps but it just didn't pan out.

Trump is the new something new, the different something different. If Obama was worth a shot then so is Trump.

As for Muslims staying alive, if they are already in America then they may be more likely to stay alive if we at least vet the new ones coming in and limit the ones coming from radicalized countries.

For instance:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/muslim-shopkeeper-killed-for-wishing-christians-happy-easter-funderal-attended-by-hundreds-160740/


Funeral of Muslim Shopkeeper Killed for Wishing Christians 'Happy Easter' Attended by Hundreds

And that goes for blacks too who are being hurt more by catch and release than they are by anything the police will ever do to them.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/09/chicagos-grim-murder-trend-blamed-on-light-sentencing-misguided-reforms.html

"Lamar Harris had seven felony convictions and 43 arrests when he shot three Chicago police officers. The same week, Samuel Harviley, who had just been paroled after serving less than half of his sentence for armed carjacking, shot yet another of the Windy City’s finest.

Police officials, researchers and many elected leaders all agree that the pair were prime examples of the violent pool of criminals driving the city’s historically high crime rate. Ex-cons well-known to police and with a proven propensity for violence are being let out early from prison or let off lightly by judges, only to wreak havoc on the city, they say."

I suppose it was worth a try. Like Obama. But it failed so now it's time to try something else.

[DJQuag]

You gain from dropping out  by letting those who have taken your vote for granted whilst being content to keep the status quo know that that is not going to continue.

Democrats take minority and millenial votes for granted, and yet the establishment is content with how things are because how things are keeps them in power.

Sanders is willing to take on the financial beast, and it's kind of silly to imply that the way wealth distribution  and the economy has gone the last few decades hasn't disproportionately affected minorities, the poor, and millenials. If he were to tear into that system, he would be helping those groups immensely without ever having to say the word black.

[DJQuag]

The difference between the two sides is this.

Clinton supporters may be more willing to vote for Sanders, but that's because his policies are like Clinton's, only better.

Sanders supporters may well not be willing to vote for Clinton, because to them her record and policies are demonstrably worse. And yes, we've all heard how it's necessary to vote the lesser of two evils, but at the end of the day it's people being willing to do that for generations  that has gotten the system into the obscene mess it is today.

[Wayward Son]

Just remember that when you vote for the President, you are not just voting for the candidate, but also for the party that candidate represents.

Because the President will fill his cabinet primarily with people who are from his party.  He will nominate judges to the courts that are acceptable to his party.  He will usually sign legislation that is embraced by his party.

One party believes that Planned Parenthood should be outlawed and uses fraudulent videos as an example.  One party is against a minimum wage hike and would like to eliminate it altogether.  One party is for making abortion illegal in most circumstances.  One party wants to weaken unions.  One party wants to repeal Obamacare and does not have a replacement for it.

The party that wins will have more power to enact or oppose these positions.  If you like them, then not voting makes it harder for these changes to be enacted.  If you don't like them, then not voting makes it easier for them to be enacted.

Unless the Senate changes its mind in the next few months,  the next President will choose at least one new Supreme Court justice.  Trump has already said he will rely on the Heritage Foundation to advise him on his choice.  If you prefer that to some other advisors, then vote for it.  If you don't, vote the other way.

It may seem that there is no real difference between the two candidates.  And maybe there really isn't.  But don't just look at the candidates.  Don't just look at whether they are "pro-establishment" or "anti-establishment."  Also look at the parties they stand for, and everything those parties stand for.  And only then, if you really believe there is no real difference between the parties, if you really feel that it doesn't matter one bit which candidate and party gets elected, then you can say it doesn't matter and not vote.

But if you have even the slightest preference between the parties, then vote for the one you prefer.  Because there are real differences that I see between the goals of the two major parties.  And I believe it may make a real difference which one gets elected come November.

[AI Wessex]

Sanders is willing to take on the financial beast, and it's kind of silly to imply that the way wealth distribution  and the economy has gone the last few decades hasn't disproportionately affected minorities, the poor, and millenials. If he were to tear into that system, he would be helping those groups immensely without ever having to say the word black.

Yes...but.  He has no political power base from which to wield his mighty sword.  Honestly, if I thought the Democratic Party establishment would back him, I'd be on his side, too.  But that's not going to happen, so all his mighty talk won't be beaten into a mighty sword.  Alas, but those with power won't give it up without a more powerful force opposing them, and no such force exists today.

It may seem that there is no real difference between the two candidates.  And maybe there really isn't.  But don't just look at the candidates.  Don't just look at whether they are "pro-establishment" or "anti-establishment."  Also look at the parties they stand for, and everything those parties stand for.  And only then, if you really believe there is no real difference between the parties, if you really feel that it doesn't matter one bit which candidate and party gets elected, then you can say it doesn't matter and not vote.

I say instead that you should vote your interests.  Somehow magical thinking has infected the Republican base so that every one of the policies you mention and others that they stand for are not in the interests of the vast majority of people who would vote to give them the power to do those things. 

Even supposedly intelligent people I know who intend to vote for whichever candidate is the GOP standard bearer in November sound stupid when they try to explain why they will do that.

[DJQuag]

It's pretty easy to say that we have to be careful of things getting worse when you're still in a place of relative or major financial stability, possibly with the worry of things like a high education, finding a decent career, and a mortgage safely behind you.

What the other side is trying to convey here is that, for them, things are already so bad, and the future looks so bleak, that they're perfectly willing to risk burning the whole house down on the off chance that the cart gets overturned and things change. It just can't get much worse.

The number of people who feel that way grows every year.

[AI Wessex]

What the other side is trying to convey here is that, for them, things are already so bad, and the future looks so bleak, that they're perfectly willing to risk burning the whole house down on the off chance that the cart gets overturned and things change. It just can't get much worse.

Burning down the house doesn't overturn the cart; it means you have nowhere to live.  I get the impulse, but if we're that stupid nobody can save us.  The insanity is that people who would vote for Trump (or Cruz) can't think beyond the warm feeling they'll get from the fire.

[Fenring]

If I had to vote between Trump and Hillary I would go with Trump. Not because I think he's better, or would do some particular good thing, but because voting the other way sends a terrible message. It says that people will lie down for a corrupt system and will vote for whomever they are told to vote for. It says that the political parties are quite right when they feel that their power ought to matter more in determining the leadership of the country than votes should. It also says that vying for power through deceit and misdirection is viable and even recommended. The funny thing with this last point is that Trump may also be vying for power through deceit and misdirection, except that if he wins that won't be the takeaway; it will be that the system failed hard enough that it tilted the nation into voting for him. But if Hillary wins the message will be that corruption and power-gaming work.

Even a lousy 4 years with Trump in office would be a small price to pay for the possibility of reform in the next election cycle. Sadly I feel that the reforms most likely to come first will be the DNC and RNC clamping down in advance to prevent what we're seeing now ever happening again. Maybe with Trump in office some surprising thing would happen. The parties certainly don't want him, and they do want Hillary, so right away that tells me to do exactly the opposite of they want, whatever that is.

[DJQuag]

Yep.

And you know, if, god forbid, Trump by some accident did get elected,  well, we're allowed our mulligan. We're allowed our Reagan.

The generation that elected some idiot Hollywood actor - twice - and then made him out to be some kind of modern day Herculean demigod son of Jesus, doesn't get to lecture us about what type of risks we're allowed to take.

[JoshCrow]

Even a lousy 4 years with Trump in office would be a small price to pay for the possibility of reform in the next election cycle. Maybe with Trump in office some surprising thing would happen. The parties certainly don't want him, and they do want Hillary, so right away that tells me to do exactly the opposite of they want, whatever that is.

This could be a Pyrrhic victory. The cost of sending this message, as good as it would be, would be 4 years with a possible short-fused blowhard as commander in chief, one invested heavily in his image and easily goaded. I have come to think that Trump's mere personality is too dangerous to be allowed to be commander-in-chief. Trump is a prisoner of his own emotional neediness - he would be like a wrecking ball to American international relationships, and subsequently the global economy would suffer. He also has stated that climate change is a hoax and would seriously consider Sarah Palin for Energy Secretary. UNACCEPTABLE. He also wants to dismantle the EPA. As I understand it, you are particularly motivated by care of the environment... so you would be voting for considerable environmental hazard in order to send your message.

No, the success of Sanders currently indicates to me that we only have to be patient to get a GOOD outsider rather than a BAD one. It's just a matter of time until someone combines Sanders' ideas with a more presidential and youthful package. It could even be 2020 if Warren mounts a challenge to Clinton.

[Wayward Son]

The cost of sending this message, as good as it would be, would be 4 years with a possible short-fused blowhard as commander in chief, one invested heavily in his image and easily goaded. I have come to think that Trump's mere personality is too dangerous to be allowed to be commander-in-chief. Trump is a prisoner of his own emotional neediness - he would be like a wrecking ball to American international relationships, and subsequently the global economy would suffer.

I have a similar view, Josh.  Whenever I think of Trump, I'm reminded of that line from the TV series Better Call Saul, where Jimmy's brother explains why he hates the idea of Jimmy having become a lawyer.

"...Slippin' Jimmy I can handle just fine, but Slippin' Jimmy with a law degree is like a chimp with a machine gun."

[AI Wessex]

The generation that elected some idiot Hollywood actor - twice - and then made him out to be some kind of modern day Herculean demigod son of Jesus, doesn't get to lecture us about what type of risks we're allowed to take.

I disavow him and all the punks who have followed in his wake, too.  The last President to do serious good was actually Nixon, and he didn't want to.  He did more than equal harm to balance the books.  Before him there was a tradition of trying to do good back to FDR.  Clinton only wanted to be popular, and the pair of Bushes ushered in the modern era of anti-Americanism that will be with us for at least another generation. More recently, I think Obama hoped to restart it and tried to do good, but the country has changed so that no President is allowed that privilege any more.

[Pete at Home]

I never believed it possible, but the coordinated lies and distortion media campaign against Sanders is pissing me off enough that I'd rather Trump win than vote for Hillary.  The man absolutely disgusts me and is almost everything I stand against, and yet, he is beginning to seem the morally superior alternative to Clinton.

God help me, but I"m almost there myself.  But I think I can send a better message by writing Sanders in.

[Pete at Home]

"The last President to do serious good was actually Nixon, "

Astonished that a self proclaimed Jew would leave out Carter and Camp David from the "serious good" doers. 

[AI Wessex]

You're right that I wasn't thinking of that.  I was thinking about social programs in the US.

[Greg Davidson]

George W Bush was the candidate of those who said "Why not try something new?"  How could things be any worse than under Bill Clinton? Bush's odd gaps in knowledge didn't matter because he was supposed to be kept in-bounds by his advisors.

Went from $200B surplus on the day he arrived to the biggest economic collapse in 80 years and a $1.4T deficit on the day he left office.  He chose to blow off a briefing "bin Laden determined to strike in the United States" and then started a war with the wrong country after the attack happened. At least he never used nukes.

So what could possibly go wrong with Donald Trump?

 

[Fenring]

George W Bush was the candidate of those who said "Why not try something new?"  How could things be any worse than under Bill Clinton? Bush's odd gaps in knowledge didn't matter because he was supposed to be kept in-bounds by his advisors.

Went from $200B surplus on the day he arrived to the biggest economic collapse in 80 years and a $1.4T deficit on the day he left office.  He chose to blow off a briefing "bin Laden determined to strike in the United States" and then started a war with the wrong country after the attack happened. At least he never used nukes.

You're blaming the wrong guy for all of that.

[Seriati]

So what could possibly go wrong with Donald Trump?

Based on your "analysis" it wouldn't matter because the after the fact analysis is already decided.

[Pete at Home]

I wouldn't worry too much about it, LetterRip.

No matter how immoral Hillary and the media may get, I'm confident that Trump will do something even more immoral and/or incredibly stupid before the election.  I have faith in him.  (Well-founded, I think.) 

Is that faith in him, or in his arrangement to throw the election to her?

[AI Wessex]

I think we're past that, now.  If he wanted to taint the election and tilt it her way he would have gotten out by now.  I think he's really beginning to believe that Pinocchio can actually become a real boy.  How exciting?

[TheDeamon]

I think we're past that, now.  If he wanted to taint the election and tilt it her way he would have gotten out by now.  I think he's really beginning to believe that Pinocchio can actually become a real boy.  How exciting?

Exactly how was he supposed to get out of the election bid while in the lead? He can't just quit when he's the lead contender....

Make position statements that most people cringe over?

Do other remarkably stupid things to make it clear he is a terrible candidate choice?

Start taking policy positions that "everybody knows" doesn't play well to Republican voters?

[Pete at Home]

I think we're past that, now.  If he wanted to taint the election and tilt it her way he would have gotten out by now.  I think he's really beginning to believe that Pinocchio can actually become a real boy.  How exciting?

Save that argument until after Trump actually secures the GOP nomination.  Until then he's still clearly Hillary's creature, making her seem more presidential, and crippling those who oppose her.

[TheDeamon]

Save that argument until after Trump actually secures the GOP nomination.  Until then he's still clearly Hillary's creature, making her seem more presidential, and crippling those who oppose her.

His campaign has gone on record saying he will be running in the General Election regardless of the Republican Convention outcome. But the Independent Trump also is an even more unlikely Victor, so that still plays to him being a spoiler/publicity hound rather than an "actual" candidate trying to win the election.

[AI Wessex]

I honestly don't know which way to think about him, other than he has decimated his GOP competition.  Half of the credit for that goes to the miserable weakness of the candidate pool and his extraordinary ability to exploit how the others crumbled under his pointless personal attacks.  But something is impelling him forward.  For the spoiler theory to hold he would have had to think he could whittle the field down to a nubbin, but he succeeded so easily that he began to believe in the very value of his own soaring ego along the way.  Wow, if I can handle 16 of these guys at once while saying stupid *censored* about myself, I bet I could steal any deal from anybody...

[Pete at Home]

Save that argument until after Trump actually secures the GOP nomination.  Until then he's still clearly Hillary's creature, making her seem more presidential, and crippling those who oppose her.

His campaign has gone on record saying he will be running in the General Election regardless of the Republican Convention outcome. But the Independent Trump also is an even more unlikely Victor, so that still plays to him being a spoiler/publicity hound rather than an "actual" candidate trying to win the election.

Which is what i said from the beginning was Trump's intent, to hand Hillary the election.  And Al said that was a crazy conspiracy theory. Not so crazy now.

[AI Wessex]

Yes, still crazy, but since nobody has ever been able to figure him out, crazy fits him better than most other explanations.  So I'm willing to allow that running for President in order to lose is a possibility.

You could make the case that Cruz is intentionally throwing away his chances for the nomination by picking Carly Fiorina to be his early VP choice.  It's hard for me to read that announcement any other way.  If you doubt that, check out this pic from his news conference about her.

[AI Wessex]

Just a thought, but a test to see if Trump is intentionally trying to lose would be for him also to pick Fiorina as his running mate.

[TheDeamon]

I honestly don't know which way to think about him, other than he has decimated his GOP competition.  Half of the credit for that goes to the miserable weakness of the candidate pool and his extraordinary ability to exploit how the others crumbled under his pointless personal attacks.  But something is impelling him forward.  For the spoiler theory to hold he would have had to think he could whittle the field down to a nubbin, but he succeeded so easily that he began to believe in the very value of his own soaring ego along the way.

Not so much, this isn't Trump's first attempt at the Republican nomination, it just was the first time he garnered a significant portion of the vote. The expectation of him getting "excessive" press coverage after announcing his run this time also was unsurprising. All you had to know/remember was some of the post-mortem analysis of the 2012 Romney campaign.

One of the deciding factors in that race was the Hispanic Demographic in some key states. Romney polled poorly with Hispanic voters, due in large part to campaign adds that Obama + associated PACs were running containing footage from the earlier primary race. Where Romney was taking positions on immigration in response to Trump gaining ground in that primary season with that same issue. Obama had Trump to thank for his 2012 win, and expecting Clinton to likewise (knowingly, beforehand) benefit from his involvement in Republican Primary Politics is unsurprising. (Particularly given his ties to the Clintons)

Likewise,our glorious "unbiased" national media being what it is, and knowing Trump is a magnet for controversy, and had a proven(2012) track record for embarrassing Republican candidates. It was only natural they were going to zero in on him and make the Republican Primary as much about Donald Trump as they could get away with. I don't think "they" or Trump expected this outcome, but between them, they've created a proverbial political *censored*storm for this cycle.

[TheDeamon]

Just a thought, but a test to see if Trump is intentionally trying to lose would be for him also to pick Fiorina as his running mate.

Nah, Christie's eyerolling wife is a better veep pick for that I think.

[Wayward Son]

We've all heard about how Trump supporters are working-class people who are worried about the economy.

Well, an analysis of Trump voters at FiveThirtyEight shows that, while they are worried about the economy, they are actually better off than most of the nation.

As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both...

Trump voters’ median income exceeded the overall statewide median in all 23 states, sometimes narrowly (as in New Hampshire or Missouri) but sometimes substantially. In Florida, for instance, the median household income for Trump voters was about $70,000, compared with $48,000 for the state as a whole. The differences are usually larger in states with substantial non-white populations, as black and Hispanic voters are overwhelmingly Democratic and tend to have lower incomes. In South Carolina, for example, the median Trump supporter had a household income of $72,000, while the median for Clinton supporters was $39,000.

Ted Cruz voters have a similar median income to Trump supporters — about $73,000. Kasich’s supporters have a very high median income, $91,000, and it has exceeded $100,000 in several states. Rubio’s voters, not displayed in the table above, followed a similar pattern to Kasich voters, with a median income of $88,000.

Many of the differences reflect that Republican voters are wealthier overall than Democratic ones, and also that wealthier Americans are more likely to turn out to vote, especially in the primaries. However, while Republican turnout has considerably increased overall from four years ago, there’s no sign of a particularly heavy turnout among “working-class” or lower-income Republicans. On average in states where exit polls were conducted both this year and in the Republican campaign four years ago, 29 percent of GOP voters have had household incomes below $50,000 this year, compared with 31 percent in 2012.

The median income for Clinton and Sanders voters — $61,000 for each candidate — is generally much closer to the overall median income in each state. But even Democratic turnout tends to skew slightly toward a wealthier electorate, somewhat validating Sanders’s claim that “poor people don’t vote.” I estimate that 27 percent of American households had incomes under $30,000 last year. By comparison, 20 percent of Clinton voters did, as did 18 percent of Sanders supporters. (Those figures imply Clinton might have a bigger edge on Sanders if more poor people voted, although it would depend on whether they were black, white or Hispanic.) Both Democratic candidates do better than the Republicans in this category, however. Only 12 percent of Trump voters have incomes below $30,000; when you also consider that Clinton has more votes than Trump overall, that means about twice as many low-income voters have cast a ballot for Clinton than for Trump so far this year.

So while Trump voters are worried about the economy, it's not because they are personally suffering at the moment.  More likely, they are worried about suffering in the future if the economy becomes worse.

[JoshuaD]

I'm certainly not voting for either Hilary or Trump. I'll need to find a 3rd party candidate I like, or maybe I'll write in Bernie. I like Bernie a lot, and I'd vote for him if he were major party candidate, but I don't think he'll be my write-in vote.

I don't believe in opposition voting. I won't vote for someone I don't like in order to oppose someone I like even less. That's just ugly.

[AI Wessex]

You wouldn't vote for Mussolini to keep Hitler out of power?

[Wayward Son]

I don't believe in opposition voting. I won't vote for someone I don't like in order to oppose someone I like even less. That's just ugly.

To articulate AI's point, you should only do that if you seriously believe that the two top candidates are essentially equal.  In other words, one is just as bad as the other.

Because, as ugly as it may be, a lesser of two evils is still a lesser evil.

[Pete at Home]

I don't believe in opposition voting. I won't vote for someone I don't like in order to oppose someone I like even less. That's just ugly.

To articulate AI's point, you should only do that if you seriously believe that the two top candidates are essentially equal.  In other words, one is just as bad as the other.

Because, as ugly as it may be, a lesser of two evils is still a lesser evil.

Not if Hitler and Mousolini sat down beforehand and agreed to collude to clear out their rivals.  In that case, there is one evil with two faces, like good cop bad cop.  Not voting simply sends the message that you are not fooled by the charade.

[Pete at Home]

Otoh i would not vote for Pau Ryan, either.

[yossarian22c]

Not voting sends the message you don't care, voting for the green, libertarian, or write in sends a message, albeit one that politicians seldom seem to care about b/c so few voters do it.

[Fenring]

Not voting sends the message you don't care, voting for the green, libertarian, or write in sends a message, albeit one that politicians seldom seem to care about b/c so few voters do it.

I wish what you say were true, but that could only apply in the case of a very active electorate. In the current climate I think a low voter turnout says more than does people who can be written off as quacks by the major parties. People who actively defy the parties by writing in are probably seen as a lost cause to them, since people who actively dislike what the parties are doing probably won't change their minds unless the parties change first. Since they don't care to do that I think they prefer to cater to swing voters as well as those who might otherwise not bother voting. In both cases they can appeal to undecided or unmotivated voters since hot topics or scandals can potentially sway them. It likely takes more than that to sway a conscientious objector, which to me means a write-in vote isn't much more than a write-off.

[Pete at Home]

Not voting sends the message you don't care, voting for the green, libertarian, or write in sends a message, albeit one that politicians seldom seem to care about b/c so few voters do it.

I think they would care if over 24% of the vote went to the 3pc

[AI Wessex]

I think a lot of people have "dropped out" of politics.  If you keep to your own business and can work around the laws that the idiots inflict, then it doesn't matter who runs that side of life.  For instance, I live in Michigan, but not in Flint, am semi-retired and keep a low profile.  There are a lot of people like me who simply don't care.  I do care and will vote, but I also wonder how it would directly affect me if Trump is elected.

[Wayward Son]

I don't believe in opposition voting. I won't vote for someone I don't like in order to oppose someone I like even less. That's just ugly.

To articulate AI's point, you should only do that if you seriously believe that the two top candidates are essentially equal.  In other words, one is just as bad as the other.

Because, as ugly as it may be, a lesser of two evils is still a lesser evil.

Not if Hitler and Mousolini sat down beforehand and agreed to collude to clear out their rivals.  In that case, there is one evil with two faces, like good cop bad cop.  Not voting simply sends the message that you are not fooled by the charade.

As I said, only if you seriously believe that the two top candidates are essentially equal.

One evil with two faces is precisely that.

However, in this election, I don't see Hillary and Trump as being essentially equal, if only because of the parties they represent.  Hillary's choices for the courts, especially the Supreme Court, will be dramatically different from Trump's.  Hillary's choices for her cabinet, and their choices for the staff, will be dramatically different from Trump's.

If you seriously don't think it would make a difference if the next Supreme Court justice was another Alito vs another Ginsberg, then yeah, don't vote.  But if you think one would be better than the other, then vote for the lesser evil.

Because lesser evils create less evil.

[Gaoics79]

Trump versus Hillary is like a choice between the Baatzu (Hillary) and the Tanari (Trump). Where do you want to be ruled from: the Nine Hells or the Abyss? The choice is yours.