Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Bollocks]

They only do not have a shot when people believe they do not have a shot. Yes, they do have a shot. But if you say, "They aren't going to win anyway, so I better vote for a major party", then, sure, they are unlikely to win - when even people supporting them refuse to vote for them!

That is if people believe they have a shot. Looking at 538 Jhonson it at 0.1% and at the polls he is around 9% I think. If I show you that data would you vote for that candidate? If you are answer is no, then you are part of another well documented phenomenon called The bandwagon effect. In which people vote for candidates that are winning or have a chance at winning so they can generate utility with their vote.

[Kujako]

Not realistic is a fair argument, but it doesn't mean it's not possible as most keep stating. The main reason it's not realistic is that both parties have the nation brainwashed that they are the only options.

Well no... the main reason is that the entire system is built around the idea of a two party system. From the majority of delegates needed to the panel deciding who gets into the debates being a "bipartisan" committee.

[zenkai]

Well no... the main reason is that the entire system is built around the idea of a two party system. From the majority of delegates needed to the panel deciding who gets into the debates being a "bipartisan" committee.

I already explained why that's bullshit.

[NYC17]

Not realistic is a fair argument, but it doesn't mean it's not possible as most keep stating. The main reason it's not realistic is that both parties have the nation brainwashed that they are the only options.

They are the only option, realistically. The two party system was born from our larger system of government. You can talk about changing things but it'd require a much larger change to our system, such as proportional representation.

[Kujako]

I already explained why that's bullshit.

I so, I missed it. Regardless of your opinion, even if Gary Johnson gets to 15% in the polls, he wont be in the debates. The Republicans and Democrats don't benefit from letting him in, and they control the events.

[May90]

That is if people believe they have a shot. Looking at 538 Jhonson it at 0.1% and at the polls he is around 9% I think. If I show you that data would you vote for that candidate? If you are answer is no, then you are part of another well documented phenomenon called The bandwagon effect. In which people vote for candidates that are winning or have a chance at winning so they can generate utility with their vote.

Personally, I would vote for the candidate I support, regardless of how popular they are. In these elections, I would vote for Hillary, because I like her as a candidate. But if I supported Johnson, I would vote for him.

[Kujako]

Personally, I would vote for the candidate I support, regardless of how popular they are. In these elections, I would vote for Hillary, because I like her as a candidate. But if I supported Johnson, I would vote for him.

I've always been a political pessimist, I tend to vote against people rather than for them.

[zenkai]

http://workingfamilies.org/wp-conten...atisfusion.pdf

[Bollocks]

Personally, I would vote for the candidate I support, regardless of how popular they are. In these elections, I would vote for Hillary, because I like her as a candidate. But if I supported Johnson, I would vote for him.

But then you are not generating utility from your vote.

[May90]

I've always been a political pessimist, I tend to vote against people rather than for them.

I am closer to a political optimist.

But then you are not generating utility from your vote.

I am expressing my opinion by voting for the candidate I support. It is a matter of integrity and honesty.

[Lenonis]

thanks for the laughs good sir. You thinking i support bernie made my night!

*whooooooooooooosh*

[Symphonic]

The best thing people can do is say you're going to vote for Johnson. If you get polled, just pick him. There is no downside in allowing him in to the debate, but there is a downside of people think they only have two choices.

[Wulfey]

That is if people believe they have a shot. Looking at 538 Jhonson it at 0.1% and at the polls he is around 9% I think. If I show you that data would you vote for that candidate? If you are answer is no, then you are part of another well documented phenomenon called The bandwagon effect. In which people vote for candidates that are winning or have a chance at winning so they can generate utility with their vote.

Jill Stein is on the ballot in 27 states out of 50. I don't care what top line polls of her versus Harambe say, her campaign is a sham.

Green Party: 27 states
https://ballotpedia.org/Jill_Stein_p...campaign,_2016

[BannedForViews]

Well unfortunately Clinton HAS to look extra strong, like a Thatcher, otherwise she'll be attacked as weak and emotional simply because she's a woman (unfortunately this is just the way the world works). The other issue is that politicians have decided (for some reason or another) that in this time of uncertainty due to terrorism and weird economy, people are looking for a "strong" active leader, rather than a "cool" passive one.

Like we did with obama?

[Lenonis]

Jill Stein is on the ballot in 27 states out of 50.

This information needs to get out there. Jill Stein literally cannot win in any reasonable and most of the unreasonable scenarios.

Gary Johnson is only on the ballot in 39 states. He also cannot win.

These third party candidates need to get serious about running locally and building up power -- not pop up every 4 years to collect upset voters to spoil the party they closest resemble.

[Symphonic]

This information needs to get out there. Jill Stein literally cannot win in any reasonable and most of the unreasonable scenarios.

Gary Johnson is only on the ballot in 39 states. He also cannot win.

These third party candidates need to get serious about running locally and building up power -- not pop up every 4 years to collect upset voters to spoil the party they closest resemble.

He met all the deadlines for all 50 states. He will be on all 50. Stein will not be.

[BannedForViews]

I'm pretty okay with having the Status Quo for another 4-8 years when the only other real option is what the actual fuck did he just say.

You mean tye status quo of 110 TRILLION new dollars being in circulation? That status quo? Yea but that just means we are all better off right?

[Lenonis]

He met all the deadlines for all 50 states. He will be on all 50. Stein will not be.

Oh -- my bad then.

Of course he still doesn't have a prayer of winning. lol

[BannedForViews]

But then you are not generating utility from your vote.

Most people are not genersting utility from their votes. Millions will waste thei time voting for trump in california, and clinton in texas.

[I Push Buttons]

The best thing people can do is say you're going to vote for Johnson. If you get polled, just pick him. There is no downside in allowing him in to the debate, but there is a downside of people think they only have two choices.

Sure there is because nothing he says is of literally any relevance.

The only way he becomes president is if he WINS pluralities in 271 states worth of electoral votes. That simply isn't going to happen...

But throwing all logic and common sense out the window and assuming he actually was able to accomplish that (which once again he can't)... NONE of his agenda would matter... Both parties would oppose him... Both parties would overturn any executive order. His presidency would be four years of absolutely nothing. Congress will pass their own budgets completely ignoring everything he says and call a mulligan until four years later.

So literally all putting him in the debate will do is prevent the two people, one of whom will actually become president guaranteed, from discussing their potential presidencies.