Who will you vote for in 2016?

[Valley Oak]

I am going to vote for Hillary Clinton unless someone else more compelling arrives.

[busyb555]

Ed, you have to be kidding.

i am going to vote for hillary clinton unless someone else more compelling arrives.

[Roland Jacopetti]

I'm afraid Hillary is way too corporate for me; Bill screwed us up so badly with NAFTA and all, that I'm not excited about yet another Clinton. Just imagine - yet-another-Clinton vs. yet-another-Bush. No, thanks. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the only presidential-calibre names on my horizon. I really think this tired old 2-party mockery, with its ever-increasing dependence on big bucks, has just got to go. I also think that national elections should be limited to six or seven weeks of campaigning, paid for by the state with private money barred. Think I'll get my wish? Yeah, I know. Gotta admit, I'm still pretty gloomy over this last fiasco. Where is a national democratic socialist party when you really need one?

I am going to vote for Hillary Clinton unless someone else more compelling arrives.

[meherc]

At this point, Nobody for president again or Abbie Hoffman even though he's dead. It's kind of early to tell.

[Valley Oak]

Remember, I also said, "...unless someone else more compelling arrives."

Can you think of someone "more compelling"? My eyes and ears are wide open!

Ed, you have to be kidding.

[busyb555]

I would suggest you look to the right. I can only imagine how upset you are, with the bumbling that we have witnessed from the top down. And, I do not for a minute think Bush was worth a plug, but we must fix the mess or all pay the price. The many failed policies, no matter which party put them in place MUST be replaced with plain old common sense. If you are happy with what we have, keep voting for the likes of Hillary or other failed politicians. Me, I will not support any of the old guard, any of the established old dogs that are content to rob us all of our future. There will be great opportunities, just take off your rose colored glasses and look at things like it mattered, cuz it does.

Remember, I also said, "...unless someone else more compelling arrives."

Can you think of someone "more compelling"? My eyes and ears are wide open!

[podfish]

Remember, I also said, "...unless someone else more compelling arrives."

Can you think of someone "more compelling"? My eyes and ears are wide open!

let's rephrase that - "do you think it's likely that someone more compelling will have a snowball's chance in hell of making it to the ballot?". 'Cuz hell yeah I can think of many more compelling people. But I'm not big on protest voting. And it's not easy to trigger the revolution on demand.

[MarilynO]

I am tired of voting for the "lessor of two evils." I joined the Green Party a few years ago. I used to feel third party candidates were just spoilers taking votes away from the least disturbing candidate. Now I am tired of playing the game and want to vote for somebody real as a statement against our two-party system that is supporting oligarchy. If Elizabeth Warren ran for President I would vote for her. I don't like Hillary because she sides with Factory Farms and GMOs. If Hillary and Elizabeth shared a ticket I don't know what I'd do…. I trust Warren. She seems to be sincere, rational, courageous, and have a lot of integrity. If the Democrats came up with a Warren/Kucinich ticket I would be in. Things get weirder every year… ever since I laughed my ass off when I heard Reagan might run for president and then…. he WON! America has not been the same since with his trickle down theory and turning state mental patients out in the street to cut the budget. We all know what trickled down and it wasn't money.
Now I will stop or I will rant for four hours and wonder why I am tired when the alarm goes off in the morning.

At this point, Nobody for president again or Abbie Hoffman even though he's dead. It's kind of early to tell.

[Valley Oak]

I have a very good view of the entire Right Wing field of candidates and potential candidates. I have had a very good view of the Right Wing in general for the last +30 years...

...and as always it stinks worse than a mass grave that hasn't been covered over with dirt.

[podfish]

I would suggest you look to the right. I can only imagine how upset you are, with the bumbling that we have witnessed from the top down..

this makes me recall one of my favorite inteviews I heard on the radio (of course, NPR!) years ago.
IIRC they were doing a follow-up interview with a conservative Ohio dentist. They'd embedded a reporter with the guy in 2000, who joined the dentist in watching the Gore/Bush debate so he could discuss and record his reactions. The follow-up had the same setup, this time watching the Kerry/Bush debate. As a prelude, the reporter discussed Bush with the dentist, who was very unhappy with what Bush was doing and the plans he had. He was pretty sure he wanted him out, claiming to be "independent" and not necessarily a party-line Republican.
However, during the debate the dentist kept saying things regarding Kerry like "I don't believe what he's saying.. it all seems fake and calculated" and as for Bush: "He's really committed to what he says. I trust him to do what he says. I'm going to support him." When the disbelieving reporter pointed out that the things Bush said he was going to do were things that the dentist had said he didn't want done, all he could do was stammer on about how Bush had a lot of integrity, compared to that weasel Kerry.
This supports my fondness for the Haidt theory of personality. This presumably well-educated, self-avowed independent thinker is sucked in by the subtext and perceived characteristics of each candidate. He's the stereotypical man who's led by reason and not emotion because of his scientific world view, but it all falls away at the slightest challenge.
So, are you saying that we should be so disgusted by the bumbling of those who at least purport to share our world-view and our goals for the country's future, that we'd abandon our ideals and instead choose the dude who claims he'll make the trains run on time? Respect for efficiency isn't one of Haidt's pillars, but maybe it should be - maybe that is indeed one of the explanations for why people voted for things like the minimum wage proposals while at the same time voting for people who oppose such things.

[wisewomn]

Don't forget, Hillary also supports the Keystone XL pipeline, among other horrors.

I also voted for the Green ticket in the last major election, and very well may do so in the next one. If all the disaffected lefties actually voted Green, we could win the next election.

Then there is this memorable quote from Utah Phillips: "If god had wanted us to vote, she would have given us candidates."

I am tired of voting for the "lessor of two evils." I joined the Green Party a few years ago. I used to feel third party candidates were just spoilers taking votes away from the least disturbing candidate. Now I am tired of playing the game and want to vote for somebody real as a statement against our two-party system that is supporting oligarchy. If Elizabeth Warren ran for President I would vote for her. I don't like Hillary because she sides with Factory Farms and GMOs. If Hillary and Elizabeth shared a ticket I don't know what I'd do…. I trust Warren. She seems to be sincere, rational, courageous, and have a lot of integrity. If the Democrats came up with a Warren/Kucinich ticket I would be in. Things get weirder every year… ever since I laughed my ass off when I heard Reagan might run for president and then…. he WON! America has not been the same since with his trickle down theory and turning state mental patients out in the street to cut the budget. We all know what trickled down and it wasn't money.
Now I will stop or I will rant for four hours and wonder why I am tired when the alarm goes off in the morning.

[busyb555]

Tell me once more why you oppose the pipeline.

Don't forget, Hillary also supports the Keystone XL pipeline, among other horrors.

I also voted for the Green ticket in the last major election, and very well may do so in the next one. If all the disaffected lefties actually voted Green, we could win the next election.

Then there is this memorable quote from Utah Phillips: "If god had wanted us to vote, she would have given us candidates."

[wisewomn]

There are lots of compelling reasons, most of them having to do with the potential for massive environmental degradation. Google "risks of Keystone XL Pipeline." Here's a good place to start: https://www.tarsandsblockade.org/abo...hy-oppose-kxl/

Tell me once more why you oppose the pipeline.

[Pickles]

I saw Elizabeth Warren on Late Nite with Seth Meyers the other nite and she was very compelling! She is making the rounds with her new book "A Fighting Chance". I haven't read, but is on my reading list. She is the daughter of a janitor, is Harvard educated and the book talks about her rise to the Senate and her values. Here's Amazon's overview of the book:

A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLERAn unlikely political star tells the inspiring story of the two-decade journey that taught her how Washington really works—and really doesn’t—in A Fighting Chance
As a child in small-town Oklahoma, Elizabeth Warren yearned to go to college and then become an elementary school teacher—an ambitious goal, given her family’s modest means. Early marriage and motherhood seemed to put even that dream out of reach, but fifteen years later she was a distinguished law professor with a deep understanding of why people go bankrupt. Then came the phone call that changed her life: could she come to Washington DC to help advise Congress on rewriting the bankruptcy laws?
Thus began an impolite education into the bare-knuckled, often dysfunctional ways of Washington. She fought for better bankruptcy laws for ten years and lost. She tried to hold the federal government accountable during the financial crisis but became a target of the big banks. She came up with the idea for a new agency designed to protect consumers from predatory bankers and was denied the opportunity to run it. Finally, at age 62, she decided to run for elective office and won the most competitive—and watched—Senate race in the country.
In this passionate, funny, rabble-rousing book, Warren shows why she has chosen to fight tooth and nail for the middle class—and why she has become a hero to all those who believe that America’s government can and must do better for working families.

Also, to add, I just saw that yesterday she was promoted in the Senate by Harry Reid to a newly created role of Special Advisor.

I would keep your eyes and ears on her. She just might be the change we need.

It's time we had a WOMAN in the White House!!!
(And, if all else fails, yes I would vote for Hillary, but am hoping that Elizabeth Warren can get a fighting chance!)

Remember, I also said, "...unless someone else more compelling arrives."

Can you think of someone "more compelling"? My eyes and ears are wide open!

[podfish]

There are lots of compelling reasons, most of them having to do with the potential for massive environmental degradation. Google "risks of Keystone XL Pipeline." Here's a good place to start: https://www.tarsandsblockade.org/abo...hy-oppose-kxl/

and you could reverse the question - why allow it? the single best argument, and the one that its touts push to the front though I don't think it really is primary in their own minds, is that it'll create jobs. The same type of jobs could be created by infrastructure upgrades that are way overdue and that benefit far more people than a pipeline would. The pipeline is a perfect example of the kind of project where the benefits are huge but narrowly targeted, and the equally huge costs are dispersed, deferred and largely disguised.

[wisewomn]

Well said, podfish!

and you could reverse the question - why allow it? the single best argument, and the one that its touts push to the front though I don't think it really is primary in their own minds, is that it'll create jobs. The same type of jobs could be created by infrastructure upgrades that are way overdue and that benefit far more people than a pipeline would. The pipeline is a perfect example of the kind of project where the benefits are huge but narrowly targeted, and the equally huge costs are dispersed, deferred and largely disguised.

[Karen the KAT]

So do you really believe that the mega-banks, who BTW, have all the money, do not have enough money to buy every single Democrat and Republican politician?

Do you really think they could become and continue to be mega-banks without owning every single one of them?

Maybe that's why every single member of the House and Senate has TWO full-time, dedicated Goldman Sachs lobbyists assigned to them.

We are talking about LAWYERS here ok?

Lawyers and bankers. Not like they are selfish, greedy and can't tell the truth or anything.

"Nah, we're just your friends mister rabbit and mister squirrel, we're not plastic explosives or nothin"... (Caddyshack in case you forgot...)

So tell me, do you believe that greedy, self obsessed, power hungry, lying, phony ass attorneys suddenly become good and honest people overnight by magic when they decide to run for office (97% of all members of Congress are attorneys)? If they don't take the money they can't afford to campaign for re-election and they lose everything: All the perks, special treatment, free everything, insider tips galore (half of what they vote on is classified), numbered accounts in the Caymans and all that lobbyist money, which BTW, if not spent on their election campaign, they get to legally keep as tax-free personal income after each election cycle.

If they are such good people, how come the rich get richer and the middle class gets poorer regardless of which party is in power? The one percent have had the biggest gains EVER under their pet doggy Obama.

If you are not voting third party you are voting AGAINST yourself, no maybes about it. Elizabet Warren is just as big of a puppet as Hillary, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. etc. Pelosi, etc, Reid, etc, etc... Boehner, etc, etc.. for the simple reason that even if she wanted to be ethical and honest, is not going to be allowed to do so and show up her peers.

Take your pick, happy delusion or ugly reality, how are you going to lead your life?

Most people want to hear what they want to hear, they want the lies because they feel warm and fuzzy and they can always blame the other party when it invariably doesn't turn out as promised.

Most people are a danger to themselves and everybody else because they choose willful ignorance instead of reality.

What is really crazy is that we all learned in 5th grade that our vote doesn't have any legal power to decide anything unless one is a member of Congress, the Senate or the SCOTUS, and so we are really free to vote for an ethical, third party candidate and at least feel good about that, but most vote for one of the liars of the two major parties anyway because they are not even true to themselves.

So, who are you voting for???

[podfish]

So do you really believe that the mega-banks, who BTW, have all the money, do not have enough money to buy every single Democrat and Republican politician?

Do you really think they could become and continue to be mega-banks without owning every single one of them?

Maybe that's why every single member of the House and Senate has TWO full-time, dedicated Goldman Sachs lobbyists assigned to them.

We are talking about LAWYERS here ok?

Lawyers and bankers. Not like they are selfish, greedy and can't tell the truth or anything.

nice strong black & white colors ... no need for messy shades of gray here. I can smell Robespierre coming to power after this revolution. Except, wait, he won't survive it - he's a lawyer, I forgot. So we get Jack Cade's buddy Dick to lead instead.

[Jim Wilson]

My main focus, when deciding who to vote for at the presidential level, is foreign policy. And from that perspective I am unable to vote for Hillary Clinton. She voted for the U.S. attack on Iraq and has never apologized for that vote, never offered any kind of regret, even of a mild kind. Both she and her husband are enthusiastic interventionists; a policy that I think has been disastrous for the U.S. For me, this is a deal breaker. In a situation where HRC was the Democratic nominee I would either vote for a third party or refrain from voting at all at the level of the president.

[Valley Oak]

Nice rant but you didn't answer the question, "Who will you (Karen) vote for in 2016?"

So do you really believe that the mega-banks, who BTW, have all the money, do not have enough money to buy every single Democrat and Republican politician?...

[Valley Oak]

You would be better off working for electoral reform so that we could enjoy Proportional Representation and a multi-party system. That way, when you vote for a 3rd or 4th or 5th party, you WILL be represented at every level of government.

Unfortunately, with our current 'winner take all,' 'single member districts,' and 'first-past-the-post' system of electing our leaders, voting for a 3rd party is a delusional waste of time with no hope whatsoever of seeing your candidate win any public executive office. The exception is a victory in a small, local jurisdiction like Sebastopol, where there has already been at least one Green mayor.

.... In a situation where HRC was the Democratic nominee I would either vote for a third party or refrain from voting at all at the level of the president.

[Roland Jacopetti]

My main focus, when deciding who to vote for at the presidential level, is foreign policy. And from that perspective I am unable to vote for Hillary Clinton. She voted for the U.S. attack on Iraq and has never apologized for that vote, never offered any kind of regret, even of a mild kind. Both she and her husband are enthusiastic interventionists; a policy that I think has been disastrous for the U.S. For me, this is a deal breaker. In a situation where HRC was the Democratic nominee I would either vote for a third party or refrain from voting at all at the level of the president.

She's also pro-Keystone Pipeline.

[Karl Frederick]

I see nothing delusional about refusing to support someone who does not represent what I want to see in the office-holder. Change needs to start somewhere, and voting my preference is where I start. In a pivotal moment in 2012, for the first time in decades of voting, I marked my ballot for a third party presidential candidate.

. . . voting for a 3rd party is a delusional waste of time . . .

[Valley Oak]

I understand what you are saying.

But you cannot elect a third party candidate through the same broken electoral system that will NOT allow you to do so in the first place. It is a catch 22.

There have only been 3 major political parties in all of US history. The last and only party to die was the Whig Party. This happened because of the national crisis of impending civil war. That is how the Republican Party was born, from the ashes of the Whig Party, anti-slavery Democrats, and others.

Unless there is a colossal national event that shakes the system at its foundation, such as the Civil War (1861-1865), there is no chance whatsoever of your electing a 3rd party, such as the Greens, etc. This is the fundamental fact that you are ignoring.

If you want systemic change then you need to work for electoral reform, because no one outside of the 2 party system (Dems & Reps) can be successfully elected to the White House; the current system will not allow it.

To believe that you can substantially reform public policies in the US by using its obsolete two-party system is not only folly, but it is also the same folly and quandary that millions of Americans have struggled against unsuccessfully for more that 2 centuries. Thinking that this undemocratic dynamic is going to be different this time is a consequence of neglecting over two-hundred years of US history.

When in the year 2000 irate Democrats sharply reproached Greens for Bush's victory, I pushed back hard against them because their attitude and anger was unfair. American citizens have a constitutional right to vote. The US citizens who exercised their right to vote for the Green Party were looking for an alternative to the political party duopoly of the "Republicrats" because neither was addressing many of the most important issues facing the country.

What I retorted to wrong-headed Democrats is that our system is a low-quality democracy because there are only 2 parties to choose from and that they needed to be angry with the electoral system, not the Greens. How would you like to go to the supermarket to buy your goods but having only two brands to choose from? Not very democratic, especially if you like the metaphor of dollars as votes.

That said, until we reform the electoral laws, it is crucial to keep Republicans away from power and choose the least of two evils. Why? Because it is an enormous mistake to put your faith in a system that betrays you. You cannot elect a 3rd party candidate to any of the major public offices (except a few local ones) because the system is designed to favor only 2 political parties through first-past-the-post, single-member-districts, winner-take-all elections, and other factors.

Again, if you want to see a candidate that you believe in to become President, Senator, etc, then your first move is to reform electoral laws and establish Proportional Representation and a multi-party system. Otherwise, it is a waste of time to vote for a 3rd party candidate.

Neither of the two major political parties are interested in electoral reform because it is obvious that the current system benefits them. Why would they change success? We need to achieve systemic change before we are able to "kick the bums out" and put good people like Nader, Kucinich, Sanders, Warren, and others.

Edward Mendoza, MPA

I see nothing delusional about refusing to support someone who does not represent what I want to see in the office-holder. Change needs to start somewhere, and voting my preference is where I start. In a pivotal moment in 2012, for the first time in decades of voting, I marked my ballot for a third party presidential candidate.

[podfish]

... you cannot elect a third party candidate through the same broken electoral system that will NOT allow you to do so in the first place.

that being said, sometimes you can use your vote (or withhold it) to some effect. It's a dangerous tactic unless you're one who truly believes that both parties are indistinguishable. I'd argue strongly that such an impression is wrong. Do you think we'd have the same world if Al Gore had been the one dealing with 9/11 ?? At the time, even Iran wanted to show sympathy for the US. But the cowboys had taken over. And there are other examples. To me, examples like those mean I'd never risk allowing any Republican to take power. But the Democrats haven't exactly earned support.

That's what Karl focused on in his post - who will he support. But sadly, that's not the issue. I suspect for most voters, especially those who fear the Kenyan socialist, voting is more about trying to thwart, not support, certain people among those who want to set policy.

[Shepherd]

My dream-team, would be Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, mentioned on this thread, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. They are the most rational, sane, and progressive Congressmembers.

[Jim Wilson]

I see nothing delusional about refusing to support someone who does not represent what I want to see in the office-holder. Change needs to start somewhere, and voting my preference is where I start. In a pivotal moment in 2012, for the first time in decades of voting, I marked my ballot for a third party presidential candidate.

Interesting -- the same thing happened to me in 2012. I understand what Edward is saying, but I have a different perspective. For me voting isn't a matter of winning (or just winning). Voting is a means of expressing my view and acting on my perspective. At the national level, at the level of the president in particular, foreign policy is more important to me than domestic issues. What the U.S. does to others trumps what we are doing to ourselves. And I think what the U.S. is doing to other countries is truly deplorable; it is both harmful to those other countries and, ultimately, harmful to the interests of the U.S.

According to studies I have read a lot of citizens are anti-interventionist; but those who feel this way have no outlet to express that view because both parties are completely dominated by extreme interventionists, dominated by those who have absorbed the idea of American exceptionalism and therefore have no moral compass or brake on their activities in the world.

I believe that refraining from voting is a legitimate expression of democracy, just as refraining from a discussion with friends can, at times, be the best option. If both presidential candidates are unacceptable, then refraining from voting is, in my opinion, a legitimate mode of democratic activity. As is voting for a third party.

[Roland Jacopetti]

My dream-team, would be Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, mentioned on this thread, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. They are the most rational, sane, and progressive Congressmembers.

Hi, Shepherd. Edward Mendoza responded to this submission of yours, asking "What about Dennis Kucinich?" I've always liked Dennis, which is why I was surprised to see him go to work for Fox News as, I presume, their token Progressive. Even Dennis's presence on Fox isn't enough to make me tune it in.
Roland

[Shepherd]

I also like Kucinich. I was living in Hawai'i when he ran for president, and we gave him the most delegates of any state. I heard him and still have a shirt of his. However, I think that Senators Warren and Sanders are better positioned at this point in history to run a strong opposition to Hillary Clinton. I also voted for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, rather than Obama, in the last election

[Karen the KAT]

My dream-team, would be Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, mentioned on this thread, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. They are the most rational, sane, and progressive Congressmembers.

That's exactly what all you Waccos said about Obama in 2008, but big surprise, the bankers own him too, just like they own Bernie, Lizzy and every other politician because they have all the money, and they can't have all the money unless they own all the politicians. Which except for a few years of revolution every couple centuries, always have and always will.