.

The Libertarian Party candidate is not on 14 states' or DC's 2016 ballots.  If the Libertarian party is still short a few states, they can never get enough electoral votes, even if the popular vote splits 1/3 each for the 3 candidates. 

Mathematically, this third party isn't able to do what Perot did.  At one point, Perot was out polling both Bush and Clinton.  He spent almost $70M of his own money against a Democrat Governor from the South (remembrances of Carter) and an incumbent who was lashed with his own "read my lips" quote in every opposition ad out there.

I don't think someone like Perot could be the 3rd rail again due to the nature of politics and bias of the media today.

So, unless and until Johnson can appear on 100% of ballots in the US election, this discussion is moot. 


https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map

Simply put a third party vote is a wasted vote,

In Americas history only 1 3rd party president has been elected,

You can not build a political organization from the top down, if a 3rd party wants to win they have to build a solid foundation winning county, city and state seats first. They need to show why they are better and then back it up.

The electoral college is setup in such a way that a 3rd party candidate can not possibly win without the support of the states. Now if America was a true democracy where one person equaled one vote and one vote weighed equally again all other then a 3rd party might have a chance but it don't so they don't.


Here's how to fix the American political system:
One person, one vote:  Every vote is counted at the individual level and whoever gets the most wins,
Term limits for all positions : 2 terms 3 years each, president stays as current 4+4
Most importantly, set spending : no fund raising, no super pacs, no donations. Every candidate running gets a set amount to spend issued to them.

.

Ok so pick between a liar and a moron instead of try?

Trump is a billionaire.  He didn't get that rich being a "moron."  I've watched him on the apprentice shows.  He comes up with some extremely smart words of wisdom for the players.  No one has to agree with him 100% of the time, but he is right more times than not.

Hillary is not just a liar.  She's an unindicted criminal, and a complete failure in government.  For someone with 40 years experience, her resume is sorely lacking in significant achievements.

Are these the best we can find?  Of course not.  But, maybe it's the best we can convince to endure the ridiculing, mud slinging, closet-skeleton hunting and grueling campaigning schedule. 

Trump is funding the majority of his campaign.  He's asking for donations from individuals, but not from big businesses and PACs.  Hillary is the exact opposite, even though she and the money laundering Clinton Foundation have made her a multi-millionaire, if not a billionaire.

Between the two, I don't think Trump is a terrible choice.  Hillary should have just dropped out while under FBI investigation.  Most people of principle would have.

You can vote for whoever you want but a vote for any one other then trump is a vote for Hillary and a vote to ban firearms,

The next president owns SCOTUS and if Hillary wins Hella is gone and so is the right to bear arms for self defense, they will read the 2a as militia only and will ban the sale and ownership of as many guns as they can.

The problem with most people's opinion on trump is they listen to the media and only get 1/2 of what is said instead of looking at the whole conversation, if they go to his campaign website and look at his policy's the story would be different.

Trumps 2a policy is you have to right to own guns, the federal government should be enforcing that with a federal cow permit valid everywhere just like a drivers license

.

Trump would be my second choice.  The line between knowing what the people want and saying what the people want to hear is very flip floppity blurry.

Id like to see Hillary go to jail like any private would.

So, in terms of pies, if you hate Banana Creme, you like Chocolate, but the Fresh Strawberry you really like is out of season, would you refuse to order, or would you be happy that you had a choice other than one you hate?

So you want to vote for hillary eh? cause thats what johnson is

If it really came to choosing between a crazy person and corruption incarnate I would pick the crazy person because at least his platform I could agree with. But it is not the case that there are only two decisions. That is a lie that is fed time and time again by the media and the two parties in power.

They set up the system to keep out third party challengers. It's like a restaurant owner leaving a dish off the menu and saying "look, no one orders that dish." It is circular reasoning. The only thing that makes it true that a 3rd party vote is a waste is that people repeat it over and over again until people believe it.  If libertarians lost fare and square then oh well, but that is not the case. The system keeps them from getting their foot in the door. The media doesn't cover them and the Commission on Presidential Debates is controlled by the republicans and democrats so it has a vested interest in keeping them out. I say let the libertarian debate and if he still can't win then no one can cry foul.

People want to blame 3rd party voters for the loss of their candidate but if that logic holds true, they are equally responsible for the loss of the third party candidate. Furthermore, a vote for one candidate doesn't necessarily indicate a loss of a vote for a particular candidate. Years ago I voted for Nader and democrats blamed Nader for their loss. But guess what, in absence of Nader I wasn't going to vote democrat, I would have voted republican.

Vote 3rd party if that is how you want. We are in a blue state anyway, you aren't going to hurt Trump's chances. I will not be shamed into voting for a certain party. The republicans don't get my vote by default, they have to earn it. Tired of republicans who aren't conservative and if they have to learn their lesson the hard way then so be it.

There, that is my rant for your reading pleasure.

.

If it really came to choosing between a crazy person and corruption incarnate I would pick the crazy person because at least his platform I could agree with. But it is not the case that there are only two decisions. That is a lie that is fed time and time again by the media and the two parties in power.

They set up the system to keep out third party challengers. It's like a restaurant owner leaving a dish off the menu and saying "look, no one orders that dish." It is circular reasoning. The only thing that makes it true that a 3rd party vote is a waste is that people repeat it over and over again until people believe it.  If libertarians lost fare and square then oh well, but that is not the case. The system keeps them from getting their foot in the door. The media doesn't cover them and the Commission on Presidential Debates is controlled by the republicans and democrats so it has a vested interest in keeping them out. I say let the libertarian debate and if he still can't win then no one can cry foul.

People want to blame 3rd party voters for the loss of their candidate but if that logic holds true, they are equally responsible for the loss of the third party candidate. Furthermore, a vote for one candidate doesn't necessarily indicate a loss of a vote for a particular candidate. Years ago I voted for Nader and democrats blamed Nader for their loss. But guess what, in absence of Nader I wasn't going to vote democrat, I would have voted republican.

Vote 3rd party if that is how you want. We are in a blue state anyway, you aren't going to hurt Trump's chances. I will not be shamed into voting for a certain party. The republicans don't get my vote by default, they have to earn it. Tired of republicans who aren't conservative and if they have to learn their lesson the hard way then so be it.

There, that is my rant for your reading pleasure.

I'd agree with this.  This state has no say in it, and if the popular vote said so, they would probably vote otherwise anyway, because that is how they roll.

I'm not voting for Johnson, but the fact of the matter is Hawaii vote for president doesn't matter.

if those pies were infected with AIDS it wouldn't be much of a choice.

That's not even close to a valid analogy.  You were giving us your PREFERENCES, but now you're saying you don't like ANY of the choices.

Please make up your mind.

.

You can vote for whoever you want but a vote for any one other then trump is a vote for Hillary and a vote to ban firearms,

The next president owns SCOTUS and if Hillary wins Hella is gone and so is the right to bear arms for self defense, they will read the 2a as militia only and will ban the sale and ownership of as many guns as they can.

SCOTUS is the real reason to vote for Trump.  If Trump turns out to be a turkey, it will be so easy to
impeach him,  It would be laughable.  Hillary will take our guns away and she will be virtually
un-impeachable, just like criminal Obama.
Trump will give us a fair SCOTUS, Hillary will give us a
NAZI racist Anti-gun SCOTUS.

.

Nope.  I just stated who I wanted to be president.  You took it upon yourself to rain on my parade telling me why it's not possible.  I told you my reasons against Trump and that being the possibility/probability that he is feeding off frustrations to gain popularity flip flopping on the issues.

You started talking about pies... I was participating in your analogy and letting you know that if both alternatives to my preferred choice would make me sick (trump/Hillary) I'd be best without pie huh?  Next time I'll just say "nobody was talking about pie here."

Hillary should go to jail.

Trump might have the right idea about guns... That's only one aspect.

Johnson has the right idea about a lot of things. 

These are my opinions so you can't win this argument no matter how hard you try... They'll still be my opinion.

Argument?  I thought this was supposed to be a discussion.

It's your thread, so you can argue if you want.  I already know who the greater of the two evils is, and that it's stupid to even consider a 3rd party victory this year.

Until both major parties are in total disarray and one nominee completely incapable of turning out a decisive victory over the other, only then will a 3rd party have a chance.  As I said, Perot had the best chance.  Polling put the 3 parties at roughly 1/3 chance of winning.  Johnson is about 3%-10%. 

No argument.  Just facts.  If you know something other than this, please post it.

.

I meant argument as in two or more people discussing opposing points of views... Not fighting verbally.  I had a longer post typed out but didn't realize I wasn't logged in and lost it.  It's ok it's all just words. 


Edit : You should make your decision on his popularity after the debates if he makes it that far.  If there isn't rapid growth from that point Id be likely to say there's no "chance".

Commission on Presidential Debates rules: 

Under the 2016 Criteria, in addition to being Constitutionally eligible,
candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and
have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.

The polls to be relied upon will be selected based on the quality of the methodology employed, the reputation of the polling organizations and the frequency of the polling conducted. CPD will identify the selected polling organizations well in advance of the time the criteria are applied.

So, I can tell you at this point, he's lacking being on the ballots of14 states (some critical) plus DC.  Even if the Libertarian Party succeeds at getting him on 100% of the 51 ballots, he's polling at 10% or below.  Hitting the 15% needed to be in the debates is going to take money, which is the party's greatest weakness.

So, there are two factors that tell me Johnson has a major challenge even participating in the scheduled debates.  So waiting until after the debates is wishful thinking.  I believe anything is possible, but in this case, it's very unlikely to work out for him.