http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/if-trump-wins-blame-clinton_us_57e21370e4b09f67131e3883 I thought this was an excellent article, written by one of my favorite youtubers (The Humanist Report). I think it sums up a point that shouldn't ever have needed to be said. In an election the onus is on the candidate to be for the people, and not for the people to be for the candidate. So this narrative the past month that young voters are failing Clinton, rather than Clinton failing to be the kind of politician that inspires our generation to want to vote for her, is disingenuous if not entirely unethical. Shaming and Fear mongering have become the tools that DNC is utilizing to try and gain voters, that they lost due to the nominee that they pushed to elect. The argument that she's "Not Trump" is simply not good enough for a large portion of the dissatisfied electorate. People realize that the corruption that they associate with Hillary, is the only reason a crazy guy like Trump ever got this far to begin with. It's all a result of the American public's rejection of establishment politics as usual.
Speaking of young voters, age 18-30, a group Obama won by a 62-38 margin in 2012. Clinton leads using the polls listed in RCP by a 40-28 margin with Johnson at 20% and Stein at 8%. It's interesting that Trump is ten points below Romney with these voters, but Clinton is a whopping 22 points behind the percentage Obama achieved. As my grand daughter who is attending college stated, there is no way they would vote for Wall Street Hillary. Of course they won't be voting for Trump either as they consider him a racist. I am of a different mood here, I blame the Democrats for nominating Hillary. They nominated about the only candidate that could lose to Trump. Almost any other Democrat would be ten to fifteen points ahead of The Donald. But then again, the reverse is true, almost any other Republican candidate would be way ahead of Hillary. This election is pure bummer, it sucks. No one likes these two outside of their avid supporters. The majority of Americans do not want either to be their next president. I blame both political parties who have lost complete touch with America as a whole. Personally, I don't give a darn which one wins, it is a choice of choose your own poison. Arsenic Trump or Cyanide Hillary. Either way your just as dead.
There's a certain level of pessimism that I can't shake this election. It's almost a feeling like this is our fault, for allowing the country to get to this point, and not keeping the political parties in check.
That is a very interesting view point. I'm like you, I feel we are doomed regardless of which one wins. But I wonder how one would keep the political parties in check. One problem is a lot of people have left both parties and become independents, non-affiliated. Also there was a time when each party had their conservative and liberal wings. Not anymore. With each party having both conservatives and liberals in their fold, there wasn't the polarization that has occurred today. There wasn't the extremism that exist today either. Each party was tempered to how far they could go left or right from within their party. Go too far one way and risk losing members. Also compromise wasn't a four letter word. Both parties were willing to give and take, give the other party something if they could get something in return. Not this, "My way or the highway," approach. There was also a time when all candidates were vetted, but most of that was prior to the modern primary system which began in 1976. Pre-modern primary system the political parties had control over whom would be their nominee. There were only around 15 primaries and a lot of them was for show, no delegates awarded. As to how to fix this, the two party system which produced two of the most detested presidential candidates, I really don't know. Perhaps it is time to scrap the two party system. But the two major parties have a monopoly on the system. They, the Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and do so as a mutual protection act. I am open for any suggestions, perhaps the only way to fix it is somehow to come up with a viable third party. There are far more independents, according to Gallup 42% of all Americans are independents, 31% Democrats and 27% Republicans. So perhaps the numbers are there. I was really surprised that no independent of stature didn't run this year. This year is a year in which an well financed independent in the Ross Perot mode could have won, probably fairly easy.
I agree completely. Also the reason someone didn't run as an independent is probably because of how easily it is to marginalize independents through the media. When you look at both years when Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders had their biggest impact.. It was because they were able to be get on the republican/democratic debate stage, and it allowed for people to draw a distinction on how radiclly different their views were, from the other candidates in the primaries. It's just difficult to expect that for independents because the media will literally give them no coverage, to gain momentum. Also, remember trust in the media is at an all time low. People realize that they have a vested intrest in maintaining the status quo.
It boils down to the presidential debates doesn't it? When the League of Women's voters were running the debates, they let Ross Perot in back in 1992. Since then the presidential debates were taken away from the League, the so called bi-partisan debate commission took them. They would never allow any third party candidate or independent in them, that was the reason they took them from the League. The League had the gall of allowing Perot to participate. You're right about the media, they won't give any third party candidate or independent any coverage. That is unless the third party or independent has money to buy time. My suggestion would be if any independent or third party candidate is on enough state ballots to attain 270 electoral votes, they should be included. It is pretty darn hard to get on some state ballots as the two major parties have rigged the system. You could scale that up to 400 electoral votes for the second debate and all states, 538 electoral votes for the third. At least this would give the American people a chance to see other candidates besides the R and the D. To hear fresh ideas, solutions and a different vision from other candidates where they would like to take America. Of course all of that is nothing more than a pipe dream. The two major parties have a monopoly on our system and they intend to keep it. The question is how many more bum candidates will they offer us in the likes of Clinton and Trump until we, the people take the bull by the horns and state enough is enough. Nah, won't happen.
The crazy part is, that both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are on the ballot in nearly all 50 states. So it seems pretty unethical that they don't even get the chance to speak.
When it comes to politics in the good old USA, there is nothing ethical about it. Both major parties take all the advantages they can get running every thing up to the line and at times crossing over. Then they use the excuse that everyone does it too. Ethical and politics, they go together like oil and water.
This thread is even more relevant now than it was when I first made it. Literally Hillary, her surrogates, and her million dollar superpack are investing all their time and money into trying to shame third-parties. I mean Obama's speech literally gave you these options A vote for Hillary= A vote for Hillary A vote for Trump= A vote for Trump A vote for Gary Johnson= A vote for Trump A vote for Jill Stein= A vote for Trump Not Voting= A vote for Trump At this point it's funny how they're really trying to portray this message that only the voters can fail the establishment, and it can't ever be the establishment trying to throw something at voters that they reject.
