It's impossible to ascertain the reasons for a Third Party vote

Both the Clinton/Trump camps would like to claim that more voted against the other, then their preferred candidate. Numerically, this is true. Logically, however it falls on its face. Neither candidate crossed the 50+1 threshold, therefore neither candidate can truly claim that they won the popular vote in its real meaningful sense.

The only way, would be to ask Johnson/Stein voters(or McMullin voters) who they would have went for if they were limited to two candidates? While it's impossible to know for sure, let's play a real generic game:

Let's presume that Stein voters(the Bernie kids) would have held their nose and voted for Hillary Clinton. We can then add Stein voters to Hillary's total. She got 1.4 million votes. That'd push it to 66,043,275.

However, what Hillary supporters/Dems generally forget, is the huge repulse of Donald Trump within the Republican Party. If Trump had not alienated the party, and we had this turnout. It's actually VERY safe to say Donald Trump would have won the popular vote.

Because Gary Johnson has FOUR million votes.

Then there's the Evan McMullin voters. McMullin got 550 K of votes. A pretty significant number.


Adding the grand total of Johnson/McMullin voters brings us to 67,427,629

If we were to simplify and assume that the views were linear, that means that 1,384,354 other people generally leaned right this election.

Don't fret though Democrats: This piece is non-partisan: The assumption is a relatively safe yet strong one. Not EVERYONE is a staunch conservative, and not everyone is a flaming Liberal. So for example, we can presume that a percentage of Johnson voters would have gone for Hillary. And likewise, perhaps a percentage of Stein voters(improbable as it seems given the Green Party's leanings) would have gone for Trump.

So we cannot narrow this down to a precise answer. I'd have to ask every Johnson/Stein and McMullin voter, who would they have went for if limited to two. However, Libertarianism is generally moderate-right, and McMullin was a dye-in-the-tool conservative. If party ideology ruled over the voting process, Trump had more in reserve than Hillary.

Lesson for both parties: Try not offering up a turd sandwich that repels the other half of the country lol. And when you do offer up that turd sandwich, she shouldn't insult the portion of voters she needed to win on November.

 

I think if third party voters were faced with such a limitation, those who voted them probably would've stayed home.

 

Thats probably true for most, maybe not all but for most. I admit a slight bias in this review of the situation: I wouldn't want Hillary period. But if we made your assumption, we'd have to conclude that of those who did vote, Hillary ended up getting the slight edge.

 

`
`
I am totally against the entrenched, "for-profit", "party before country" republicrat duopoly. I support and voted for Jill Stein and will continue to urge people to break away from the scam (and scum) that the democrats and republicans represent.
`
`

​

 

As you can tell from my sig, I'm not a Republican or Democrat by trade per say. And it's true, Trump might end up like the rest. But almost ANY independent or independent-like candidate, I will support as long as that candidate abides by the laws on the books of course.

 

If Trump wouldn't have alienated the Republican Party and traditional conservatives he would never have been the Republican candidate. It was only his appeal and pandering to the delusional racist minority of the far right, including the support of the Alt-Right (White Nationalists/White Supremacy racist hate groups like the KKK) that gained him enough votes win in the primaries.

 

I was tired of the two-party voting thing for several elections and this year was the last straw, given Clinton and Trump. So I went with Gary Johnson.

 

Actually, it was the fact that he got the biggest splatter of votes from a 17(17!) GOP field. While the GOP will have to manage a lot of complexities from now until 2020, I still think a lesson for the GOP if they want to avoid an 'extremist' candidate is to lower the GOP Field. Like say, a maximum of 8 can declare.

Now I'm not sure if it'd run into any "first amendment" issues, but I think it's more of an organizational thing. The organization should have its best interests in mind.

 

The latest count is 7,192,036 voted third party, approaching 5%. 2,236,000 voted third party in 2012. Only 1.7% of the total vote in 2012 went to third party candidates, 2016 had three times that amount. That was an increase of almost 5 million votes this year. I was among them voting for Johnson. Roughly 134,265,000 voted this year out of 251,107,000 eligible. Roughly a 53.5% turnout. Turnout was 55% in 2012.

The dislike factor of the two major party candidates was the main reason for the rise in third party voters. Trump ended up at 60% unfavorable, Clinton at 55%, the first since either Gallup or Pew Research began keeping track of favorable/unfavorable ratings did both candidates have more than a 50% unfavorable rating.

Those who disliked both candidates, not just one, Gallup put the figure at 25% of all Americans. YouGov put it at 22% who viewed both candidates in a very negative light. Right there you have you reason for the increase in the third party vote. Your question of whom these folks would have voted for if only two candidates, Trump and Clinton were on the ballot without a Johnson or a Stein can also be answered via the polls.

YouGov asked this question: 13. General Election | 3rd Party Choice Which candidate do you prefer more, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?
Asked of registered voters who would vote for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or someone else:

26% Clinton, 24% Trump, 50% no preference or would not vote.

As it was voter turnout was down with third Party candidates on the ballot, it would have been down more if they weren't. Looking at the polls, 55% of Trump's votes were anti-Clinton votes, not necessarily for him, but against Clinton. 50% of Clinton's votes were anti-Trump votes, not necessarily for her, but against Trump and then you have the third party vote which was against both major party candidates. Mine for example.

This became an election where the winner was the one who wasn't wanted the least or disliked the least, not that the majority of Americans want him to win. They didn't. The choice of the lesser of two evils.

But whether a person voted for someone because they really wanted them to win or against the other major party candidate because they really wanted her to lose, in the end doesn't matter. Those votes counted the same regardless of the reason. Political ideology, party identification probably mean less this election that any other one in a long time. It boiled down to the dislike factor. Trump won because he was disliked less in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.

 

If you actually believe that rubbish, you still are being led around by your disconnected from reality bias. Bias is really not strong enough of a word to define such a mindset.

For we saw a revolt against the establishment on the democratic side, not just the GOP side. There is something going on here that attributing it to what you want to attribute it to is just utter disconnected nonsense. If this is WHAT some on the left think, they will lose next election as well. For not being able to discern what the reality is, instead of relying upon the irrationality of emotionalism.

AS bill Clinton once said, that do won't hunt. So its owner needs to keep it on the porch for it will confuse the other dogs who will hunt. Like the dog, the left who buys into this mindset are barking up the wrong tree. This kind of thinking lost the election. The dems were not smart enough to pick the right candidate in a change election, and now they do not want to admit that, and as always, pull out the old and tired racism card. But it is so worn it cannot be read anymore. They wore off the letters and numbers. From playing it far to often, when it was the wrong card to play.

Will the left ever wake up? Some say it is impossible. For the slumber is pathological, incurable. And they can only dream of racism. Stuck in Ground Hog Day. A day where they keep losing the election because they were so disconnected, in their little bubbles, that it renders them MOOT.

If these Hillary supporting dems want to remain irrelevant, then the other side will not stop you. For you are an asset, to them. But being an FDR progressive, I will continue to try to save the democratic party, by making it relevant again, and that only happens when they start to represent and stand up for the people that they for a long time represented. And it ain't illegal aliens, nor the banking cabal, nor the new robber barons. If the dems are not smart enough to understand what this election was really about, then they deserve losing. So keep up with the racism, the KKK, etc. That delusion will not win elections. As we just witnessed. The dems seem to be good at banana republic behavior but impervious to the winds of change driven by an economy that is devastating the very people the dems used to represent. To remain relevant, the dems must come out of their stupor. And become connected to reality, which does not live in their little bubbles.

 

It would benefit everyone if people would take off their blinders and vote their conscience instead of party! I know a ton of people who didn't like Clinton or Trump but voted for them anyway just because they were registered with their respective party and felt like they would be throwing away their vote by going third party. That is the real problem: people are so concerned that their third-party vote won't count, so they continue to vote based on party affiliation instead of conscience.

Unfortunately, the third parties aren't helping themselves because the candidates they keep nominating are TERRIBLE. Gary Johnson had perhaps the greatest chance ever to give the Libertarian party a foothold in future elections and fumbled it away with stupid comments like "Gosh, what was it like to conquer Mt. Everest? Well I did not conquer Mt. Everest. She lifted her skirt and I got in there and got a peek and it was really cool", "What is Aleppo?", and some other really stupid things like this:

[video=youtube;NXhR41lsEJY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXhR41lsEJY[/video]
(Skip to 0:22).

And don't even get me started on Jill Stein.

 

This has honestly been a perplexing election for me. As you know(and see from my nick), I'm a Nationalist. I'm pro-America. I mean that in a strong secular fashion. I have no beef against Muslim-Americans, as long as we have security in place to keep terrorists out. Religion shouldn't be used as a weapon against people. Which is why I'm kind of okay with the registry as long as it stops at being a registry.

There's a registry of gun owners, how can this not be any different? Of course, we know from recent history why it would be different. But as long as regulations are in place, it's good to keep 'tabs' on those who are most suspicious. Trump's right about one thing: Israel does it, and I've actually become a little sympathetic to Netanyahu(just a little). It's a no-win situation for the Israelis and its fast becoming a no-win situation here as well.

And I think it only makes sense to restrict immigrants from war torn countries(as we did with Indonesia, as Obama points out). These are legal measures we can take to keep America safe. And at the same time, Donald is a blowhard who once commented to bomb terrorist families, which I'm completely against. That's one of the main reasons terrorism proliferates in the first place. So I hope, he does listen to the military commanders and defers to them.

In Trump's defense, in his first few picks it seems to be a strongly pro-military cabinet, which it needs to be. Since the executive office DEALS with those issues. The whole idea of a civilian commander, noble as it is, is deficient in the face of war time difficulties. The country misses the kind of leadership the military used to provide in the name of Washington, of Ulysess.S Grant and Eisenhower.

I'd want Trump to succeed, since if he succeeds the Syndicalist movement can gain positive tracts in America and it'll be easier to build a much larger coalition in 2020 and beyond. And if Trump flops, I at least don't want him to flop in the expected Hitler-style(or a Bush-style). I'd like him to flop, Harding-style. That way, it'll be possible to rebuild it, make improvements off of it and suggest that those improvements can(and will work) since I consider myself much smarter than Donald Trump.

 

This election threw conventional wisdom and historical references out the window. It was that unique. But I am with you in that I hope Trump succeeds as president because if he does, this nation will be better off. I am in the wait and see mode, no judgments on Trump yet until he becomes president and I see him in action.

I think banning all refugees from Syria and Yemen is common sense. Especially since ISIS said they are infiltrating their fighters among the refugees. We have been warned. But not banning all Muslims, we have quite a few military allies in the Muslim world, banning any of them would be kind of dumb.

Most presidents until recently had military experience. Truman in WWI, IKE of course, JFK in the Pacific, LBJ was awarded the silver star in the Pacific, Nixon served in the Pacific, Ford was in the Navy aboard an aircraft carrier in the pacific, Carter in the Navy, Reagan was army, but served stateside, the first Bush a navy pilot who was shot down, Clinton avoided all military service, the second Bush as in the Air National Guard, Obama none.

There you have it. Trump will be the second president in a row never to have served and third out of the last four if we count the second Bush serving in the Air National Guard during Vietnam.

 

I bet many did.

 

The advantage Trump had in the large Republican presidential field was the Trump is the consummate con artist so he never relied on the facts but instead exploited the prejudice of rank and file Republicans. While all politicians are con artists to some degree Donald Trump has been a professional con artist his entire life.

Political parties can use any means they want for selecting their candidates and there are no real legal or Constitutional issues to be concerned with. There are two fundamental differences between how the Democrats and Republicans select their presidential candidates.

The Democratic Party leadership control or their presidential candidate is must stronger because of the super-delegates. The super-delegates Democratic leadership decided on Hillary Clinton well in advance and there really wasn't too much of a chance for anyone else. Bernie Sanders has no chance at all. The problem was that Hillary Clinton had been subjected to a Republican political "slander" campaign of allegation after allegation and even though the allegations were eventually discredited the Republicans kept making the same allegations and many people believed the allegations were true when they weren't. The entire "Hillary Clinton can't be trusted" opinion was based upon Republican false allegations and was never actually supported by the facts. The Democrats should have known that before hand and the leadership should have backed someone else like Elizabeth Warren or even Bernie Sanders but they didn't so they virtually gave away the election.

The Republican Party leadership has virtually no control over it's presidential candidate selection and that opened up the perfect opportunity for a con man to become their candidate. All of the Republican candidates addressed the same Republican issues but Trump did one thing the others did not.

Trump exploited the racial and religious prejudice of the Republican base. Studies indicate that eight out of ten Republican and Republican leaning voters have anti-racial and anti-religious prejudice so who did Trump blame all of our problems on? Trump blamed Mexicans, the Chinese, and the Muslims. Trump wasn't above being a racist that promoted religious intolerance and the "alt-Right" White Nationalists/White Supremacists loved him. Trump even won the jewel in the crown with the official endorsement of the KKK. To my knowledge every right-wing racist hate group backed Trump 100% and they've become very bold since the election with racial and religious attacks. Trump is doubling down on that by appointing Steve "Turn on the Hate" Bannon as his White House advisor and Bannon was a promoter of the Alt-Right hatred at Breitbart News.

 

And likewise, I know you hate those dreaded "white people" who are WASP's who are trying to take control over the country. Well, if the recent riots and destruction are any indication, they're failing spectacularly.

 

Trump is already "in action" with his selections for top positions in his administration and Trump might very well succeed and it could be horrific for America based upon who he's been selecting.

Trump's pick for White House advisory has firmly established himself as a White Nationalist/White Supremacist supporter.
Trump's pick for Attorney General has a documented history of racism as a US Attorney and as a Senator opposed civil rights, opposed protection of our environment, opposes numerous US Supreme Court decisions, and openly opposes parts of the US Constitution like the Fourth Amendment's protections..
Trump's selection for CIA Director openly opposes the Eight Amendment to the US Constitution and federal statutory law that prohibits our government from committing acts of torture. He opposes the UN Security Council nuclear agreement with Iran's current moderate government that is working to resolve issues of conflict with Western governments and instead advocates that the US violate the Security Council agreement that will result in the return to power of the hard line religious extremists in Iran.
Trump's selection for National Security Advisory openly advocates a dramatic increase in US military involvement in the Middle East and forming a close alliance with Russia that is arguably the most dangerous enemy of the United States and the free people of the world today.
Trump's selection to head the Department of Education that's purpose is to promote public education is opposed to public education.

Based upon Trump's selections if Trump "succeeds" it will set back the United States decades related to civil rights, education, environmental protection, and foreign affairs. Trump's own economic and tax proposals, if carried through, would be highly damaging to the US economy overall and don't even address the primary problem for American workers: under-compensation in the service sector that accounts for over 70% of all private employment in the United States.

The vetting process for political refugees, the most intensive of all vetting processes for any type of visa, takes at least 18 months and can continue indefinitely if necessary. The interrogation process is a layered process that makes it impossible for a "terrorist" to manage to deceive the interrogators. If a terrorist group wanted to obtain entry into the United States then they would seek a tourist visa or possibly a student visa because these are two of the least vetted visas to obtain. There is a zero chance of an extremist Muslim slipping through the current vetting process for political refugees and historically no person admitted as a political refugee has ever committed and act of terrorism against the United States.

Trump is the first elected president to my knowledge that never held any high ranking position in government and has no experience at all. All Trump has is a record of driving his corporations into bankruptcy as a self-appointed CEO, a chronic record of ripping people off in the business world, and for being a "Reality Star" on TV because he's one of the worst corporate executives in the United States.

Donald Trump is actually so unqualified to be president that a movement has already started to put Mike Pense in power based upon the 25th Amendment which states:

Letting an incompetent person run our country is not in the best interests of the United States or the American people. Donald Trump would remain the president but would be stripped of all power under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.

 

There have been extensive peaceful anti-Trump protests since the election but as we saw in Portland OR a group of radical right-wing anarchists showed up and started destroying property. There have been other clashes from what I understand where White Nationalists have shown up at peaceful anti-Trump protests and initiated violent acts as well.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ayed-demonstrations-erupt-across-us/93633154/

We get a better picture of who the problem is when we address cases of hateful intimidation and harassment since the election. The following only covers the first five days after the election.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...-hateful-harassment-and-intimidation-election

 

I'm not a political ideologue, the R and D next to someone's name means nothing to me. What does is common sense solutions, new ideas, the willingness to ditch something that doesn't work for something new. Not just throwing money at something in hopes more money will make it work.

Something had to change, I didn't vote for Trump, didn't vote for the status quo or a third term either. This polarization has to go. This "My way or the highway" attitude, has to go. This everything the other party does or wants is wrong and evil and everything my party does is right and righteous has to go. Compromise must stop being a four letter word for both sides.

Both sides needs to listen to the people, to what they need, want. The people won't be right all the time, but those we have in Washington today aren't either. Those in Washington needs to lose their "We know what is best for the people while the people don't." We need a change, is Trump that change? I don't know. Time will tell. But I will remain in the wait and see mode until I actually see how Trump governs. I am sick and tired of fear tactics and division. Perhaps Trump isn't the answer, if I thought he was, I would have voted for him. But I was sure Clinton wasn't

Maybe Sanders was, maybe Webb was, maybe Biden was, maybe O'Malley or Kasich, Rubio, and others were, we will never know because we got what we got. Trump vs. Hillary Clinton.

 

I'm a Johnson voter. If my only choices had been Hillary or Trump, I would have just skipped the Presidential vote or written in Mickey Mouse. Neither Hillary nor Trump have the moral character necessary for the Presidency. That said, I'm happier that Trump won than Hillary won, at least in the short term.

That said, I am in Florida, which is not contested. Interestingly, some of my liberal friends are accusing the Johnson/Stein voters of taking the election away from Hillary.

 

The SPLC is such a discredited organization that the US government itself dropped it. That should say everything right there about the organization. That, and it's a "poverty center" that doesn't contribute to poverty. So not only was the site itself inflammatory, but they never bothered to make a single positive contribution.

I'm sure that these words of criticism count as "hatred", for which I'll say: Yes, your right I hate liars who take the name of a good cause(poverty) and pervert it for their own agenda.

 

We agree that "just throwing money at something in hopes more money will make it work" isn't a solution. For example just throwing money at the super-wealthy in the hopes that it will rebuild the middle class has already proven to be a mistake but don't try to tell Republicans that.

Not all ideas are good ideas of course so just because it's a "new idea" doesn't make it a good idea. We also find that common sense isn't necessarily a good idea either because it often ignores facts that change the foundation for the position. As noted in my previous post we don't have to worry about "terrorists" infiltrating the US as political refugees because of the intense and extensive vetting process that exists. Some believed it's common sense to build a wall along the Mexican border but the truth is all it does is throw money at a problem created by Ronald Reagan and that could have been fixed by immigration reform that Republicans have refused to address for years. Calls for deporting more illegal (undocumented) aliens seems like common sense until we realize that President Obama was deporting all that he could already. Trump will also be limited to about 400,000 per year because of the Constitution, the laws, federal court orders, and the limited budget authorized by Congress.

Facts matter more than "common sense" or "gut feelings" or "instinctive" actions.

Once again we're in agreement but Trump's selection of people for posts in his administration are very extreme and not conductive to being "inclusive" in any manner. Additionally the GOP that now has a majority in both houses of Congress has refused to participate in virtually anything "bi-partisan" since 2009. This became more evident with the "Tea Party" securing seats in the House in 2010 elections and then when the GOP took majority of the Senate it became "Oppose anything Obama" (especially if it was good for America). The Republicans blame the Democrats but in truth it's been the Republicans and not the Democrats that have created the huge partisan divide in Congress.

Think about this. Obamacare is about 80% identical to a 1993 Republican proposal for health care reform and the Democrats needed the Republican involvement in creating Obamacare. The Republicans actually had an opportunity to pass their 1993 proposal for health care reform and refused to become involved.

http://khn.org/news/gop-1993-health-reform-bill/

A person completely uninformed on any subject is not the right person for anything. Donald Trump was never accurate or factual in addressing anything and experts on both the left and right condemned Donald Trump for being unqualified to be the president.

Personally I believe we should be using the Electoral College as intended. Federalist Paper #68, believed to have been written by Alexander Hamilton, established how it was supposed to exist.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm

 

The easiest way to fix the illegal immigration problem is to put teeth into the law that fines employers for hiring them. An example would be a thousand dollars per illegal hired for the first offense, five thousand per illegal hired for the second, ten thousand for third and keep right on doubling it. No wall needed.

I take what ISIS said seriously, others may scoff, but all it takes is one incident.

As for Trump's selections being extreme, I heard the same thing from the other side in 2008. Myself, like I said, I am in a wait and see mode. But any appointee has to follow the president regardless of his or hers personal views. Any appointee carries out the president's policies, not his own. If a president lets an appointee carry out the appointee's policies, that is on the president. If one tries, fire him. I always believed any president should surround himself with people he trusts and wants. After all it will be the president who gets the praise or the blame for any policy enacted.

As for Obamacare, the majority of Americans were against it when it was first passed which was the main reason for the 63 seat gain by the GOP in 2010. Obama and the Democrats didn't listen to the people and when they said no, Obama and the Democrats went right ahead. The majority of Americans today still oppose it. According to Gallup and Kaiser, Obama care is hurting around 27% of all Americans and helping 18% give or take a point or two. Healthcare shouldn't be hurting anyone. At the very least it should be helping more than hurting. I don't think Trump himself really knows what he plans on doing with Obamacare all the campaign rhetoric aside. I will wait and see.

On elections, in 2006 quite a lot of moderate Republicans lost to far left Democratic liberals and in 2010 the reverse happen, the blue dog Democrats, moderates were replaced by far right Republicans. Those Representatives who used to work across the aisle with each other were gone replaced by ideologues. It didn't help in the senate to have two leaders, Reid and McConnell who place their party a hundred stories above country either. Most in Washington have forgotten they are Americans first, then Republicans and Democrats. But both sides, all the partisans just blame the other party for all the ills and doing the same thing they are doing. We need a complete change of leadership, president, senate and the house.

The founders and framers envisioned an America without political parties, they called them factions. They were afraid that sooner or later once formed it would be the good of the party over the good of the country, loyalty to party instead of nation. In the beginning most states had their state legislatures choose electors and cast their electoral votes. Some states divided up their electoral votes according to the wishes of the state legislatures. It wasn't until 1868 that all states went to the popular vote.

 

Sometimes looking in the mirror might be revealing.

The SPLC has never been a part of the government but instead is a privately funded law firm founded in 1971 with a focus on Hate groups, Racism, Civil rights, and Anti-Semitism. It provides free legal services to victims of hate crimes and has been historically successful in lawsuits for damages against the KKK. The SPLC has been the only major non-profit organization to identify and follow hate groups in the United States. It has repeatedly been used as a resource by the FBI to provide information on hate groups under criminal investigation.

Racial discrimination is overwhelmingly the primary cause of poverty for African-Americans in the United States and providing free legal assistance to the impoverished victims of discrimination is what the SPLC does. They're lawyers, not doctors that can provide medical services, or cab drivers that could provide transportation services and as lawyers they do what they can do best. They file lawsuits and they win lawsuits for the victims and when they win the lawsuit every single dime of the settlement goes to the victim.

So now the entire case against the SPLC has been established to be false (dare we call an intentionally false statement a LIE and should we hate the liar that made it?) and since the numbers provided by the SPLC were not disputed at all we can update them.

The ten day count of hate incidents is now up to 867 and posted for reviewed on the SPLC website.

https://www.splcenter.org/20161129/ten-days-after-harassment-and-intimidation-aftermath-election

 

Won't work and can't work. The burden of proof is on the government to establish that the employer knowingly hired an undocumented alien and that proof virtually never exists. Even this approach fails because the foreign born worker could have been hired based upon a work visa that has since expired. Additionally many, as in millions, of the undocumented (illegal) aliens aren't in the US working. They're children or close relatives like a grandmother that can be staying with family members that are here legally. The only system we have is the E-Verify system that is voluntary and we sure as hell don't want it to be mandatory for employment because then it applies to everyone, including US citizens, and then for us to get a job we would require the government's blessing. Do any of us really want the federal government to control whether we, as US citizens, can work or not?

We can take what ISIS says seriously and also know that what they're saying is impossible for them to accomplish as well. Once again we have cases of international Islamic terrorist acts but they've always been committed by those that entered the United States on temporary work or school visas because obtaining a US refugee status visa, especially from the Middle East, is extremely hard to do. The US only allows a very small percentage of the Syrian/Iraq refugees into the US as political refugees and if there is any doubt at all about them after two years if intensive investigation then we just reject their application.

I don't believe that Obama's selections were ever considered to be extremists by Republicans. Partisan probably but not extremists. Even Loretta Lynch, after having her confirmation delayed for months, was confirmed by a bi-partisan vote that included Mitch McConnell voting for her confirmation. To seek to appoint a person with a history as a racist, that opposes civil rights, and opposes numerous Supreme Court decision to the position of Attorney General where no political ideologies belong is beyond just being extreme. It's a clear sign of abandonment of the Constitution and the Rule of Law in America.

The current negative rating of the PPACA (Obamacare) is not what Americans believed when the law was passed. A Gallup poll "in March 2010, just after the law passed, when 49% said passing the healthcare law was a good thing, and 40% said it had been a bad thing." Much of the negativity is because of problems encountered that Congress could have prevented by it required changes in the law and Republicans, wanting to ensure the failure of Obamacare, refused to do anything to prevent the problems. Once again the PPACA was based upon a Republican health care proposal from 1993 and the Democrats really needed and wanted Republicans to get involved because it was "their law" and Republicans knew a lot more about how to make it work than the Democrats.

We need to remember something else. The vast majority of Americans have been completely unaffected by Obamacare and basically their opinions don't really matter. The opinions that matter the most are the roughly 20 million Americans that now have health insurance that couldn't afford it at all before Obamacare. One thing startling we've learned is that because these Americans didn't have insurance previously they were a lot sicker than we expected. When people don't get routine health check-up bad things tend to happen to their health.

Even with all of that said I'm also the first one to stand up and say we need something a lot better than Obamacare. We don't want to go back to 2009 and Obamacare is better than what we had then but we sure as hell want something a lot better in the future than Obamacare.

We're probably in 100% agreement on this.

Political Party affiliation is about running for office but the minute someone is elected they need to take off that damn party hat and put on an American hat and represent everyone not just the views and opinions of those in their political party.

And when it comes to the office of the President we need to eliminate the political parties and we can do that by using the Electoral College process as established in Federalist 68. As I understand it that process was only used the first four presidential elections before it was corrupted by the political parties.