George H.W. Bush to "vote for Hillary Clinton"

Johnson might very well get that this time.


Which, IMHO, is impossible with the current system. I truly think at least half of the country does not align solidly with either party - which is backed up by polls. But they ended up voting one way or another either for he less of two evils, or maybe it will be different this time around.

I know I sound like a broken record, but we NEED a weighted voting system. We need a way to vote with our true ideals, with out the fear of a “monster” being voted in if we don’t.

Either that or just have courage and vote 3rd party.

Either that or stay home and masturbate like George Carlin did.


That’s great, but does not do anything to alleviate the disenfranchisement that a large swath of American voters feel. It will do nothing but give the Libertarian party some momentum for the next Presidential race, which would end up giving one party an edge over the other in some States and move us towards a One Party system.

Executive is not the only branch of government.3

Edit: grammar

1 Like

I think a weighed voting system would help a lot both in letting people vote their conscience and still be practical, and in potentially getting candidates to focus on issues more and idiotic attacks less - Trump’s obnoxious bullying would punish him more if he was one in the line-up.


In many states, third parties can’t get on the ballot for local offices unless they qualify to have a presidential candidate on the ballot.

1 Like

Gives “pulling the lever” a whole new meaning.


Yep, the US political system’s designed from top to bottom to guarantee the entrenchment of established parties and ensure third parties remain irrelevant.


In that case, I would put Hillary Clinton nearish the top, and Trump somewhere near Actual Hitler and Chthulhu.

Seriously, though, weighted voting could lead to weird effects like this one:


And it really shouldn’t be so difficult. Clinton has been building coalitions in the party for decades, yet Obama won in 2008 without that historical foundation and Sanders came pretty close this year. There is no presumptive Democtratic candidate in sight post-Clinton. A coordinated national group, getting involved in the party at the state level, could easily make their candidate the leading contender for 2020 (if Clinton loses) or 2024. Right now the Sanders supporters are best poised for this - they’ve already taken over the local party in some places - though they’ll need another candidate. (Warren is an obvious choice, though someone less acerbic might be better in that job.)


Which is why we have literally no parties other than the Whig and Free Soil parties today!

1 Like

Entryism! What are you, some kind of Trot?


Voters! We don’t need no stinking voters! It is awesome that the people in Labour promoting the purges are accusing the undesirables of being Marxists for their lack of ideological purity.


“Democrats in the upper Midwest, or the urban populists? That is really a mixed bag, especially when you throw the populists in there. Populists are always a volatile group.”

Fine point, but I really meant ex-union blue collar workers in the North East. Your broader point is well made. It aint one beast.


I must admit; I always kinda liked George H. W. He was alright.

Not gonna vote for Trump. It wouldn’t be prudent at this juncture.


The Green and Libertarian parties pretty much always run candidates for Senate and House, you know. At least since 2000 they’ve been on the ballot here.

Those candidates are typically shunned by news media and banned from debates and other supposedly fair public events, so it’s not surprising that people generally only learn about them when they enter the voting booth, but they do exist.

They are shunned by the media because all these resources are being spent on a lost cause like Presidential campaign.

I don’t understand.

Basically: if they didn’t keep trying to run a President, and just focused all resources on local elections, that’d improve their long term odds.

OK, I get you now.

I think they have to do both, because they accomplish different things. As you say, it’s going to have more actual effect on policy to get people elected at the local level. So they are doing that (and their success has actually been pretty favorably disproportionate to the number of people and dollars driving the effort.)

But getting on the national ballot is critical to getting the voter mindshare required to elect those local officials. If you’re not on the presidential ballot, you are lumped in the minds of the populace with the Vegetarian Party and Vermin Supreme - not a “real” option. You actually see this in action right here on BB - a lot of people demonstrably do think that way.

I can see the argument that they should focus the bare minimum of resources on the national ticket, since you are right about the importance of building up the base of the pyramid, but they still need to be on the presidential ballot.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.