US Presidential Contenders

[Rextraos]

I think Donald [Sleezebag] becoming president is the most influential political event ever to happen in my 20 years on earth. As an Australian, I don't get to vote and yet I'm not ignorant enough to ignore the ongoing events worldwide, especially the election for the leader of the most powerful country on earth that is America which has power and influence in other countries. For all we know, [Sleezebag] could be the start of world war three, who knows with all the strained relationships with other countries America has right now. He already said nasty remarks on concern to NATO.

Not that I'm saying I'd rather Hilliary Clinton, it's hard to say who's worse when it comes to comparing them. If only Gray Johnson (I agree with him on key issues but he's a bit far right and mad on some issues) or Jill Stien (My second pick choice after Bernie Sanders, her agendas and policies are well-thought out and build on top of what Bernie has planned for and established) got 5% of the vote so they could participate in the 2020 election debates and get a $10 million funding to do so.

To summarize I am truly shocked that Americans were so enraged and grieved at the corrupted shambles in which that they call their government that they felt they had little choice but to elect [Sleezebag]. Hopefully, he doesn't screw up and kill us all.

[E_T]

Reason.com Free Minds & Free Markets - TRENDING TOPICS - HIT & RUN BLOG

Where the Third-Party Candidates Were Strongest. Which states gave Gary Johnson his best results? Jill Stein? Evan McMullin? And who did those candidates help more, [Sleezebag] or Clinton?

Jesse Walker|Nov. 9, 2016 11:55 am



Gary Johnson Yesterday's presidential election produced the strongest showing in 20 years for third-party and independent candidates. Not all the ballots have been tallied yet, so some of the numbers below may be slightly off from the final totals. But at this point all the alternative candidates put together have received more than 5 percent of the popular vote. The leader of the second-tier pack, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, has (at this point in the counting) 4,008,564 votes, or 3.22 percent of the national total. That's much less than he was polling a couple months ago, but it's far better than any other presidential result in the party's 45-year history. It's also better than any other alternative candidate since Ross Perot's campaigns of 1992 and '96.

On the state level, we didn't see some of the more extraordinary possibilities that had been tossed around before Tuesday. (No, Evan McMullin did not carry Utah.) But the second-tier candidates did do stronger in some places than others, giving us a map—several maps—of where our binary party system is doing the poorest job of representing the full spectrum of political opinion. Here's how the third-, fourth-, and fifth-place finishers fared across the country:

Gary Johnson. Not surprisingly, Johnson did best in New Mexico, the state where he was governor from 1995 to 2003: He got 9.4 percent of the vote there (and in some counties hit double digits). He got 5 percent or more in seven other states as well: North Dakota (6.3 percent), traditionally third-party-friendly Alaska (5.9), Oklahoma (5.7), South Dakota (5.6), Montana (5.5), Wyoming (5.3), and Maine (5.1).

He got at least 1 percent of the vote everywhere. His weakest showing was in Mississippi, where just 1.2 percent of the voters backed him. That's still more than double his total there in 2012.

created at mapchart.net

Jill Stein. As I write, Jill Stein of the Green Party has 1,191,269 votes, or about .96 percent of the national total. That's the Greens' best showing since Ralph Nader's campaign in 2000. Stein's highest percentage on the state level came in Hawaii, where she collected 2.9 percent of the ballots. She also managed to top 2 percent in Oregon (2.4 percent), Vermont (2.3), and—more surprisingly—Kansas (2.0). She did not outpoll Johnson in any state.

created at mapchart.net

Evan McMullin. McMullin, a conservative running as an independent, was on the ballot in only 11 states, so it's not surprising that he finished behind Johnson and Stein. (His total currently stands at 441,277 votes nationally, or .36 percent.) But he did very well in one of those states: He was a strong third in his native Utah, collecting 20.9 percent of the vote and finishing second in several counties. He also managed to get 6.9 percent in Idaho, the only other state where he beat Johnson. He didn't get as much as 2 percent anywhere else, though he managed to clear the 1 percent mark in Minnesota (1.8 percent), Virginia (1.6), Arkansas (1.2), Kentucky (1.2), and South Carolina (1.0). It is no coincidence that McMullin did best in the two states with the country's highest Mormon populations.

The only other candidate who managed to get more than 1 percent of the vote in any states was Darrell Castle of the paleoconservative Constitution Party, who is currently pulling 1.1 percent in Alaska and South Dakota and, more surprisingly, has earned 1 percent in Hawaii. In Nevada, where voters have the option of voting for None of the Above, that option pulled 2.6 percent.

Did these candidates tip any states from Clinton to [Sleezebag]? I've already heard some ruminations to that effect from angry Democrats ready to replay their scripts from 2000, but it's a hard case to make. Johnson initially drew both disaffected Democrats and disaffected Republicans, but toward the end of the race the polls suggested that he was pulling much more from the [Sleezebag] camp. (Of course, I don't blame you if you don't feel like trusting any polls right now.) And if these three candidates weren't on any ballots, a significant share of their supporters would have simply stayed home rather than vote for Clinton or [Sleezebag].

Indeed, a lot of people stayed home anyway. Turnout in general was way down this year, and [Sleezebag] is currently on track to finish with a lower raw vote total than either Mitt Romney or John McCain. Let me repeat that, just to drive home how unpopular the major-party candidates were this year: The man who won this election got fewer votes than the men who lost the last two elections. Even though the country's population has grown, and either though they both lost pretty badly.

All that said, there were several states where the alternative candidates collected enough votes to cover the Clinton/[Sleezebag] spread. Six of those were won by [Sleezebag]—and seven were won by Clinton. Here's a rundown:

Arizona: [Sleezebag] beat Clinton by four points; Johnson and Stein between them collected 5 percent. But most of that went to Johnson (3.8 percent), so it's unclear whether [Sleezebag] or Clinton was hurt more by the other options on the ballot.

Colorado: Clinton won by 2.2 percent. Voters also gave 4.9 percent to Johnson, 1.2 percent to Stein, 1 percent to McMullin, and nearly 1 percent more to a collection of third-tier candidates. If Johnson was pulling more Republicans than Dems in Colorado, he may have given this one to Clinton.

Florida: [Sleezebag] eked out a win by just 1.4 percent here. Johnson, Stein, Castle, and Rocky De La Fuente of the Reform Party between them collected 3.2 percent. Enough to cover the spread, but how many of those votes would have otherwise gone to Clinton? Stein got only .7 percent.

Maine: Clinton won this by three percentage points, and Johnson collected 5.1 percent, so there's a chance he tipped the state to the Democrats. (Or part of the state, anyway: [Sleezebag] carried Maine's second congressional district, so he is being awarded one of the state's electoral votes.)

Michigan: [Sleezebag] won this ordinarily blue state by about .3 percent, and Stein got 1.1 percent, so Democrats who feel all Green votes are rightfully theirs are going to be seething at her over this one. Meanwhile, Johnson got 3.6 percent.

Minnesota: Clinton won by 1.4 percent. McMullin got 1.8 percent. How many of those voters would have gone for [Sleezebag] otherwise, and how many would have stayed home? Beats me, but between that and the other minor-candidate results—Johnson got 3.4 percent and Stein got 1.3—this looks like a state where the alternatives may have done more to help Clinton than to hurt her.

Nevada: Clinton won by 2.4 percent; Johnson got 3.3 percent. And Castle picked up half a point too.

New Hampshire: Another narrow Clinton win—just a tenth of a percentage point—and another relatively strong showing for Johnson, who collected 4.1 percent.

New Mexico: Clinton won this handily, by 8.3 percent. But Johnson, remember, got 9.3 percent. Then again, he has a history of picking up Democratic votes in New Mexico—he was reelected easily in his days as governor, despite the predominantly Democratic electorate—so it'd be hard to make the case that he played spoiler.

Pennsylvania: [Sleezebag] won by about 1.1 percent. Stein's .8 percent isn't enough to cover that spread; Johnson's 2.4 percent is, but again we don't know whether he was drawing more from [Sleezebag] or Clinton.

Utah: [Sleezebag] beat Clinton here by about 17 percent. Sounds like a pretty big victory, but it's still less than McMullin's 20.9 percent. In this case you could make the case that the real spoiler was Clinton: If she weren't on the ballot, nearly all of her supporters surely would have preferred McMullin to [Sleezebag], perhaps allowing the independent to deny the Republican six electoral votes.

Virginia: Clinton won by 4.7 percent. Johnson, McMullin, and Stein got 3, 1.6, and .7 percent, respectively. So the third-party candidates covered the spread if you include the Green, but the two candidates who were more likely to pull from [Sleezebag] didn't have quite enough to cover it on their own.

Wisconsin: Here, on the other hand, Stein's 1.1 percent is just enough to bridge the margin 1-percent margin between the winning [Sleezebag] and the losing Clinton. But then what does Johnson's 3.4 percent do to the results—or, for that matter, the nearly half a percentage point that Castle won while running to [Sleezebag]'s right?

Damned if I know. I will say this, though: If the Democrats find themselves searching for scapegoats by parsing the Green and Constitution parties' totals rather than asking how they managed to nominate a candidate so weak that Wisconsin was in play, they really aren't asking the right questions.

Photo Credit: mapchart.net

I found these two paragraphs very telling...

Indeed, a lot of people stayed home anyway. Turnout in general was way down this year, and [Sleezebag] is currently on track to finish with a lower raw vote total than either Mitt Romney or John McCain. Let me repeat that, just to drive home how unpopular the major-party candidates were this year: The man who won this election got fewer votes than the men who lost the last two elections. Even though the country's population has grown, and either though they both lost pretty badly.


[SNIP]

Damned if I know. I will say this, though: If the Democrats find themselves searching for scapegoats by parsing the Green and Constitution parties' totals rather than asking how they managed to nominate a candidate so weak that Wisconsin was in play, they really aren't asking the right questions.

Photo Credit: mapchart.net

[Rusty Edge]

Nice post ET, those last two paragraphs are particularly profound. I'd been insiting all year that WI wasn't a battleground state, that even at maximum effort and turnout efficiency, the GOP doesn't have enough bodies to beat the Democrats in a presidential election year.

The sitting GOP senator was presumed toast, but he got 70K more votes than [Sleezebag]. I think Nate Silver had his chances of re-election in the low 30's.

So, I was proven wrong. Or Hillary choked. Or both.

Gary even beat Jill in the District of Columbia, too.

[ColdWizard]

Some of the "all [Sleezebag] voters are racist, sexist, misogynist, whatever-ist/-phobe" and "voting for a third party was a vote for [Sleezebag]" reaction I'm seeing shows me that people don't even care what the point of a [Sleezebag] vote may be. Which is the same dismissive attitude that helped him win. Because I'm pretty sure some of the states that voted for Obama in 2012, that Sanders won in the primaries, and then flipped to [Sleezebag] aren't chock-full of those bad -ists/-phobes.

But easier to blame others than attempt to understand why their dumpster fire of a candidate lost to the other dumpster fire of a candidate.

[Rusty Edge]

In case you haven't seen this-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-democratic-national-committee_us_5824cb95e4b0ddd4fe7954e8

"POLITICS
DNC Staffer Screams At Donna Brazile For Helping Elect Donald [Sleezebag]
Democrats’ nerves are raw in Washington after Tuesday’s stunning loss.
 11/10/2016 04:16 pm ET | Updated 5 hours ago
Jennifer Bendery   
White House and Congressional Reporter, The Huffington Post

WASHINGTON ― On Thursday, Democratic Party officials held their first staff meeting since Hillary Clinton’s stunning loss to Donald [Sleezebag] in the presidential race. It didn’t go well.
Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one attendee described as “a rip-roaring speech” to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.
“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”
Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.
“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for [Sleezebag]’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”
Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to go outside and “tell people there” why she should be leading the party.
Two DNC staffers confirmed the exchange.
Asked for comment, Brazile said in an email, “As you can imagine, the individual involved is a member of the staff and I personally do not wish to discuss our internal meetings.”
A DNC spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Brazile, a seasoned Democratic strategist, is the DNC’s interim chair until March 2017, when party officials hold a full DNC meeting to elect a new chair. Brazile has been filling in since July, when then-chair Wasserman Schultz stepped down after WikiLeaks released internal DNC emails showing party officials trying to help Clinton win the Democratic primary.
Brazile ran into her own bit of trouble in October when Wikileaks released emails showing that, in her role as a CNN strategist, she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Clinton’s campaign.

Neither of the DNC staffers who spoke to HuffPost knew Zach’s last name, or much about him. They noted that he wasn’t alone in his sentiments. Some in the room nodded as he spoke, they said, and after he left, some talked about him being right on some points (perhaps not his claims about imminent death by climate change).
A third attendee told HuffPost that, despite Zach’s blow-up, there was “overwhelming” support for Brazile in the room. Her motivational words “had some staffers in tears,” per this attendee, and Brazile spoke to Zach’s concerns after he left.
“If he had stayed, he would have heard that,” this person said.
Brazile could move to stay on as chair after March, but Thursday’s meeting shows at least some party officials want fresh blood at the top.
“The party is at a crossroads. They have been using the same playbook for decades, and now, they won’t let anyone else come in and change it up,” said one former longtime DNC staffer, who requested anonymity to speak freely. “The fact that Democrats just sat through a devastating defeat and now have to trust the leadership that not only contributed to Clinton’s loss, but the crushing 2014 midterm losses, well, what do they expect?”

**********************
Libertarian National Committee Chairman Nicholas Sarwark has been interviewing and tweeting in the aftermath. Mostly responses to questions and criticisms from the Democrats. Among them -

* They ( Democrats ) had 16 years to come up with a less  (word for crappy ) candidate.

* Your tears are delicious and your parties will die.

* If you want to succeed, learn from failure.
If you want to fail, blame others for failure.

* A  retweet from WikiLeaks-

[Remember how you legalized
Assassinating anyone
NSA mass spying
Prosecuting publishers
CIA drones everywhere

It's all Trumps in 71 days ]

 * If tripling our record and covering the spread in the battlegrounds is an epic fail, I'm going to work for more epic fails in the future.

[Rextraos]

Who do you think is gonna run for president in 2020?

[Rusty Edge]

Who do you think is gonna run for president in 2020?

Democrats normally draw from the senate. Tim Kaine? Elizabeth Warren? Bernie Sanders?

[Buster's Uncle]

An analysis of Donald T rump’s election win and the prospects for his presidency
NSFW
https://medium.com/@SnoozeInBrief/an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-election-win-and-the-prospects-for-his-presidency-f6a87eef6d70#.ajqt8cplk

[E_T]

An analysis of Donald T rump’s election win and the prospects for his presidency
NSFW
https://medium.com/@SnoozeInBrief/an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-election-win-and-the-prospects-for-his-presidency-f6a87eef6d70#.ajqt8cplk

You frown on some colorful language that is not really too bad and not entirely spelled out, but you go and post a link to that?? 

[Buster's Uncle]

Yes.  It had a NSFW label.

[Rusty Edge]

Is anybody pondering what new uses the new president might find for the powers of surveillance, detention and assassination freely given to that guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize for Potential?

[Kirov]

! No longer available

Title: This is who is to blame for [Sleezebag].

[Buster's Uncle]

Is anybody pondering what new uses the new president might find for the powers of surveillance, detention and assassination freely given to that guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize for Potential?

Excuse me - freely given to his (non-entity) predecessor...

[Rusty Edge]

Is anybody pondering what new uses the new president might find for the powers of surveillance, detention and assassination freely given to that guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize for Potential?

Excuse me - freely given to his (non-entity) predecessor...

Uh, yeah. I guess said powers  are already established and evolving. Obama has cut Gitmo down to 60 prisoners, but it survives.

[Rusty Edge]

Oh dear.

 In [Sleezebag] transition team news, Mike Pence took over for Chris Christie as transition team chair. Not bad, Christie has his own troubles, and Pence was a Congressman for 12 years. Judging what I'm hearing from various news sources and watching Obama's press conference today, I think that the scope of the presidency is a little overwhelming for [Sleezebag], which is understandable since he has no qualifying experience. They weren't grasping that the White House workers are leaving, and that they have 4,000 jobs to fill.

What makes matters worse, though, is that Pence is to continue as governor until Jan 9th. On top of that he's in some kind of court battle to seal his records until he's dead or something.

SO, [Sleezebag]'s main insider is going to be out of state more often than not for the rest of the year. It makes me nauseous. I really want the president elect to succeed, much the same as I want my pilots and drivers to have a safe trip. If it were me and I was in over my head I would call Jeb Bush and tell him I need his help and advice to get organized and up to speed.

Fingers crossed...