WikiLeaks publishes searchable database of almost 20,000 emails from DNC.

[Crossless2.0]

A vote towards whoever has the greatest chance of defeating Trump is the best way to minimize the chances of Trump becoming president though right?

Unless you vote in a swing state, you can't help or hurt Clinton or Trump no matter how you vote. What you say is true if it's in a swing state.

Or if the electoral votes were awarded proportionately, rather than winner-take-all in each state.

Alas -- more of our historical baggage stunting meaningful democratic participation.

[Tiberius]

As far as I can tell, the following states are effectively guaranteed for Clinton:

D.C. (3), Hawaii (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Vermont (3), Rhode Island (4), New York (29), California (55), Delaware (3), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Washington (12), New Jersey (14), Connecticut (7), New Mexico (5), Oregon (7), Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10).

That gives her 217 electoral college votes. She needs 270 to win, meaning she needs another 53 electoral college votes.

She can get that many by winning the next five most likely states: Virginia (13), Minnesota (10), Colorado (9), Pennsylvania (20), Nevada (6).

If she loses one or more of those states, she still has several highly "swingy" states she could win, such as Iowa (6), New Hampshire (4), Florida (29), and Ohio (18).

[ReptilianPeon]

First of all, I never really like even Bernie that much anyway. He's better than whatever else was on offer of course. But by European standards he's pretty much a centrist. That's how far right American politics is.

He doesn't know the meaning of the word "socialism"; America doesn't know the meaning of the word. Fox News and others use the word constantly. At best, he's a social democrat.

Hypothetically, if he was the nominee and I could vote in the election, I'd vote for him to get money out of politics and then when his four or eight are up I'd go back to voting for the Green Party.

We can hope Hilary doesn't do the usual 'general election pivot where the nominee goes further to the right. Funny how Democrats usually move towards the right but Republicans never move towards the left. Hilary knows that because the winner take all system she only has to rely on the feat of Trump to win. It's good that she moved a few millimetres to the left - it's better than nothing.

[henryp]

She's setting herself up to fail. She really needed to appeal to the Bernie people instead she sticks her middle finger up at them at every opportunity. She's too arrogant. When she finally wakes up it'll be too late. It may already be too late to save her campaign. Tim Kaine is a terrible pick.

I care about the movement, and Bernie or Bust people are going to murder the movement. They are going to sit on their asses and sit out in protest and none of the down ballot progressives will ever have a chance. That's the real shame.

It's definitely a catch-22 for the progressives.  If they just go along with Hillary, 1) They are irrelevant until 2024.  2) They let the DNC know that they can perpetually win the game of chicken when they go establishment again in 2024.

There's always going to be a supreme court judge and a republican opponent.

I'm not sure how down ballot stuff will work.  I assume the DNC has already gotten 'their people' on the ballot in November.  Bernie or Bust folks, should definitely go out and vote for at least Stein.  

I do think an under-acknowledged part of the Bernie support is people who weren't democrats.  I've got a lot of positions that fit all over the map on the political spectrum.  Bernie was my first choice.  I was never going to vote for Hillary.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's always going to be a supreme court judge and a republican opponent.

IDK about that last part.  

You went Bernie....to Trump, or are you voting Stein?

[henryp]

There's always going to be a supreme court judge and a republican opponent.

IDK about that last part.  

You went Bernie....to Trump, or are you voting Stein?

Barring a major shift in the polls making Stein viable, I'm going to vote for Trump (as of now).  I'd have to dig into Stein's positions more if she becomes an option.   

But, I'm not terrified of a Trump presidency like other people.  He's not who I'd pick to be president, but nobody running is who I'd pick for president.

[The Grand Nudger]

Point of fact, he -is- who you're picking as Pres.  I suppose I can understand, I'm not terrified of a Trump presidency either, just disappointed.
(I doubt that Stein will become any more or less of an option than she is now)

[henryp]

Point of fact, he -is- who you're picking as Pres.  I suppose I can understand, I'm not terrified of a Trump presidency either, just disappointed.
(I doubt that Stein will become any more or less of an option than she is now)

I'll rephrase.  Trump and Clinton aren't the two people I'd pick to be the final candidates.

[CapnAwesome]

So my point is, although Trump may have a worse logical coherence in the debates than Clinton, there are still some over-looked factors that can very likely boost his votes even more. 

Foreign policy is going to be an interesting one to see how Hillary navigates.  She hasn't even tried yet.  I'm curious to see how they spin the middle east to make it look like her time as Sec of State bodes well for her being commander in chief.  Not that Trump is any better.  But he isn't on the hook for any actual decisions, so he's just theoretically awful.

Overall though, it's going to be a shit show.  Both are obviously disasters willing to switch positions at any moment, and pander to any crowd if it gets them a few more votes.  With all the inconsistencies, I think it'll just be a lot of finger pointing and hollering.  The winner might be the one who makes less of their own supporters decide to stay home out of disgust.

Is he? He's said that he wants to defeat ISIS and then leave the middle east. That our constant involvement in the middle east is bad for America and the world. Honestly it's probably Trump's best position.

[CapnAwesome]

Yeah but, somehow I don't think the Libertarians are going to accept public funding from the federal government for an election.

Well part of Gary Johnson's 2012 campaign was trying to get to the magic 5% number so they could secure funding. Here's an article discussing one of their adverts: http://ivn.us/2012/11/01/why-5-matters-to-gary-johnson/

Whilst it goes against Libertarian principles, I would expect the Libertarians would accept the money just so they have a fighting chance in an otherwise unfair race.

Meh. 10 million dollars in public funding isn't going to make a difference for the libertarians. They don't have a money shortage anyway, they raise lots of money. Ron Paul raised more money then almost all the other Republican candidates. Their problem is that their ideas are unpopular. Third parties only win in America if they are replacing one of the main parties. That's because of the winner takes all system. It's happened only a small handful of times in American history. Although I'm voting for Gary Johnson (He's anti-war, ceo of a marijuana company, a rock climber and I like the phrase 'Feel the Johnson') Libertarians don't win because their ideas are unpopular and out of the mainstream. If the conservative vote was split between Republicans and Libertarians, it would just mean the Democrats win every election.

Since someone like Gary Johnson knows that, he has to operate under the myth that there is some hidden libertarian majority, or that people are libertarians and just don't know it. Neither of those statements are backed up by anything other then fantasy. Sort of like a lot of Libertarian economic ideas.