Live stream of Dem Convention.

[The Grand Nudger]

The above is the only thing that ever gets me to thinking about voting the presidential elections.  I live in Kentucky.  Shits gonna go to Trump.  I would vote for a 3rd party just to get them into the next election, if there were a 3rd party I wanted to -see- in the next election..there just hasn't been one, yet.  

Hopefully, all those 3rd parties stay hungry and keep refining their message in response to their failure to draw people to the polls, and that's something that they don't need federal funding to accomplish. I know that to some extent, getting any third party in on it might at least make the major two change -their- message to draw in those voters that they suddenly fear losing....but I;d hate to think my vote for the Libs was the reason that all parties adopted the rape and pillage mentality, or that my vote for the Greens was the reason that all parties pandered to an anti-science in the name of science platform.

[Cecelia]

The problem for third party candidates is they don't have the name recognition. This is a two sided problem. Their candidates don't have the name recognition, but they also don't have experienced people with name recognition who can support their party either. They need big names who can endorse them. The Libertarians may be able to break this somewhat with Gary Johnson (though he wasn't able to in 2012). He has some experience as Governor of New Mexico (but that was as a Republican) Republicans will of course be wary of breaking rank with the party to endorse Johnson (some State Reps have endorsed him, but they have it much easier) Bernie Sanders could (but won't) endorse Jill Stein, and give her some traction. But he also knows that comes at the cost of support of Democrats, and potentially a Trump victory. (For that matter Stein has offered Bernie to take her place as the Green Party representative). A Sanders/Clinton/Trump/Cruz election would actually be an interesting election. But a Sanders/Clinton/Trump presidency ends with the Orange Baboon being President for four years.

[henryp]

The problem for third party candidates is they don't have the name recognition.  This is a two sided problem.  Their candidates don't have the name recognition, but they also don't have experienced people with name recognition who can support their party either.  They need big names who can endorse them.  The Libertarians may be able to break this somewhat with Gary Johnson (though he wasn't able to in 2012).  He has some experience as Governor of New Mexico (but that was as a Republican)  Republicans will of course be wary of breaking rank with the party to endorse Johnson (some State Reps have endorsed him, but they have it much easier)  Bernie Sanders could (but won't) endorse Jill Stein, and give her some traction.  But he also knows that comes at the cost of support of Democrats, and potentially a Trump victory.  (For that matter Stein has offered Bernie to take her place as the Green Party representative).  A Sanders/Clinton/Trump/Cruz election would actually be an interesting election.  But a Sanders/Clinton/Trump presidency ends with the Orange Baboon being President for four years.

Other problem for Gary Johnson, is some of us remember that he was actually in one of the Republican debates in 2012, and he looked like someone who didn't belong in terms of ability to speak in front of people.  He quickly dropped back below the cutline after the performance.  Not because of what he said, but because of how nervous and uncomfortable he looked up there.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're right, we'll never know. But I do know that he lost by nearly 4 million votes, and he only got 13 million votes in the primary elections. That's nearly 33% of his total votes. I just don't see what the DNC did, what the news media did as making that big a difference.

The one officiates, the other steers public opinion.  The effect is multiplicative.  We can;t know what the difference would have been...but that also means that we can't know that it would have been small. For all we know, a fairer process could have led to the sorts of discourse and engagement that might have discredited -Bernies- campaign, leaving Clinton in a much stronger position against Trump today.

[Brian37]

Good grief, who the fuck cares how many % the green party gets? How much revolutionary change to the US electoral system have the votes for Nader brought back in the day? They brought us many thousand dead soldiers and civilians from where I stand.

You are still stuck with the two-party system, so shut up, do your duty to humanity and vote for Hilary to prevent a egomanic idiot from taking the White House.

BINGO........

I hate that people think that as flawed as Hillary is, that with a very dangerous demagogue in Trump, that a protest vote is in the slightest bit pragmatic.

The script Trump is playing is right out of WW2 Germany.  He is a very selfish narcissist and sociopath. He does not understand that you don't treat politics the same way as a contact sport, and especially not when dealing with global diplomacy. His pandering to Jim Crow and McCarthism base is vile enough by itself. But if anyone thinks you can simply offend the world globally without a reaction he is mistaken. Not even Bush or Reagan conducted themselves the way Trump is running his campaign. 

He isn't using using the mundane muckraking that has existed in politics since the founding. No, he's piled scapegoating and demagoguery on top of that. He has no clue what a politician's role is in a free society. He thinks he can treat the nation and global diplomacy as an episode of Jerry Springer or WWE. He is a very literal danger to the nation and global stability. 

He relies on the same fear peddling and hyper nationalism Hitler did to gain support. In Trump's case Godwin's law DOES apply. He's scapegoated Hispanics, Veterans, Muslims, entire nations, and attacked a sitting judge under no suspicion, attacked a respected Supreme Court Judge, blacklisted press from his events. Claims to be for LGBT rights but runs for a party that has fought equality for them forever and has a VP who has passed discrimination laws against the LGBT. Has been endorsed by North Korea, praised Putin, and admired Saddam's brutality.

Trump may think this is the price of "competition" but it is not, no western leader of either party in the free west should value such tactics in a world leader.

If the right wants to accuse the left of "fear mongering" the difference is we do have a right to be afraid. As FDR said "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself". We should be afraid enough to be concerned with his demagoguery, but unafraid to challenge it and stop it.

[Faith No More]

I hate that people think that as flawed as Hillary is, that with a very dangerous demagogue in Trump, that a protest vote is in the slightest bit pragmatic.

And how pragmatic is it to reward the Democratic Party for putting up a lying, flip-flopping corporate shill in a sleazy, underhanded manner?  You're essentially telling them that they can nominate any shitty candidate they want as long as that person is slightly less shitty than the Republican nominee and it doesn't matter how ethical they are as long as you're frightened of the opposition.  That's precisely why we're stuck in this "lesser of two evils" situation every four years in the first place.

Sure, a Trump presidency would be messy, but I'm not convinced that it wouldn't be worth the gain in the long run that would come from sending the Democrats the message that we won't put up with untrustworthy elitists that are in the pockets of Wall Street.  Nothing is going to change if we keep settling for the lesser of two evils, and quite frankly, you're going to have a difficult time convincing me that rewarding the Democratic Party for such behavior is the sensible thing to do.

[ReptilianPeon]

Bring it back to the subject of TPP: Just so everyone is aware:
McAuliffe: Clinton would flip-flop on TPP

Philadelphia (CNN) Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe caused Hillary Clinton a political headache Tuesday night when he said he expects her to reverse her position on a major free trade deal.

Clinton has said on the campaign trail that she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation trade deal negotiated by President Barack Obama's administration, citing its lack of provisions to crack down on currency manipulation.

But McAuliffe said in an interview with Politico that he believes she'd flip-flop and support the deal.

Quoting the Politico interview:

"I worry that if we don't do TPP, at some point China's going to break the rules -- but Hillary understands this," he said. "Once the election's over, and we sit down on trade, people understand a couple things we want to fix on it, but going forward, we got to build a global economy."

Pressed on whether Clinton would reverse her position, McAuliffe told Politico: "Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wanted fixed."

Then CNN mentions Donald Trump:

Already, Republican nominee Donald Trump is seizing on McAuliffe's remarks as evidence Clinton is willing to flip-flop.

"Just like I have warned from the beginning, Crooked Hillary Clinton will betray you on the TPP," Trump tweeted.

Hilary Clinton doesn't care about about all those anti TPP speeches at the DNC. Terry used to work for the Clinton Foundation. He knows the Clintons better than most people.

[Tiberius]

Clinton quite honestly lucked out with Trump this year. If Bush, or Rubio, or Cruz had won, I think Clinton would easily lose. In a split Republican vs split Democrat election, the Democrats probably have it.

[dyresand]

Clinton quite honestly lucked out with Trump this year. If Bush, or Rubio, or Cruz had won, I think Clinton would easily lose. In a split Republican vs split Democrat election, the Democrats probably have it.

I honestly wish that Hillary voters would go over to Gary Johnson or Jill Stein but
again they might once the other emails are released. Because it's funny this DNC
convention only had a few good speakers while the rest were like get line support Hillary.

[henryp]

Clinton quite honestly lucked out with Trump this year. If Bush, or Rubio, or Cruz had won, I think Clinton would easily lose. In a split Republican vs split Democrat election, the Democrats probably have it.

That's an interesting discussion to have.  I think the DNC and Clinton's know how to beat a mediocre republican.  There's a pretty solid playbook for how to do it.  

Trump is an anomaly.  He's got a weird mix of positions that take a lot of those things off the table.  And even turn the tables on a few of them because of some of Hillary's blue dog positions.