a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016

Who do you vote into the office of USA President?


  • Total voters
    48
Reactions
1,371 611 31
#2
No matter what you think about Clinton, I don't know how you could think Trump would be better.
 
Reactions
891 353 14
#9
"No third parties, no "not voting"" restricts the options more than the actual election. Even if I could vote, I'd vote for neither.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,569 1,194 23
#10
i don't think hillary is gonna be indicted really
I'm not talking about indicting. I'm talking about the fact that Bernie is poised to take a good chunk of delegates. And without the supers, they are very close. If the supers change based on their state's voting, Bernie wins the nomination outright.
 
Reactions
407 178 0
#12
Geopolitical ramifications aside, a Trump victory would hasten my SO's plans to spend a few years living abroad with me, so... :p
 
Reactions
504 140 7
#13
I'd vote third party. This isn't an option in the poll, of course, but I suspect that a lot of people if put to this choice will support a third party.
 
Reactions
299 37 13
#14
I'd vote third party. This isn't an option in the poll, of course, but I suspect that a lot of people if put to this choice will support a third party.
I think the Simpsons put it correct years ago. There could be two disgusting aliens bent on destroying the planet, and you guys would STILL vote for one of them rather than a 3rd party.
 
Reactions
891 353 14
#15
I think the Simpsons put it correct years ago. There could be two disgusting aliens bent on destroying the planet, and you guys would STILL vote for one of them rather than a 3rd party.
I don't know, we'll see, I think. If it really comes down to Trump vs Clinton, I can see a lot of "true" conservatives and a lot of millennials voting with their feet. Clinton'll base a lot of her campaign on "you have to vote for the lesser of two evils to keep Trump out!", but she's just too much a part of the System to be palatable to the younger generation. My guess would be such a choice would end up with a Trump win, with either very low voter turn-out, or a high margin of third party/write-in/etc votes. The Clinton team really seems to underestimate how much she's positioned herself for a fall with her "experience" angle. Pretty much everyone, left and right, agree the current system doesn't work, so good on you for saying you've been part of the system for so long and know it so well.
 
Reactions
504 140 7
#16
I think the Simpsons put it correct years ago. There could be two disgusting aliens bent on destroying the planet, and you guys would STILL vote for one of them rather than a 3rd party.
As a whole you are correct, the election would still go to one or the other. However, the third party voting should jump up significantly as people decide to not choose the lesser of two evils and instead choose a better candidate overall.

This should give a pretty good shot in the arm to the third parties, and make the duplicrats and replicons sit up and take notice for how badly they are doing things.

But honestly, for a third party to succeed they have to take a good portion of the house and senate. We won't have a third party president until people are widely electing them locally and for their state representatives and senators.
 
Reactions
471 226 1
#19
You're surprised a low-anonimity high-civility forum hasn't attracted a big crowd of /r/The_Donald-dwelling "cuck"-yelling /pol/acks? :p
The poll is an April Fools joke to begin with, so that is my source of disappointment. But if we had a greater than 70% Trump support the OP would have retreated in a huff.
 
Reactions
415 55 1
#23
I think the Simpsons put it correct years ago. There could be two disgusting aliens bent on destroying the planet, and you guys would STILL vote for one of them rather than a 3rd party.
I like how you assume those 3rd party candidates are more appealing to everyone than the two stinkers heading the major parties, but gosh darn it we just can't wrap our tiny little minds around the idea of voting for a better candidate.
 
Reactions
499 57 0
#24
The supers will not change. Bernie only decided to become a Democrat because he wanted to run for president - that's it. The party is just a means to an end for him, and there's a lot of Dems who feel that way. I know I do.

Bernie wants to do away with The Affordable Health Care Act and replace it with a single-payer system that has absolutely zero chance of passing both houses of Congress. Given the way incumbents stay in power, we'll still see a significant Republican presence that will likely block all of Bernie's big promises.

No single-payer healthcare.
No free state college.
No increased taxes on the top-earners.

These things are anathema to conservatives. Bernie knows this. He's not naive. But he has no intention of compromising. He knows these things will fail in Congress, but he'll keep going on and on about them until he gets the votes, and it comes off as disingenuous. The super delegates are aware of this. They see Bernie as the Tea Party on the opposite end of the political spectrum, and overwhelmingly reject him.

If it is Trump and Clinton, and I hope it is, you will see a high turnout to keep Trump out. The most recent models have Clinton soundly defeating Trump.
 
Reactions
954 71 2
#25
Bernie wants to do away with The Affordable Health Care Act and replace it with a single-payer system that has absolutely zero chance of passing both houses of Congress. Given the way incumbents stay in power, we'll still see a significant Republican presence that will likely block all of Bernie's big promises.
It's actually expected we'll be seeing a lot of turn-over this year, mostly because of cripplingly incompetent Congress has been this year. It's sort of why the Republicans are terrified about the Supreme Court issue: they have to win the presidency AND not lose seats to block a vote. If they lose even a few seats and the Dems don't, then it doesn't matter if they win the big chair.
 
Reactions
1,955 620 2
#26
Turn-over is more likely during a presidential election than mid-terms because people are more likely to vote during a presidential election. What? Go out every two years? Sounds un-American.
 
Reactions
954 71 2
#27
And if there is a big enough shake-up this election, there really is nothing keeping Obama from shoving a Supreme Court candidate through Congress between Jan 3rd and Jan 20th... and really, I can't think of a better way to end his term.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,569 1,194 23
#28
There's no fucking shoving of anything. His nominee should be in the SCOTUS way before January.
 
Reactions
504 140 7
#30
It's an interesting game. Senators and representatives take office the third day of January, presidents the twentieth.

There is a short period of time between where Obama will be president and the new house and senate will be in place. I don't know if they'll meet, but I suppose it's possible to gamble on a switchover that might allow Obama to appoint a more liberal judge than he can possibly get with the current congress.

I doubt he'd try that, confirmation hearings and so forth take a long time, and if they're getting another democrat in the executive branch they might not care to switch over right now anyway.

Besides which, the even Supreme Court might actually be the better court anyway, letting the close calls stand with lower courts until a better case is made before the Supreme Court.
 
#31
I don't have a link, but I read somewhere over the weekend that Obama said in no uncertain terms that he will not be revoking/pulling back his nomination. So it's Merrick or Hillary's pick, unless the judge removes/declines the nomination sometime in between.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,569 1,194 23
#32
I don't have a link, but I read somewhere over the weekend that Obama said in no uncertain terms that he will not be revoking/pulling back his nomination. So it's Merrick or Hillary's pick, unless the judge removes/declines the nomination sometime in between.
Or Sanders, or Trump, or (heaven help us all) Cruz.
 

Dave

Staff member
Reactions
2,569 1,194 23
#34
No, I'm talking about who's going to be President after Obama in reality.
In reality there's nothing certain at this point. Yes, I think you are probably correct, but you are speaking like it's a given and it's not.

Cruz - Virtually impossible at this point. He's only won 2 (or 3) states and RNC rules say that a candidate has to win at least 8 states to be able to get votes. Now, it'll be interesting to see if they change the rules before the convention to screw Trump.

Trump - The probable republican nominee. He brings a lot of baggage with him and has alienated Hispanics, Muslims, and women. Not necessarily in that order. But there are a LOT of people who like him and if Hillary is the democratic nominee, there's a lot who will vote for the other guy or stay home because of how much they despise her and her opportunistic politics.

Bernie - Right now without counting the supers, Bernie is down by about 250 delegates and has won 8 of the last 9 states. New York, California, and Pennsylvania are still coming up. Hillary is NOT the nominee yet, but of course the supers are all paid for by the Clinton Victory Fund so Bernie is fighting an uphill battle against an entrenched establishment that refuses to play on a level field because they know they'd get beaten. Bernie is only behind by a couple hundred delegates and he's doing that in the face of overwhelming odds, DNC bias against him (the head of the DNC was a Hillary staff member in the 2008 campaign and changes whatever rules necessary to help her friend), and a corporate media (strangely enough mad donors to the Clintons) that refuses to acknowledge the fact that Hillary continually obfuscates, lies, and flip-flops while propping her up as you do - giving her the nomination before she's earned it.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,630 1,619 31
#35
In reality there's nothing certain at this point. Yes, I think you are probably correct, but you are speaking like it's a given and it's not.

Cruz - Virtually impossible at this point. He's only won 2 (or 3) states and RNC rules say that a candidate has to win at least 8 states to be able to get votes. Now, it'll be interesting to see if they change the rules before the convention to screw Trump.

Trump - The probable republican nominee. He brings a lot of baggage with him and has alienated Hispanics, Muslims, and women. Not necessarily in that order. But there are a LOT of people who like him and if Hillary is the democratic nominee, there's a lot who will vote for the other guy or stay home because of how much they despise her and her opportunistic politics.

Bernie - Right now without counting the supers, Bernie is down by about 250 delegates and has won 8 of the last 9 states. New York, California, and Pennsylvania are still coming up. Hillary is NOT the nominee yet, but of course the supers are all paid for by the Clinton Victory Fund so Bernie is fighting an uphill battle against an entrenched establishment that refuses to play on a level field because they know they'd get beaten. Bernie is only behind by a couple hundred delegates and he's doing that in the face of overwhelming odds, DNC bias against him (the head of the DNC was a Hillary staff member in the 2008 campaign and changes whatever rules necessary to help her friend), and a corporate media (strangely enough mad donors to the Clintons) that refuses to acknowledge the fact that Hillary continually obfuscates, lies, and flip-flops while propping her up as you do - giving her the nomination before she's earned it.
Cruz has won 9 states.

Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. The one they're talking about "changing the rules" for is Kasich, who has only won 1 - his home state of Ohio.

Or, y'know, Mitt Romney's grand plan to shove Paul Ryan in there, like that won't cause a party revolt.
 
Top