The problem for the popular "no one gets to 270, House decides, compromise candidate?!?" scenarios (I see them posted every day on FB by McMullin and Johnson supporters) is that there isn't really a viable left-leaning alternative. I'm sure some could argue Stein, but it's obvious that she has zero traction. Could McMullin or Johnson win a state? In theory, yes. But the route for them to do so requires Trump being so unpopular (what's currently happening) that there's virtually no way for him to win the 260+ electoral votes elsewhere to prevent Clinton from getting to 270. If there were a comparable left-leaning, third-party politician, it might work—if that candidate could also take away EVs from Clinton in a reliably liberal state. But the route for McMullin/Johnson is Trump being so unpopular that they can siphon off a big enough chunk of traditional Republicans to win a state, and if that's the case, there's no way that he'd magically be so popular elsewhere to win 260+. The "no one gets 270!" scenarios are a fun hypothetical to read about, but that angle is getting overplayed because the "sharers" don't seem to grasp the logistics of it.
The bigger problem is that if no one gets 270 and it goes to the house, the GOP controlled house will confirm Trump as president. It would be career suicide for too many of them not to.
If people are hoping McMullin will carry Utah and Clinton somehow doesn't crack 270 and the House will just give the whole election over to McMullin to avoid having Trump or Clinton as President -- that'd be a gross miscarriage of democracy. I'd just take Trump if having a one-state wonder is the alternative.
I mean, I wouldn't, but I get your point. However, there is nothing to worry about. Trump bottoming out so hard he can't carry Utah means a landslide elsewhere. Clinton never needed Utah to win the presidency, and in fact probably never even considered a result that didn't have Trump winning it. Trump loses Utah, his electoral results will be reminiscent of his hand size.
I'd take Trump too just on principle alone. The principle meaning not having a bunch of idiot jazz fans pick our next President.
I like it from the standpoint that, here are a group of largely conservative thinking people who are willing to stand up and put their money where their mouth is and vote for a candidate they can respect rather than holding the party line. And not just a small fringe either, enough people that he's probably going to be the first independent since 1968 to win electoral votes. (FYI Idaho could be in play, too) If more people had been willing to do that across America this would have been a different election. Instead of articles like this where people admit they're voting against the other candidate more than the one they're voting for, I think it's great that Utah went a different direction. Of course they know it means handing Hillary the election, and this from one of the most red states in the union. But for that many people to stand up and say no to Trump i think is very laudable.
The more I read about him, the more I wish he would have entered the race sooner. He's certainly a better option than that pot-smoking goofball Gary Johnson for those of us who refuse to vote for Hillary or Trump. Maybe he can build on this for 2020? And Mindy Finn is from Kingwood, so you know she's good people.
Well, I'm sure they're heartened to see that they are not the swing state that will cost Republicans the presidency. If it was close, they might feel like traitors to vote third party. Since Trump has no chance anyway, they may as well pick a different color.
In Utah, they are voting against Hillary and Trump. Unlike those two, no one knows much about McMullin or his views, and he hasn't remotely been vetted at the level of a normal Presidential candidate. Some certainly know about him and have done research, etc - but for the most part, it's a protest vote against the other two candidates. What you claim you wish weren't happening is exactly what you are praising Utah voters for doing.
McMullin is the best non-oligarch, non-geographically challenged, non-embracing pseudo-science candidate. Johnson might be an ex-governor but he's a much weaker a candidate than past LP nominees IMHO and he's squandered media opportunities to establish any credibility with voters on softball foreign policy questions.
Lol at the weakest candidate. I have been a Libertarian for over 20 years and this is up there with being the silliest comment. What softball foreign policies? The party is against foreign policy pretty much except on foreign trade. What you are finding weak is he is the only candidate that doesn't want us being the worlds policeman and sending the tune needed to be one. Bring all troops worldwide home now.
Considering that Ron Paul isn't voting for him and doesn't consider him a Libertarian would be a starting place to stop insulting me for being politically literate. He didn't know what or where Aleppo was and couldn't name a single head of state when asked which one he liked the most. You know, major recent world events, basic geography, and the names of the world's most powerful people. Things any reasonably intelligent 12 year-old would be able to answer. I wanted to like him, but that degree of ignorance is unforgivable. My vote was his to lose and he lost it faster than Jill Stein could say "alternative medicine." Maybe you, with 13 posts, might be a bit presumptuous about the political leanings of a poster that's been posting about politics here since the 90s as he lived in different countries, went to grad school, and worked as a journalist. I've been a principled non-interventionist long before you were able to vote, bacliff. No political party in any nation is "against foreign policy" other than maybe the Worker's Party of North Korea, and even they have to have some kind of relationship with China in order to stay alive. The LP's non-aggression principle and criticism of American Exceptionalism are it's most redeeming qualities, and I've voted for [some] Libertarians in [some] races mostly for that reason, longer than twenty years. You are probably too young to remember, but the Libertarian Party began it's life as an alliance between left-wing radicals and anti-war paleo-conservatives in the Vietnam-era that hasn't exactly worked out terribly well, nor has it exactly lit the world on fire with its insight, especially if you don't happen to think the economic policies of Augusto Pinochet are a model to the world. While I think the LP has ideas and positions that I think are important and would be refreshing in public discourse, neither Gary Johnson nor Bill Weld are making any strong arguments for the advocacy of these things and it doesn't appear they are even trying to. Grunting "Kill government and legalize weed" is not exactly a way to win anything other than maybe Homecoming King at Port Aransas High School. With that said, in this election, a vote for Gary is better than for one of the oligarchs, at least as a protest vote, and especially in a red state, but I can't give my vote in good conscience to someone that doesn't appear to even read a major newspaper.
Considering that Ron Paul isn't voting for him and doesn't consider him a Libertarian would be a starting place to stop insulting me for being politically literate. You have no idea who or what Ron Paul believes about Johnson. Ron Paul is a Republican not a Libertarian. He didn't know what or where Aleppo was and couldn't name a single head of state when asked which one he liked the most. You know, major recent world events, basic geography, and the names of the world's most powerful people. Things any reasonably intelligent 12 year-old would be able to answer. I wanted to like him, but that degree of ignorance is unforgivable. My vote was his to lose and he lost it faster than Jill Stein could say "alternative medicine." So what if he doesn't know Aleppo? I found it a good thing he didn't. I do know he is with the party of not giving a rats ass about Aleppo because the party is Isolationist so Aleppo is only a thing if you are a hawk.No 12 year old will know either unless they are coached. If you are not voting for him because of this then you are easily lead by the nose. No harm in that as most people are. Maybe you, with 13 posts, might be a bit presumptuous about the political leanings of a poster that's been posting about politics here since the 90s as he lived in different countries, went to grad school, and worked as a journalist. Ooh a long time poster here. I guess I can see how that would make someone seem to think they are superior at politics than anyone else because they post so much. No, I know politics and been around too long to see a fake. Keep posting for the major political parties because you were never a Libertarian and I think you could never be one as anyone that would vote for these two trash candidates that the major party has brought forth over Johnson especially when they claim to be Libertarian leaning is definitely a GOP or Dem
