US Presidential Race 2016 Straw Poll

Hey everyone.

I thought it would be interesting to make a straw poll for these forums for the 2016 presidential race. It's all relatively anonymous, etc. 

Hope you are interested

GeorgeBrawnNikkiP
«13456712

Comments

  • "As Bald Move goes, so goes the nation."

    Anyone listening to political podcasts this election cycle? My weekly go-to's are Slate's Political Gabfest, FiveThirtyEight's Election Podcast, and Keepin' it 1600. I also am fairly obsessive about checking 538's election forecast model. I remember following Nate Silver's blog posts about his model way back in the 2008.
    TheEconomistvoodooratDummytpelzy
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • GeorgeGeorge Astoria, New York
    edited September 2016
    MrX said:

    "As Bald Move goes, so goes the nation."


    Anyone listening to political podcasts this election cycle? My weekly go-to's are Slate's Political Gabfest, FiveThirtyEight's Election Podcast, and Keepin' it 1600. I also am fairly obsessive about checking 538's election forecast model. I remember following Nate Silver's blog posts about his model way back in the 2008.
    I listen to Keeping it 1600 weekly, but sometimes I can't get over their bias. It's understandable with how ridiculous this campaign has been from the Republican party, but I just get the vibe that they aren't always calling it right down the middle.

    Besides that I just started listening to The Axe Files which is David Axelrod's podcast. First episode I listened to was Karl Rove. Good stuff. Never thought I'd be interested in what the guy who got Bush elected twice had to say, but it was really informative.

    Last but not least, Common Sense with Dan Carlin. First time I listened he was making an argument for freedom of speech on the Trump side of things, and while my instinctual reaction was to shun what he had to say, I realized I couldn't disagree with his logic. The fact that it makes me question my beliefs and sometimes second guess my feelings had me hooked. He only drops one every month or so, though. He was just on Rogan's podcast. Three hours of Joe Rogan and Dan Carlin talking shit is always worth a listen.
    Travis
  • TaraC73TaraC73 Manchester NH
    Here's who I'm voting for!
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic
    FlashGordonDummyblueberry5000
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • George said:

    MrX said:

    "As Bald Move goes, so goes the nation."


    Anyone listening to political podcasts this election cycle? My weekly go-to's are Slate's Political Gabfest, FiveThirtyEight's Election Podcast, and Keepin' it 1600. I also am fairly obsessive about checking 538's election forecast model. I remember following Nate Silver's blog posts about his model way back in the 2008.
    I listen to Keeping it 1600 weekly, but sometimes I can't get over their bias. It's understandable with how ridiculous this campaign has been from the Republican party, but I just get the vibe that they aren't always calling it right down the middle.

    Besides that I just started listening to The Axe Files which is David Axelrod's podcast. First episode I listened to was Karl Rove. Good stuff. Never thought I'd be interested in what the guy who got Bush elected twice had to say, but it was really informative.

    Last but not least, Common Sense with Dan Carlin. First time I listened he was making an argument for Freedom of speech on the Trunp side of things, and while my instinctual reaction was to shun what he had to say, I realized I couldn't disagree with his logic. The fact that it makes me question my beliefs and sometimes second guess my feelings had me hooked. He only drops one every month or so, though. He was just on Rogam's podcast. Three hours of Joe Rogan and Dan Carlin talking shit is always worth a listen.
    Keeping it 1600 isn't supposed to really be an "unbiased" podcast. The podcasters themselves used to work on the Obama campaign amongst other groups. This is the MO of the BS podcast network, they don't try to "force" you to be "equal" and often times much like the leader their biases may always alienate a broader audience (not sure that they care). I do appreciate their "inside" stories, however ifninwas looking for unbiased opinions it's one i would avoid depending on your beliefs.
  • GeorgeGeorge Astoria, New York
    edited September 2016
    Eh, my beliefs don't really matter honestly. I enjoy differing opinions. I'm planning on voting Democrat this election, so 90% of the time I 100% agree with them. I do enjoy it, I just shame myself for all the confirmation bias.

    Fair point on them letting their biases show, though. The Ringer and BSPN clearly lean liberal and Bill's 20 minute deep dives into The Celtics always make me roll my eyes lol
    BourbonQueen
  • kingbee67kingbee67 Los Angeles Ca.
    edited September 2016
    As of today I'm dumping all political stuff off my Facebook feed. It's just screwing with my blood pressure to much. I might even quit cable news also. I flip thru the top 3 most of the time trying to avoid the most vile stuff. Who am I kidding there always vile.

    Only unbiased commentary here.
    GeorgeFlashGordondarwinfeeshy
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • I enjoy Keepin it 1600 too and I always get excited to see it pop into my feed, and I agree that they are really biased, but at least they pull absolutely no punches about it. They don't pretend to be making any attempt to be anything but pom-pom waving democrats. I respect them for not making any charade about it. I can see how it might be frustrating though. For me, my only complaint would be that there is a weird arbitrary line that I feel them cross every now and again, but don't know exactly where it exists where their snarky sort of elitism can rub me the wrong way. Funny thing is, that snarky elitism is also what I like about them. I can't quite explain it, but every now and again I get momentarily annoyed. That said, I love the show and I'm often champing at the bit for new ones to come in.

    I'm also really into Common Sense. I accept and kind of get why he doesn't (quality over quantity is a good mission statement and it has served him well), but I really wish he got them out a little more frequently. Carlin is awesome though and I love that cast.

  • edited September 2016
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Hey everyone.


    I thought it would be interesting to make a straw poll for these forums for the 2016 presidential race. It's all relatively anonymous, etc. 

    Hope you are interested



    Can non-US citizens vote in the straw poll?
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Hey everyone.


    I thought it would be interesting to make a straw poll for these forums for the 2016 presidential race. It's all relatively anonymous, etc. 

    Hope you are interested



    Can non-US citizens vote in the straw poll?
    This comment is why I love Finns and why my plan if the crazy cheeto man is elected is to move to Finland. :D

    I'm Dutch. You'll be moving to The Netherlands.

  • DrewDrew indianapolis
    edited September 2016
    This election is the worst, not a fan of either candidate tbh. I would like to vote for Stein but I feel like it would not only be a wasted vote but also a vote that would lead to a Trump presidency. I just don't get how people can support that man, and his rise has opened my eyes to racism in my family I haven't seen since I dated a black girl in high school, it's gross.

    The political Facebook posts are really on my last nerve, and maybe it's because there's only 3 liberal people on either side of my family but I never see them shitty misinformed political memes unless it's a right leaning stance.

    I really don't get the mindset of them people, I have to see post after post about how Obama is the worst president in history, "tranny's" are mentally damaged and trying to rape our kids in the bathroom, I'm a Christian and I'm the most oppressed person in society right now, and anytime I try to go in there and combat that ignorance I get the, "liberal double standard" bullshit, you're the problem with society, no one asked for your opinion, etc.

    It's just gross, I don't really go to family gatherings so I don't have to deal with that kind of talk and grilling and everytime I get told I need to put more effort in trying to be there for the family. The year Obama was elected one of my uncles grabbed me super hard by the shoulder and was pushing me into the couch telling me how I'm part of the problem and my group was destroying the country, like why would I want to be around them kind of people?

    Sorry for the rant I just don't have people to vent about this to and it's been years of shit.
    Travisken hale
  • I skipped most of this thread (on the phone traveling and don't like reading lots of text on the phone) but I do listen to a bunch of political/policy podcasts: Slate political Gabfest, the politico one (nerdcast), the foreign policy (fp.com) the ER, Vox's the weeds, the fivethirtyeight one, the npr political one, carlin's common sense, John dickerson's face the nation diary (i never listen to or watch the Sunday shows anymore though because they are just painful). A few others are subscribed but rarely listened to (axelred's, keeping it 1600 and, yes, Hillary's).

    Really except for a handful it's most of my podcast diet.
  • TaraC73TaraC73 Manchester NH
    Anyone who thinks their votes are "wasted" by voting for a third party candidate, while that may be true in the sense that the third party candidates don't really have a chance in hell to win BUT this election could be "the one" to help third parties become more mainstream and get on future ballots. Even though a third party candidate doesn't win, the vote for tbatbperson still counts.
    TravisBrawnAntManBeeNikkiP
  • This political season cannot be over with any faster.  All I know if that I live in Texas and I want Texas to LIGHT UP BLUE on election day.

    Teach them "oppressed right wing Christian fanatics" that no matter how much you're trying to make Christianty the official law of the land, it's not going to happen.
    GeorgeUnderwoodNikkiP
  • What can I say? Like a fatal accident I'm both horrified and morbidly fascinated by this election cycle.

    And a little worried.
    TravisTaraC73
  • As others said, the Keepin' it 1600 guys are clearly biased, and they don't try to hide it. I think they bring really interesting insight to the table, since they were been deeply involved in the last two campaigns (including the 2008 primary against Clinton).
    TravisKingKobraNikkiP
  • TaraC73TaraC73 Manchester NH
    AND for the record - if the democratic candidate were *anyone* other than Hillary I would not only be voting for that candidate, I would be out fucking stumping like a bitch for that candidate. Trump is ignorant, very likely to get us into a freaking war because of his attitude, and is just basically the worst human on the planet. BUT I cannot vote for a duplicitous, murderous pig either. In this case there ISN'T a lesser of two evils. So a third party will get my vote :)
    blueberry5000
  • GeorgeGeorge Astoria, New York
    Listening to Keeping it 1600 and they ironically addressed their bias lol
    Travis
  • TaraC73 said:

    Anyone who thinks their votes are "wasted" by voting for a third party candidate, while that may be true in the sense that the third party candidates don't really have a chance in hell to win BUT this election could be "the one" to help third parties become more mainstream and get on future ballots. Even though a third party candidate doesn't win, the vote for tbatbperson still counts.

    Preach on! Actually, a friend posted an interesting article about this on facebook recently. Truth is that, depending on where you live, your vote is actually much more productive used to vote for a third party candidate if the election is already more or less decided where you are voting. For instance, I live in CA which will most certainly go to Clinton. Therefore, it creates a real opportunity to use my vote to try to help certify a third party. Assuming that one of those candidates/parties speaks to my sensibilities. Anyone who isn't in a swing state really should at least think about how much they like their options and whether they feel the field should be expanded in the future, and if there is a party that they would like to try to add credibility to. The only way we ever get more than two choices is to add percentage points to someone else and get the media's attention. The only way another candidate gets into the debates for instance is to be polling at (can't remember if it's) 10 or 15%, but there is never enough coverage for those candidates to get their message out widely. It's a ridiculous monopoly. So, there's my rant. If you hate that you only have two choices and your state is already sewn up like mine is, think long and hard about how your vote is most productively used.
    TaraC73Brawn
  • George said:

    Listening to Keeping it 1600 and they ironically addressed their bias lol

    I was laughing at that too. Nicely timed!
    George
  • I can't in good conscience vote for a 3rd party.  Now is literally the worst time to elect in an unknown 3rd party with so much at stake this election.  We had 4 years to try to get a 3rd party up and more into the limelight and vetted.   Johnson is just a Republican that smokes pot.  

    Plus, anytime Johnson is on an AMA or an interview he doesn't know any of the issues outside of "I want to legalize pot and protect your guns."  That's all he's got.  I've seen countless times where they ask him a viable question that a presidential candidate should know and the response is "What is that?"  or  "I'm not sure exactly what that is."  I don't want someone learning how to do the job - they should know going in.  They're trying to run a fucking country, for crying out loud!

    We finally got some of the stupid laws in Texas repealed because Texas can't be trusted to govern themselves and put the rights of the people before religion.  Last thing I want is to put someone that thinks that the states should govern themselves on all issues.  Nope.
    DeeFlashGordon
  • Plus, this video also puts into perspective why adding additional parties is not always the best idea.


    kingbee67A_Ron_Hubbard
  • I think it'd be cool if the U.S. could organize some sort of strategic voting like they have done in Canada. Basically this would mean that if you are living an uncontested state that is clearly going for the person you wouldn't vote for, and you don't like the other candidate, then you should vote for the third party as your vote won't matter to the electoral college anyway. But if you live in a battleground state, then you should vote for one of the two primary candidates as your vote absolutely does matter. 

    The idea here is not to elect a third party as that is pretty much impossible to do, but to elevate third party numbers to the point where it's very clear that a lot of people are very unhappy with the two current parties and that could pave the way for more change in the future. 

    Now I am not sure that it would all really work, but I think it's worth a shot and better than what we have now. Of course for strategic voting to really work it would have to be highly organized and there would have to be a lot of buy-in from voters to actually do it. 

    Here's a snippet from a podcast that explains it in clearer, more detail than I have done here. It's only nine minutes long.
    TaraC73Brawn
  • The "major" third parties - namely Green and Libertarian - really need to stop this "top down" strategy where every 4 years they run out a presidential ticket (often with woefully unqualified candidates *cough* Jill Stein *cough*) and make a little bit of noise, get a few votes, and then no one thinks about them again for 4 years. Instead, they need to to build up a better grassroots foundation and start targeting local, state and congressional elections that they actually have a shot at, and go from there. Just winning 8-10% of the vote this year instead of 3-5% isn't going to deliver the national prominence that is needed.
    DaveyMacBourbonQueenlippyNikkiP
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited September 2016
    DaveyMac said:

    I think it'd be cool if the U.S. could organize some sort of strategic voting like they have done in Canada. Basically this would mean that if you are living an uncontested state that is clearly going for the person you wouldn't vote for, and you don't like the other candidate, then you should vote for the third party as your vote won't matter to the electoral college anyway. But if you live in a battleground state, then you should vote for one of the two primary candidates as your vote absolutely does matter. 


    The idea here is not to elect a third party as that is pretty much impossible to do, but to elevate third party numbers to the point where it's very clear that a lot of people are very unhappy with the two current parties and that could pave the way for more change in the future. 

    Now I am not sure that it would all really work, but I think it's worth a shot and better than what we have now. Of course for strategic voting to really work it would have to be highly organized and there would have to be a lot of buy-in from voters to actually do it. 

    Here's a snippet from a podcast that explains it in clearer, more detail than I have done here. It's only nine minutes long.



    I can't listen to the clip now, I'm just packing up to leave work, but I totally agree with the ideas you're tossing out. The big inspirational moment for me that has made me so frustrated with our two party system actually came from watching a Canadian election on CSPAN many years ago. I was so impressed at how many parties candidates were receiving percentages of the vote. This cycle totally blows my mind. How is it possible that we have two candidates with such incredibly low favorability ratings and that's it. I actually don't hate, or even dislike Clinton, but I feel that it's insane that two options is the best we can do, and hearing about the mechanics of getting any sort of credibility on a large scale for a party is infuriating. It's such a monopoly built into the system. The two parties have way too much power. Anyhoo, I'm very interested to hear that clip.

    @BourbonQueen I can't vote for Johnson either. I will say that, from what I've read and the couple of interviews I have listened to, he is more substantive than you give him credit for, and I really like some pieces of his platform it's just that the pieces I don't like are quite terrifying to me. At any rate, in the next week or two I'm going to take a look at Jill Stein and the Green Party in general and see if they can win me over. I'd be more than happy to vote for Clinton, but as I said before, if just feels much more productive to me to go third party. CA was won before the primaries. Hell, it was won 8 or 9 years ago, if not longer. I am curious about your video though, and like @DaveyMac 's clip I'm going to give it a look in the next day or so.

  • voodooratvoodoorat Atlanta
    edited September 2016
    I know there aren't very many presidential systems like ours in existence, but of those that do exist or have existed, is there any history of viable third parties (I guess that didn't go on to displace one of the major parties in opposition to one another)?

    I think a protest vote is a viable strategic vote, as is a legitimate vote for a 3rd party...  But I don't know how viable they are as far as governing goes.  Also, I think you really do have to be aware of the effect of your vote or non-vote--it matters a lot more in some places than others and with that extra oomph comes extra responsibility, I think.
    Travis
Sign In or Register to comment.