Who would you probably vote for?

[ydoaPs]

Could you point me towards some of the foreign policy stuff? I haven't see as much of that from him and I'm curious.

Think of just about any foreign policy disaster from the US, and there's likely a video from C-SPAN of Sanders telling the rest of Congress why it's a dumb idea.

 

 

If Trump can not win more than a third support within a partisan primary I see no reason to assume he'd be able to win a general election.

Trump is in a primary race with more people than the race that Clinton and Sanders are in, so his race's vote is split more than the other race. As for general election viability, we've had matchup polls for a long time. Clinton consistently does terribly against Trump and does worse as time goes on. I don't think you should underestimate Trumps ability to win the general election.

[iNow]

As for general election viability, we've had matchup polls for a long time. Clinton consistently does terribly against Trump and does worse as time goes on. I don't think you should underestimate Trumps ability to win the general election.

I agree we should NOT underestimate Trumps ability to win the general (see also: GWB elected...twice) and that people MUST turn out to vote against him almost regardless of who's chosen to be his opponent, but I'm pretty sure your claim about how Clinton fares in a matchup against him is mistaken.

 

With only extremely rare exceptions themselves within the error range, she beats him by 7-10+ points in nearly every single poll and has for months:

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

[ydoaPs]

I agree we should NOT underestimate Trumps ability to win the general (see also: GWB elected...twice) and that people MUST turn out to vote against him almost regardless of who's chosen to be his opponent, but I'm pretty sure your claim about how Clinton fares in a matchup against him is mistaken.

 

With only extremely rare exceptions themselves within the error range, she beats him by 7-10+ points in nearly every single poll and has for months:

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

They've been polling about equally (with a downward slope for the trend line) since September. She had a slight bump at the beginning of April, but it's going back down now. Try looking at those plots with the MOE in the graph.

[iNow]

MOE?

 

 

[Ten oz]

Trump is in a primary race with more people than the race that Clinton and Sanders are in, so his race's vote is split more than the other race. As for general election viability, we've had matchup polls for a long time. Clinton consistently does terribly against Trump and does worse as time goes on. I don't think you should underestimate Trumps ability to win the general election.

I have heard this argument a number of times and believe it to be flawed. All primaries start with multiple candidates and shrink as the parties coalesce around candidates. In 2012 there were 13 GOP candidates, 4 candidates won various states and delegates, yet Romney still won 52% of the vote. Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul were all still in through April, Gingich stayed in till May and Paul till the convention. Romney still managed 52% of the vote even in a 4 way finishing with 1575 delegates. Trump is simply doing worse. The number of candidates doesn't explain it.

 

I don't believe I am underestimating Trump; I believe most are overestimating him. It is all an expectations game. People say he has done better than expected in the primary so he may do the same in the general but that isn't how it works. No candidate since Nixon in 1968 has won the general with as low a percentage of the popular vote as Trump has. And in 1968 RFK was murdered and Wallace ran as a third ticket. It is also important to consider who is voting for Trump. His support has been over 90% white and over 60% male. Can't even compete in the general with demographics like that. There simply is no area where Trumps performs well to cause concern.

[CroMagnon]

I'd say none. A system of decision-making based on consensus and reputation, respect and keeping your word, can only be maintained at a population of about 150 humans. The number mammals with brains our size can track socially. A good breeding stock that can maintain itself indefinitely would be about 500. So ideally, I'd vote for going back to the hunter-gatherer days. Just like other animals, have larger populations numbering in just the thousands each scattered throughout the globe, every group adapted and in synch with their particular habitat. Each little family band of only a hundred or so gets a nice size chunk of territory to hunt and forage in.

 

We eat fresh meat and greens, fruit when available, not a bunch of sugar to rot our teeth and make us fat. Being nomadic hunters, exercise comes naturally. Diseases are more contained by the scattered population; likewise, food, land, and other resources are more available because we aren't monopolising the planet. Less reason for war. Bands only meet up a few times a year to trade, mate, sing, dance, tell stories around the fire, eat barbecue, take entheogens, and otherwise have a good holiday.

 

We wouldn't want to slaughter each other as much because billions of us wouldn't be crammed together like sardines. Less annoying neighbors, sacrificing for strangers, uncaring governments, fighting over resources, and other humans for our brains to keep track of. I'm sure there'd still be conflict, but on a much smaller scale. We'd just stay out of each other's way and stick with our family for the most part. In tune with the seasons and environment.

 

But that was a long time ago. So if I had to pick....still none. At least none of the major players. Maybe Trump if I believed a word he said, I like his audacity, opposition to Obamacare, and wall idea. But we need one for Canada too, terrorists can get in both ways. But I took that Isidewith test to see what they think, and I side with....three guys I've never heard of at about 85% each. Marc Allan Feldman, Austin Peterson, and John McAfee. I do seem to agree with Feldman on healthcare, education, foreign policy, and firearms. Don't tell me what to do with my body, teach to each child's potential, stay out of other countries' problems, and give me any means necessary to defend my family. But he seems to care little for the earth.

 

Peterson isn't too bad either, agree on healthcare, education, and guns. I'd rather us stay out of the Middle East, but I like his mercenary idea, and he doesn't seem too fond of surveillance. Another polluter and plunderer though, and in support of eminent domain. McAfee seems like my best bet, whoever the hell he is. We agree on everything but immigration and refugees. I just think we need to keep our borders tight (yeesh I'm so afraid of offending any Hispanics) in this age of terrorism, restrict the nation's population without resorting to killing, and keep our resources for our citizens and their families. But beggars can't be choosers, the borders of governments are the least of my concerns. I just want my family, our bodies, and our land to be left to our own jurisdiction.

 

Just my usually unpopular two cents.