@115 She voted for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 when she was in the Senate. This was the act overturned in the Citizens United decision. This act didn't take money out of campaigning, but it was better than what we have now. Any new law won't completely take money out either, but it can happen over a number of years through bills and court rulings. With a Conservative court there is zero chance this will happen. The evidence of that is the Citizens United ruling. I will vote for the person who voted for the campaign finance reform because I think that this is one the most important issues. I will rely on her prior voting record and her current public statements on the issue. If it was either prior voting record or current statements I would be more skeptical. Since it is both I tend to believe her on this. I think she is lying about her stance on TPP, but I think that will pass in the lame duck congress and Obama will sign it.

Credulous hipster assholes. If Americans are stupid enough to vote for Trump, they will be abetted by those stupid enough to commit to the 'banging on the high-chair' vote.

Can we first get rid of the notion that voting for Stein is exactly the same as voting for Trump?

No, because it is.We have a two party system that is pretty locked into place for the Presidency via the Electoral College and has been ever since there were federalists vs anti-federalists. No amount of wishing that your "protest" vote will mean a damn thing will change that. You're not going to win a single electoral vote - 16 years later, the thing that people most remember about Nader was that he was a spoiler that gave us GWB because people "voted their conscience." Why is this so fucking hard to understand? When, in the entire history of the country, has a third party acted as anything but a spoiler in a Presidential election?

@106: I'm just clarifying why I oppose your ideas. You slightly misrepresented my views in your previous post.

@112 A "lot of words" and all you read is that "this will be better for our corporations?" Maybe it's time to consider, just consider the possibility that you've allowed yourself to get a bit close-minded and doctrinaire, to the point that you can't fully absorb information that might be relevant.

Yes, this might benefit American businesses, or multinational corporations associated with or doing major business in the U.S. but successfully avoiding taxes here, so fuck them, seriously. But is it going to be OUR stinking corporations running roughshod through the consumer economies of the Asia-Pacific, or is it going to be China's? Our culture, or theirs? Diplomatic and military alliances with us, or with them? Is the most popular foreign language to learn going to be English, or Mandarin?

Right now, we're the cool kid at school, and all the other kids want to sit at our table, but China is making investments in infrastructure, tech R&D, education, and industrialization, and sucking up to our friends. And if we're not careful to keep up our game, we're going to be sitting all alone. China is investing heavily in third-world countries with exploitable resources in Africa, Asia, South America and the Middle East. This gives them a lot of power and influence.

A trade pact by us with a large group of their current and potential trading partners keeps us in the game.

@122 So...it's corporate imperialism. Root for the home team even if we can't afford to buy a house.

Got it.

@119 That's still fallacious. My favorite part is your assumption that Nader voters were ever going to vote for Gore while the Democrats who voted for Bush are never to blame.

But, yeah, it was all Nader's fault.

(Can you feel me doing a Liz Lemon Eyeroll through the Internet?)

Lemme put it to you like this: If I weren't voting for Stein, I would be voting for Trump for exactly the reasons laid out above. Hillary is a bad deal. And I will not be supporting her. I will not support Trump, but if it came down to the two, I would never support Clinton.

@124
"Can we first get rid of the notion that voting for Stein is exactly the same as voting for Trump?"

Yes, 5% of people voting for Stein is a lot different than those same 5% of people voting for Trump. If people don't realize that they should take a simple math class. Voting for Trump would cause a 10% swing where as voting for Stein is 5% swing, so there is a difference.

If voting for Stein keeps you going to the polls and not voting for Trump by all means do it. Make sure to vote in 2018 too. Parties that want to blame a 3rd party for their election loss need to look in the mirror. It isn't those people's fault. It is the party's base that is at fault for electing a terrible candidate. We have the two most disliked candidates in Presidential history, but whoever loses can just blame it on the 3rd or 4th party. When it isn't your fault you don't have to change right?

@124 - k.

@108: "Logically inconsistent" doesn't always pair with "I don't get why you're doing what you're doing." An argument is logically consistent as long as it does not contain a contradiction. Our argument is that voting third party in a safe state will have a negligible effect on the outcome of the election, but will have a positive outcome for the third party and its associated political movements.

The first premise is that Washingtonians live in a safe state. The last time our state voted Republican was 1984. During the course of this comment thread, the win percentage for Clinton has actually bounced up from 92.7% to 93.5%. We currently have a 0.6% chance of tipping the election (i.e. being the state that decides it all). All of this holds true while a projected 11.5% of the population is voting for Gary Johnson. To tell me that my vote for the Green Party will cost Clinton the election is plain mathematical ignorance.

The second premise is that voting for the Green Party will help the Green Party. We've already discussed how, so we don't need to go into that again.

Therefore, as it stands, the only effect my vote will have on the election will be to provide support to the Green Party, which will help build an independent political movement on a local level for 2018, and on a national level for 2020. You can even borrow the logic of all those tepid Clinton supporters if you don't particularly like Stein: vote for the party, not the person.

As far as destroying the GOP, Clinton has already been wooing the far right, their policy makers, and their billionaires. If anything, they'll be absorbed into the Democratic Party after a massive Trump loss (much like Arlen Specter was in 2009), pulling it even further to the right than it is at the moment. I don't know about you, but I can't wait until we ditch this two party system for a one party system.

On top of that, people are making the strange assumption that Clinton will appoint traditionally liberal SC justices when Clinton is a clearly neoliberal. Even the Clinton supporters here agree with that assessment. We'll likely see a corporate-friendly, anti-union, and pro-government surveillance SC justice come out of a Clinton administration. They may have some left tendencies, but will be unwilling to take a bold stance on anything as controversial as Citizens United. Treading water isn't going to stop a more sophisticated Trump-like figure from winning in 2020.

@122: That sounds like a corporate Domino Theory, which worked so flawlessly last time. I'd rather not give multinational corporations the ability to sue governments over environmental regulations that could harm profitability for the sake of cultural and corporate imperialism.

If voting for Stein is voting for Trump, then wasting your time yelling at Greens (when you could be ten times more productive registering voters and GOTV) is campaigning for Trump.

And the more time you spend appealing for Clinton votes by talking about what's wrong with the alternatives, is you reinforcing Trump's point that nobody likes Clinton and nobody thinks she would be a good President. Trump says you don't talk about Hillary because you can't make the case for Hillary. Is he right?

If you want Clinton to win, campaign FOR Clinton.

Also, people who turn out for Stein are going to help Democrats down-ballot. Giving you the Senate, maybe the House, and all kinds of local seats. Your welcome.

are you all on adderall?😂😂😂 clearly this is a subject that people really like talking about forcefully. please vote hillary so donald goddamn trump doesn't become the president of the united states 🙏 please 🙏

@129 I know it is really rather funny when one considers that pretty much all of these commenters live in Washington so they're really just talking to their belly buttons.

If it makes you feel better I live in Ohio and will vote for Hillary. To do otherwise would be foolish to say the least.

Jill Stein doesn't fit my values, though she's closer than some of the others except Clinton, and Gary Johnson certainly doesn't. There are just WAY too many issues that I disagree with Dr. Stein on. And that's before we get to whether or not she remotely experienced enough to be president. Even if she were a viable candidate, she fails me both on her issues and her abilities.

@124. So if your second choice would be trump, why have you been wasting space posting here then? Your mob is over yonder.

@132 No, your mob is over yonder...back in Australia. My mob (this mob) is mere blocks away.

@133 No that is your belly button and it is not mere blocks away, it is just above the appendage your hand is stroking.

@127
I see nothing wrong with voting for a third party in a non-swing state. I've said as much but I get confused about where/when so maybe I forgot to mention that here. My apologies. I have myself voted third party in solid states.

Generally speaking, I disagree with the idea that third parties are the path to any progressive solutions at the national level. I think that is a topic for a different conversation, and anyway plenty of progressives have been discussing this in intelligent ways for decades, so I see no reason to hash it out now. But if you are not in a swing state, do whatever you want. I'd be careful to check that your state really isn't a swing state. Lots of places are turning purple (in both directions). I'm in a red state that will go red this election, but it has been slowly turning purple (many districts already are, and most cities are blue) so for me I'm going to vote blue regardless. I think weighing the benefits of turning Texas more purple are greater than the benefits of supporting the GP, even in a non-swing state. But each state is different.

@127 "Therefore, as it stands, the only effect my vote will have on the election will be to provide support to the Green Party, which will help build an independent political movement on a local level for 2018,"

It will build party that supports those on the fringe. It isn't going to build a serous alternative party, because what attract people to it are those who believe vaccinations are part of a corporate conspiracy, those who believe 9/11 was an inside job, and we need to stock up on tinfoil hats.

If you want a serious alternative party, you need to find a way to put your ideas and dreams into action. It is not just saying what is right but how to persuade others it can benefit them as well.

The Green Party is just a vanity party, it is platform for Dr. Jill Stein to spout whatever is her head. Much like the Green Party of 2000 was a vanity party for Ralph Nader and his vanity candidacy..

@136: That's odd; their party platform seems pretty close to what 45% of Democratic primary voters supported in 2016. If you think that Green Party support is composed entirely of dumb fringe weirdos, I'd invite you to check out the thoroughly creepy and nationalistic DNC speech by General John Allen. When chants of "No More War!" are drowned out by dullards chanting "USA! USA! USA!," you know you're in the party of pragmatic rationalists...

Other scientific, non-fringe Democratic Party stances: Opposing legal cannabis (pre-Bernie), denying the influence of money in politi… (post-Bernie), believing that fracking is not harmful to the environme…, and so much more.

The truth is that the Democratic Party is the vanity party of the national stage. Their core supporters - a majority of whom are middle class professionals too complacent to engage in political action - can sigh a mournful sigh, repeat the aphoristic wisdom of lesser evilism, and then pat themselves on the back for doing their American duty by voting for that bland, corporate candidate. How brave. How rational. Thank god you're all here to save us from democracy.

Dan Savage is a neocon who happens to be gay, he enthusiastically supported the Iraq War because we needed to liberate those backward savages and whatnot. His political views fit well with Clinton, but for actual leftists they don't.