Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
Well, that is factually correct. A few billion years from now. So, loooooooong term plans indeed.
and the race is tightening in Pennsylvania and Colorado etc
They noted that Hillary has spent a Gazillion bucks on ads
(vs zippo for The Donald) but is losing ground despite the massive buys.
We wonder if her whiney bitchy ads are having a negative effect.
Young folks aren't buying what she is selling,
and the harder she tries the faster they run away.
Her lead among young former Bernie supporters is shrinking to almost nothing.
It may be that the more people see of Hillary the less they will like her.
Frumpy doesn't sell like it used to.
Johnson's Libertarianism consists of turning government services over to private contractors - transforming middle class civil servants into barely-scraping-by hourly temp workers with the differences in cost turned into fat profits for shareholders. Which is to say - the exact same policy preferences of the GOP.
Dan... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!
Dan, you're hurting their feelings. We need to empathize with the idiot's concerns or they'll cut off their nose to spite their face (and their ears and pluck out their own eyes). Wait, what are their concerns? Something about neo-liberal, war-mongering, Wall Street, Benghazi emails? We're trying real hard to empathize really. Trouble is that carrying on about a 14 year old Senate vote and a handful of manufactured scandals when there about 110 million other absolutely vital things at stake in this election is..idiotic. Simply no way around it.
First, Johnson and Bernie do align on one MAJOR issue that is coincidentally ignored in this piece: foreign policy, unfunded and illegal wars. Second, Savage's description of Johnson's other policies is far from accurate. I implore people to actually go and read what his policies are rather than trust the word of a man who arguably got famous for no other reason than being gay and assigning a sexual act to a gay hating former senator (albeit very funny and quite appropriate). The reason he is pulling more from HRC than Trump is because of civil liberties. That pesky 4th Amendment would be trounced by both HRC and Trump. Third, if Bernie supporters actually believe that HRC is going to follow through on her promises to provide all that she had to concede in order for Sanders to roll over like a good democrat-caucusing senator, then they have not done their research. Fourth, we should all be advocating for a healthier democracy rather than limiting it to only the voices that the Rs and the Ds allow. Fifth, lumping Johnson in with the somewhat misguided definition of libertarianism like Savage and so many others have, is itself incredibly misguided at best, ignorant of the facts and grandstanding with false accusations. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Johnson is at best a small 'l' libertarian, at worst, a Reagan Democrat or JFK-like pragmatist. Vested interests will always look out for themselves. There is no-one in Washington with more vested interests than HRC. Vote for whomever best vocalizes what you find important for yourself and your country, but be informed before voting. Know who, what, why and how for all of the candidates before checking that box in November. We should be the most well-informed populace in the history of the world, but instead, we too often take the easy route and listen to comedians who think they are philosophers. Most importantly, be an individual mind and seek out the truthful answers rather than rely on hacks pieces like this.
Nate Silver currently has Clinton up by 10 points, with a 90% chance of taking Washington. If Clinton loses Washington, she loses, period. Washington will not be the so-called tipping-point state.
So with all that in mind, I think Washington voters who are so inclined do have the luxury of ignoring strategic concerns.
I don't even have to refer you to Silver to tell you that neither Johnson nor Stein have a prayer of ending up in the White House.
So with all that in mind, why might a Sanders supporter vote third party? Well, a vote for Stein is fairly easily justified on the basis of (1) similarity of values and agenda and (2) protest against the Democratic centrists who run the party. The drawback is that Stein is not going to win more than about maybe 2-3% of the vote. That's not a very strong rebuke.
If, however, you are deeply unhappy with the status quo, and, nevertheless, you are deeply horrified by Trump, you can signal that by voting for Johnson, who will come in third. You can do that knowing full well that his agenda will not be instituted. Which means that his actual policies are less important.
Now it's quite possible, probable even, that Johnson's numbers will fall back into Stein territory. Interest in third parties tends to peak right about now then fall back as people decide not to "waste" their vote. Still, if you want to make a protest, Johnson's probably your guy.
I've done this in congressional elections before. It's not unusual for me to live in a district that's so heavily Democratic that the Republicans don't even run a candidate. I'll vote for the third party simply as a protest against gerrymandered one-party districts.
Obviously, if you live in a swing state, especially a potential tipping-point state like Colorado or Florida, then your calculus is much different and a vote for Clinton is far more important.
Nobody told the Democrats there might be third party spoilers this election, before they went and picked the least electable choice out of their embarrassment of riches in viable presidential nominee material. What? Third parties? Who knew?
Consider this: if the Republicans had nominated a regular human being instead of a fucking Trump swamp monster, there would be no serious Libertarian challenge. They'd be united behind a Paul Ryan or a Scott Walker, or whatever a respectable Republican looks like these days. What the fuck would the Democrats be doing then? Hillary would be polling in the low 40s and there'd be no third party spoilers to blame.
So yeah, what a fucked up situation. Every vote counts. I'm just sick of listening to the likes of Dan Savage act like it's all because the loony left and the loony right and the loony middle won't fall into lockstep with the strategic choice, the lesser of two evils. The Democrats take the cake when it comes strategic voting fails.
You Democrats should be out registering kids and knocking on the doors of undecided independents. All this hectoring of committed libertarians or socialists or greens is bullshit. This is not a disaster created by the fringe. The establishment did this.
How'd that vote four years ago work out for you, hm?
Obviously they're too busy voting for Trump.
Supporting anyone but Hillary at this point will cause Trump to win.
PERIOD.
You can have your little feel good tantrum and vote for the equivalent of Arnold Schwartzenegger - ask Californians how good they felt about that the next day, and what condition he left the state in - but remember that this country is made up of lots and lots more than non-college educated blue collar straight white males - WE - ie the rest of us are the ones who would be most hurt by you deciding on your little reactionary macho boutique vote.
Does anyone know how to get a quick hit of heroin? I'd like to go out smiling.
So is Clinton. She's supported TPP and opposed the minimum wage until she had to court Sanders voters. She'll drop them like maggots once she's won. And Johnson is WAY better on many of Sanders' issues, such as free speech, civil liberties, mass surveillance and wars. Johnson was in favor of gay rights way before Clinton was. Clinton is a tool of Wall Street, the ultimate Washington insider, a warmonger and an enemy of civil liberties. She's better than Trump. But that's a low bar.
These war crimes of Hillary's I keep reading about, please explain. I thought All her supposed transgressions had already been investigated throughly and she's been cleared.
It's because she's a woman. It's because you Hillary haters are also suicidal, as trump will cause world mayhem. How can you not see who this low life is? He shows you really really clearly.
That's it. Negging. Negging is how you win votes. Neg those libertarians right into being down with Hill Dawg. I'll go measure the drapes in the White House, you go tell another Johnson voter he has mommy issues.
So your identity politics justification for supporting Hillary falls just a wee bit flat, don't you think, VelvetBabeAgain?
Or don't you.
Seriously, are you all huffing cleaning fluid? As this has never been contradicted I'm sticking with my opinion that the problem is that most of the fringe left is as appallingly uninformed as the average Trump enthusiast. Perhaps that's being a bit too generous. The irrational would likely not come to a more rational conclusion just because they learned something about the real issues that are at stake in this election.
You sure sounded relaxed, calm, and rational back then.
Washington is so far out of reach for Trump that the only way he wins the state is if the whole country breaks for him in a massive way. Which isn't going to happen.
You would need third parties polling in the double digits with almost all of their support coming from disaffected Democrats for third parties to brace a shot at tipping the election for Trump.
To put it another way, if that many Democrats desert Clinton, I would submit that the blame for that would be absolutely Clinton's fault.
But that's not going to happen.
This election will be lost or won where they always are. In battleground states, of which Washington is not one.
My point is that votes in non-battleground states simply are not worth as much. The proof is the resources the major parties fail to deploy there. That means that hectoring third party and other protest voters is pointless.
No, it's worse than that, because whatever else they may be, third party voters are politically engaged and available as allies on a host of other issues. Unless you piss them off by being hectoring and dismissive.
Like I said, if you live in Florida, then yeah...don't vote third party, vote lesser of two evils. Most Americans aren't in that position though, including the majority of the Stranger's readers.
not just Dan, not just HRC. hindsight is 20/20, and there are plenty of rah-rahs who can't really remember what they said back then.
here's what they said: "shut up, pussies, WE'LL protect America".
"She's most electable." "We don't need you." And, for a bit, it looked like you were right.
Now look who's coming back on their knees.
But, the most important part is that there were enough people against the war that he had to write an editorial chastising them.
If you believe that a third voice should be represented in 2020- or that the Libertarian Party should have more resources to run candidates in state and local elections- then a vote for Johnson in 2016 is hardly ironic.
A Johnson presidency would do more for the 'third-party/alternative-voice' movement than either two candidates- if you're a progressive, his stances on foreign affairs, the drug war, and abortion would further the discussion on those issues more than Hillary will; and if you're a conservative, his stances on the tax code, the 2nd Amendment, and (most importantly) monetary policy will do more to examine the functional issues with our corrupt bureaucratic government than Trump ever would.
Thinking that anything will change by voting for either major party candidate- whether as the catalyst for some progressive movement that would be needed to advance Hillary's agenda or as some deluded doomsday fear of Trump as the world's next Kim Jong Un- is the real idiocy and true waste of your vote come November.
If you want a serious third-party voice in 2020, then there is no more meaningful use of your vote than to choose Johnson in 2016.
Of course, The Stranger -- a sort of print Fox News for liberals -- does not count as a news source.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein…
Libertarians are allies, not enemies. And if Hillary Clinton can not win our support that is on her. And her party. I don't owe her, or the Democratic Party, or you a damn thing.
And since when is the idea of colonizing other planets crazy talk? Sort of the premise of every awesome sci-fi. Did you think we went to the moon to collect fucking rock samples?
I am voting for Johnson for two reasons (three if you count the fact that I'm a moron):
The first is that he genuinely wants to end the drug war. Think of how many young men of color would be out of jail if all drugs were decriminalized. Clinton is an unrepentant drug warrior who is soft-pedaling the issue to woo Sanders supporters.
The second reason is that he wants to reign in the military. The US doesn't have a defense budget, we have an aggression budget. Defense is much cheaper. It's embarrassing that Johnson doesn't know where Aleppo is, but you can't invade a place you've never heard of.
For the record, if I lived in Ohio, I would vote for Clinton in a heartbeat. I'm stupid, not crazy.
You are pushing people away from Hillary as hard and as fast as you can.
Please stop it!
If you don't want to see Trump drive our country into the ditch, then jump out and set it on fire, and then piss on it claiming he is putting the fire out, please vote for Hillary.
Adam, the people who are going to vote for a guy who didn't know where Aleppo is, are not going to be swayed whether Dan calls them morons or not. Too bloody stupid to even notice.
Not the Ron Paul style ones running for office, they remain all anti human rights legislation.
Ron Paul is a RINO - he's espoused strongly Libertarian platforms for most of his political career, and even ran as their presidential nominee in 1988. The only reason he switched to the GOP was because he was smart and ambitious enough to figure out the Libertarian Party was never going to be a success at the national level. As it is, his "Libertarian-Republican" faction represents one of the smallest identifiable constituency groups within the GOP, so even that branch of the ideology is marginal in terms of having any actual influence.
Republicans and Democrats have more in common with each other than either do with the Libertarian Party. And I disagree Libertarians have had little influence. We were once made fun of for suggesting drugs be legalized. Now that's happening all over the country. Once upon a time, marriage equality seemed like a ridiculous goal. Now it's the law. We'd have more voice if allowed into the Debates and if well meaning members of both major parties did not actively try to scare people into only ever voting for the status quo.
That the Libertarian politicians generally DO have horrid regressive beliefs is why the party is dead to anyone left of hard-right.
Fuck your sanctimony, you accomplish nothing.
Remember: sllavery and human trafficking don't work without you.
The whiny, high-chair banging tone, coupled with a conspiracy gullibility that makes global warming deniers and anti-vaxxers seem balanced, is absolutely horrifying.
Thanks for your concern, but we don't take the advice of crackheads.
Seriously, I'm making, like, $80 an hour to post here, it's a seriously good gig, and you're a fool for not getting in on it. Of course, you do have to take a blood-oath, provide a cheek-swab, agree to the chip implant, and give up your first born, but hey, they give you free bagels & Mountain Dew, so it's totes worth it!
When's your turn to kiss the graven image behind its tail at the Clinton Foundation headquarters?
@90: Noooooo, you've unfurled our clever scheme to confuse the dumbest True Patriots in the land!
~has mask pulled off~
~is found to be a Rothschild~
My candidate wasn't for DOMA and DADT and traditional marriage before he was against them.
Lick it up as you worship your two faced grifting pathological liar and her rapist husband.
How many donations has she taken from people abroad who lynch gays?
[TIPPING INTENSIFIES]
Link above shows WA state presidential voting history. Last SEVEN elections show that Dems have carried the state - with Republican candidates much less batshit crazy than Trump. Republican presidential candidates haven't won the state since 1984!
Dan, I used to read your column - way back in the beginning. In the "Hey Faggot" days. This post here show you've developed a fine streak of elitist contempt for common folk - you'd fit right in at the NYT or WAPost. You think your readers are so stupid as to not see that WA state is safely in the in Democratic camp. You think we are so stupid we can't see that The Powers that Be are going to put another Clinton in the White House - regardless of my participation in the 2-4% of WA residents voting "Fuck the Both of You".
The Elitism is strong in this one.
People who are actually Libertarians, such as yourselves, should vote for the Libertarians, particularly if you live in a non-competitive state like Washington. Normally there'd be no reason for Libertarians to vote for someone like Hillary, as her policies are nearly 180 degrees opposed to yours. In this particular case, I think Trump is such a fool that there'd be a serious risk of nuclear war if he became President. (Yes, he's friends with Putin, for now. But who knows how long that would last, if he became President? And if he fell out with Putin it would be personal, not business. That prospect scares the shit out of me.) And I think that is an argument for a Libertarian in a swing state to vote for Hillary, and as a Canadian who has no vote but will still be fried if President Trump starts WW III I appreciate the vote of every Libertarian who holds their nose and votes for Hillary. I'm very much aware that it's a big ask.
I think (mind reading here so I could definitely be wrong) that the people Dan is addressing are the people who say they're left-wing/socialist, and then go on to say they can't vote for Hillary because she's not left-wing and socialist enough. (A Libertarian isn't saying that.) I voted Green in the recent Canadian election (because I was living in a non-competitive district at the time), so I understand the desire to vote Green. But, if someone's claiming to be a left-winger, they sound pretty crazy when they say they'll stand aside and pass on an easy step to reduce Trump's chances of getting elected.
@LavaGirl 51: No, not shotgun weddings. "Going to Canada for a vacation" would take on a whole new meaning :D.
Has Dan Savage forgotten that as recently as the late 90's Hillary said that it was important to send a message "to the nations children that homosexuality is wrong," ?
Ron Paul was the Libertarian Presidential Candidate for a couple election cycles. He only changed to the Republican Party to re run for Congress.