User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Gary Johnson for President 2012 as a Libertarian Page 1 ... 5 6 7 8 [9], Prev  
The E Man
Suspended
15268 Posts
user info
edit post

its only ignorance. the things they are angry ablut all point towards paul. hes the only conservative in the party.

11/7/2016 9:32:04 AM

goalielax
All American
11252 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"you guys picked the only candidate worse than Hillary"


not really, but the GOP will keep telling themselves this for the next 4 years and fuck it all up again.

11/7/2016 10:19:39 AM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8009 Posts
user info
edit post

Hillary is a bad candidate. I hear a lot about how qualified and competent she is. Sure, she's got the credentials...but to do what? Sell access in exchange for favors? To be a surrogate for moneyed interests? To sow chaos in various international conflicts?

Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger - these are people that were definitely qualified on paper, but you don't want them anywhere near the ring of power. Hillary is another example. The type of person that would do anything to be President is not the person you want to be President.

11/7/2016 1:33:17 PM

goalielax
All American
11252 Posts
user info
edit post

11/7/2016 2:45:40 PM

The E Man
Suspended
15268 Posts
user info
edit post

^bruh...it was a great post

11/7/2016 6:33:34 PM

beatsunc
All American
8910 Posts
user info
edit post

johnson got 3 or 4 times more votes than last time but still not 5% so glass half full/empty scenario

11/9/2016 6:31:05 AM

afripino
All American
9151 Posts
user info
edit post

once again, people in the losing camp blaming 3rd party voters for the loss. smh.

11/9/2016 12:01:29 PM

Doss2k
All American
18097 Posts
user info
edit post

I would imagine a majority of Johnson voters would have swung to Trump if they only had a choice between the two and had to pick one so that argument doesn't really hold this time.

11/9/2016 12:02:57 PM

afripino
All American
9151 Posts
user info
edit post

exactly.

11/9/2016 12:10:55 PM

Nighthawk
All American
18773 Posts
user info
edit post

From a very liberal friends Facebook this morning after deleting one person on FB:

Quote :
"Another one bites the dust. Don't let me find out you voted third party, either. Your personal feelings of icky poo-poo do not outweigh the pragmatic effect of your vote."


In her FB comments the basic response is if you voted third party (Jill or Gary) you are a racist/sexist/misogynist enabler. So much for the all the love and acceptance from the left.

The worst part of this election to me is the people that have said they are deleting and blocking anybody that didn't vote for Hillary, and to a much smaller extent the reverse. Social media is already such an echo chamber anyways, but apparently nobody can have any differing opinions anymore. I blame some of this for the shock that people here in Chapel Hill have faced this week. When you live in an ivory tower and only socialize and communicate with people who think exactly like you, its easy to forget that much of North Carolina thinks very differently. People have many different reasons for voting and I personally don't care how my friends and coworkers vote, I don't plan to block/unfriend/unfollow anybody. I just don't understand how civil discourse has become so alien in an age where communication is so easy, making us more isolated and divided as a nation than ever.

11/10/2016 9:41:57 PM

CapnObvious
All American
5004 Posts
user info
edit post

I had an old college friend un-friend me on social media because he didn't like my response to his post. He called everyone who voted for Trump a racist, sexist bigot who can't get over their own ignorance. I said that there are plenty of people who voted for him for other reasons, and trying to push that sole narrative is just as ignorant. No response, just deleted the post and un-friended.

Honestly, that type of response is just as bad in my mind as the unsavory Trump supporters, just from the other side.

11/11/2016 11:05:49 AM

A Tanzarian
salad syrup
8615 Posts
user info
edit post

It takes energy and effort to discuss opposing points. It's a lot easier to delete and ignore than to face disagreeable opinions every time you open your Facebook feed.

One of these days people will learn that not discussing politics and religion in polite company also applies to social media.

11/11/2016 12:05:59 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
5117 Posts
user info
edit post

^more people need TWW to vent their feelings, it's the main reason I hang around - to keep my Facebook wall much more neutral.

11/11/2016 12:08:20 PM

A Tanzarian
salad syrup
8615 Posts
user info
edit post

That's one of the great things about TWW--you can ignore it until you have the time and inclination to have an actual conversation. Facebook's model is ubiquity.

11/11/2016 12:18:48 PM

afripino
All American
9151 Posts
user info
edit post

I'd say TWW is my most trusted news source AND my venting/arguing space

[Edited on November 11, 2016 at 2:25 PM. Reason : <3 TWW ]

11/11/2016 2:24:26 PM

Nighthawk
All American
18773 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^I agree. Its nice having folks with mostly a similar level of education to have a discussion with that is semi-anonymous but not so much so that folks just babel the absolute most inane shit. I almost never post on social media because I tread a fine line. I am from rural eastern NC and have friends and coworkers that are ultra liberal. I like all of these people and understand why both groups feel like they do. I'm a moderate swing voter so at different times and different issues I can fall on either side of the spectrum. If I deleted everybody I disagreed with on politics I'd have nobody to talk to. Sorry if I don't straight ticket vote for one or the other. But thanks TWW for letting me get it out without the lunacy of Reddit or the personal attacks and hurt feelings of traditional social media.

11/11/2016 3:05:12 PM

afripino
All American
9151 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm sure the fact that our employers typically don't have any knowledge of TWW helps as well.

11/11/2016 3:13:36 PM

Nighthawk
All American
18773 Posts
user info
edit post

True dat. It usually doesn't get filtered for content or researched for jobs and I bet most of our family members have no idea who we are on here even if we do use this in front of them.

11/11/2016 3:14:46 PM

Flyin Ryan
All American
7428 Posts
user info
edit post

Johnson had the 12th-best third party candidacy ever by percentage of the vote since the Civil War, fitting in between a bunch of 1910s and 1920s Socialist Party runs. He more than tripled the best-ever previous Libertarian candidacy (Ed Clark in 1980 who got 1.06%, including 11.66% in Alaska. Clark's VP nominee was David Koch who promised to fund the presidential campaign in exchange for the VP slot.)

http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/where-the-third-party-candidates-were-st

Quote :
"Yesterday's presidential election produced the strongest showing in 20 years for third-party and independent candidates. Not all the ballots have been tallied yet, so some of the numbers below may be slightly off from the final totals. But at this point all the alternative candidates put together have received more than 5 percent of the popular vote. The leader of the second-tier pack, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, has 3.28 percent of the national total. That's much less than he was polling a couple months ago, but it's far better than any other presidential result in the party's 45-year history. It's also better than any other alternative candidate since Ross Perot's campaigns of 1992 and '96.

On the state level, we didn't get to see some of the more extraordinary possibilities that had been tossed around before Tuesday. (No, Evan McMullin did not carry Utah.) But the second-tier candidates did do stronger in some places than others, giving us a map—multiple maps—of where our binary party system is doing the poorest job of representing the full spectrum of political opinion. Here's how the third-, fourth-, and fifth-place finishers fared across the country:

Gary Johnson. Not surprisingly, Johnson did best in New Mexico, the state where he was governor from 1995 to 2003: He got 9.3 percent of the vote there (and in some counties hit double digits). He got 5 percent or more in seven other states as well: North Dakota (6.2 percent), traditionally third-party-friendly Alaska (5.9), Oklahoma (5.8), Montana (5.7), South Dakota (5.6), Wyoming (5.2), and Maine (5.1).

He got at least 1 percent of the vote everywhere. His weakest showing was in Mississippi, where just 1.2 percent of the voters backed him. That's still more than double his total there in 2012.



Jill Stein. Jill Stein of the Green Party has 1.02 percent of the national total. That's the Greens' best showing since Ralph Nader's campaign in 2000. Stein's highest percentage on the state level came in Hawaii, where she collected 3.0 percent of the ballots. She also managed to top 2 percent in Oregon (2.5 percent), Vermont (2.1), and surprisingly Kansas (2.0). She did not outpoll Johnson in any state.



Evan McMullin. McMullin, a conservative running as an independent, was on the ballot in only 11 states, so it's not surprising that he finished behind Johnson and Stein. But he did very well in one of those states: He was a strong third in his native Utah, collecting 21.4 percent of the vote and finishing second in several counties. He also managed to get 6.7 percent in Idaho, the only other state where he beat Johnson. He didn't get as much as 2 percent anywhere else, though he managed to clear the 1 percent mark in Minnesota (1.8 percent), Virginia (1.4), Arkansas (1.2), Kentucky (1.2), and South Carolina (1.0). It is no coincidence that McMullin did best in the two states with the country's highest Mormon populations.

The only other candidates who managed to get more than 1 percent of the vote in any states was Darrell Castle of the paleoconservative Constitution Party, who is currently pulling 1.2 percent in Alaska, 1.1 percent in South Dakota, and, more surprisingly, 1.1 percent in Hawaii. In Vermont, Bernie Sanders got 5.8% as a write-in candidate. In Nevada, where voters have the option of voting for None of the Above, that option pulled 2.6 percent.

Did these candidates tip any states from Clinton to Trump? I've already heard some ruminations to that effect from angry Democrats ready to replay their scripts from 2000, but it's a hard case to make. Johnson initially drew both disaffected Democrats and disaffected Republicans, but toward the end of the race the polls suggested that he was pulling much more from the Trump camp. (Of course, I don't blame you if you don't feel like trusting any polls right now.) And if these three candidates weren't on any ballots, a significant share of their supporters would have simply stayed home rather than vote for Clinton or Trump.

All that said, there were several states where the alternative candidates collected enough votes to cover the Clinton/Trump spread. Six of those were won by Trump—and seven were won by Clinton. Here's a rundown:

Arizona: Trump beat Clinton 49.0-45.5; Johnson and Stein between them collected 5.5 percent. But most of that went to Johnson (4.1 percent), so it's unclear whether Trump or Clinton was hurt more by the other options on the ballot.

Colorado: Clinton won 48.2-43.2. Voters also gave 5.2 percent to Johnson, 1.4 percent to Stein, 1 percent to McMullin, and nearly 1 percent more to a collection of third-tier candidates.

Florida: Trump eked out a win by 48.6-47.5. Johnson, Stein, Castle, and Rocky De La Fuente between them collected 3.1 percent. Enough to cover the spread, but how many of those votes would have otherwise gone to Clinton? Stein got only .7 percent.

Maine: Clinton won this 47.9-45.2, and Johnson collected 5.1 percent, so there's a chance he tipped the state to the Democrats. (Or part of the state, anyway: Trump carried Maine's second congressional district, so he is being awarded one of the state's electoral votes.)

Michigan: Trump won this ordinarily blue state by about .3 percent (47.4-47.1), and Stein got 1.1 percent, so Democrats who feel all Green votes are rightfully theirs are going to be seething at her over this one. Meanwhile, Johnson got 3.6 percent.

Minnesota: Clinton won 46.5-44.9. McMullin got 1.8 percent. How many of those voters would have gone for Trump otherwise, and how many would have stayed home? Beats me, but between that and the other minor-candidate results—Johnson got 3.8 percent and Stein got 1.3—this looks like a state where the alternatives may have done more to help Clinton than to hurt her.

Nevada: Clinton won by 2.4 percent (47.9-45.5); Johnson got 3.3 percent. And Castle picked up half a point too.

New Hampshire: Another narrow Clinton win—46.8-46.5—and another relatively strong showing for Johnson, who collected 4.1 percent.

New Mexico: Clinton won this handily, 48.3-40.0. But Johnson, remember, got 9.3 percent. Then again, he has a history of picking up Democratic votes in New Mexico—he was reelected easily in his days as governor, despite the predominantly Democratic electorate—so it'd be hard to make the case that he played spoiler.

Pennsylvania: Trump won by about 1.1 percent, 48.4-47.3. Stein's .8 percent isn't enough to cover that spread; Johnson's 2.4 percent is, but again we don't know whether he was drawing more from Trump or Clinton.

Utah: Trump beat Clinton here by about 18 percent, 45.4-27.8. Sounds like a pretty big victory, but it's still less than McMullin's 21.4 percent. In this case you could make the case that the real spoiler was Clinton: If she weren't on the ballot, nearly all of her supporters surely would have preferred McMullin to Trump, perhaps allowing the independent to deny the Republican six electoral votes.

Virginia: Clinton won 49.7-44.4. Johnson, McMullin, and Stein got 3.0, 1.4, and .7 percent, respectively. So the third-party candidates covered the spread if you include the Green, but the two candidates who were more likely to pull from Trump didn't have quite enough to cover it on their own.

Wisconsin: Here, on the other hand, Stein's 1.0 percent is just enough to bridge the 47.3-46.5 margin between the winning Trump and the losing Clinton. But then what does Johnson's 3.6 percent do to the results—or, for that matter, the 0.4 percent that Castle won while running to Trump's right?

Damned if I know. I will say this, though: If the Democrats find themselves searching for scapegoats by parsing the Green and Constitution parties' totals rather than asking how they managed to nominate a candidate so weak that Wisconsin was in play, they really aren't asking the right questions."


[Edited on November 21, 2016 at 10:35 PM. Reason : /]

11/21/2016 10:31:47 PM

afripino
All American
9151 Posts
user info
edit post

they should do a rebranding and make their logos purple.

blue + red = purple

I dunno...makes sense to me.

11/22/2016 2:00:24 PM

Flyin Ryan
All American
7428 Posts
user info
edit post

I think they've always been associated with yellow.

11/23/2016 10:05:02 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33769 Posts
user info
edit post

i think the LP needs to get away from this "best from both parties" bullshit

11/24/2016 7:05:45 AM

beatsunc
All American
8910 Posts
user info
edit post

^yep. they both are so bad why would you want to compare yourself to either one

11/24/2016 4:49:02 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33769 Posts
user info
edit post

hilarious

12/22/2016 12:15:57 AM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » Gary Johnson for President 2012 as a Libertarian Page 1 ... 5 6 7 8 [9], Prev  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2017 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.