*quality analysis

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by ChaosEngine.

As great as John Oliver is, he spent more time there mocking them over petty things as opposed to really concentrating on the (admittedly real) flaws in their platforms.

OK, Stein's "music" is cringeworthy. And Johnson's "skirt" comment is creepy and ill advised, but clearly meant in a metaphorical way.

It kinda bothers me when people (not just Oliver) do it to Trump and Clinton also. Like Trump having "tiny hands", or bringing up cankles or pantsuits for Clinton.

All of those things can be funny, a few times. But bringing them up constantly makes it seem like we have nothing of actual substance to criticize them for -- which is clearly not the case.


He did bring up legitimate concerns for some of Stein and Johnson's signature platforms. In both cases, that criticism boiled down to "you can't actually do that", as in the president doesn't actually have the power to implement the policy that they want. That's fair ... BUT, pretty much every single politician ever makes campaign promises that they don't actually have the power to implement. You pretty much have to if you want to get elected.

That doesn't mean that setting those policies as goals can't have value. Obama wanted a much more thorough overhaul of healthcare and insurance, but he didn't have the power to make it happen unilaterally. So we ended up with a watered-down version of Obamacare after the Republicans in the legislature did everything they could to obstruct it. But still, even though it isn't exactly what Obama originally had in mind, there are plenty of people now with some health coverage who had none before. That's a tangible positive result.

Trump will never build his wall, even if he ends up in the White House (not likely). I offer no defense for this idiotic idea, but it is at least possible for massive public works projects to be used to create jobs, improve infrastructure, and have other tangible positive effects; like FDR's New Deal.

Hillary would face lots of obstruction if she attempts to implement her plan to let people attend public universities for free. Probably more than Obama did on Obamacare. But trying to do something to make post-secondary education more available to everyone is a good goal. Even if the cynic in me thinks she only produced this "plan" as a way to try to win support of Sanders voters.

Johnson couldn't eliminate income tax, or abolish all those departments he mentioned. But he could rein in a lot of spending that the Executive branch does have power over. That could be a good thing in many cases (I'd be happy to see the TSA eliminated and military spending drastically reduced), but there are also a lot of potential problems. See Kansas transformation to "Brownbackistan" as a result of Sam Brownback's drastic tax cuts.

And Stein couldn't forgive student loan debt for this "entire generation". But just like Clinton's proposal to make public universities free, there is potential value to be found in just trying to do something about the insane problems with our university system. Hillary is a savvy enough politician to know not to say too much about her plan, which would open it up to scrutiny and criticism. Stein stepped into that by revealing her political inexperience, but I tend to trust that she does actually want to do something as opposed to Hillary just saying what she needs to say to get more votes.

@MilkmanDan, good points.

I do think there's a difference between "this plan is politically unfeasible" (healthcare, free public university) and "this plan is not actually possible under the rules of government" (forgiving student debt through quantitative easing).

And ultimately, that's why I think Hillary is the lesser of 4 evils. She might be a political insider, but she's at least vaguely realistic.

Basically, you can choose from
- idiot, evil and frankly repugnant (guess who?)
- dopey with a side of some pretty terrible policies (Johnson)
- well meaning, but without a clue of how government works (Stein)
or...
Frank Underwood

I say, "Make America Work!"
-

@ChaosEngine

I generally agree with your assessments, but I think that the actual powers held by the Executive branch lend themselves pretty well to a person who is "well meaning, but without a clue of how government works".

Overwhelmingly more likely that we'll get to see how well Hillary follows through on her promises instead of how well some fresh blood could deal with lack of experience. I'm not personally excited about that (to put it mildly), but hey, maybe she will turn out better than my low expectations.

Sort of the opposite of having pretty high hopes for Obama and then being rather disappointed by the mediocrity of the follow-through. That was a pretty good example of how good intentions don't necessarily produce great results, especially since a President has to work with the Legislative branch (hah! good luck) to get anything done.

Look, here's the thing--even if there was a perfect 3rd party candidate and even if you could convince Americans to vote for them over the Democratic/Republican candidates, with Congress controlled by Democrats and Republicans (who seem more hellbent than ever on partisanship) the 3rd party President wouldn't be able to get anything meaningful done anyway.

America doesn't need a viable 3rd party candidate, it needs a viable 3rd party (and 4th, etc.)--one that people believe in enough to help win a decent number of seats in the House and Senate as well as in state elections. Until such a party appears, a vote for a 3rd party candidate really is "spoiler" vote.

Honestly, if Bernie just broke away from the Democratic party and started a new one I think there would be a shot at creating such a viable 3rd party but I understand exactly why he didn't--such a split at the current time might actually guarantee the Republicans the presidency even with their current clown candidate.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

My only rebuttal to this is that Jill Stein & Gary Johnson are still good options if you were otherwise planning to vote for Trump, but really it's 50/50 - Johnson is a spoiler for Trump and Stein for Hills.

So much this!

At the risk of sounding like a broken record.... the situation will continue until you implement a better voting system

*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Problems-with-First-Past-the-Post-Voting-Explained
*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Alternative-Vote-Explained
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Politics-in-the-Animal-Kingdom-Single-Transferable-Vote
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Mixed-Member-Proportional-Representation-Explained

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

The Alternative Vote Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

Politics in the Animal Kingdom: Single Transferable Vote has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine.

Meteor 2016!!!

Oliver is clearly carrying Hillary's water as he knows a good chunk of millennials will be voting third party. Why should they trust her over Trump?

I really like the meteor idea, but I'm still a sucker for the classics.
No Lives Matter 2016