@MilkmanDan

I don't like the notion of free super delegates but they didn't swing the primary. If they were taken out of the equation, Hilary still had a majority. Party favouritism and a media sense of inevitability probably did though.

The main conclusion I drew from the result is that in dire economic times, people will hold their nose and vote their perceived economic interests above anything else. I mean Clinton got 65% of Latinos vs. Obama's 71% in 2012 - Trump got a larger share than Romney. In most of the battleground states Clinton only won 50-55% of women.

Tack onto this the insider vs. outsider narrative, and the desire for a 'change' from government policy associated with Obama / Democrats, and you have a the holy trifecta. In hindsight it's easy to see going after Trump's character was a distraction.

Don't vote for a third party candidate in a swing state.

With Clinton there will be more elections in four years.

With Trump, that's by no means a guarantee.

If you live in a swing state, do a vote swap with someone who lives in a 'safe' red or blue state. There are vote exchanges online it's easy and free, and the best part is, you don't have to kick yourself for four years (or longer) knowing that your thrown-away vote helped put Trump in charge.

Close to brilliant.

Please don't vote for Trump or for third party IF IF IF you live in a swing state. Please.

If you understand how are voting system works and know that i'm in California you would know that ALL the electoral votes in California will go to Clinton no matter how i vote. If i were in a swing state (think there are eleven* of them out of fifty) my vote would have an impact and most likely id hold my nose and vote for her. I'm thankful i don't have to do that. Im glad i get to have my 'protest' vote, and by the way, it's a vote against both candidates and both the major parties.

Although If you have any thoughts regarding the rest of my ballot im happy to listen The only thing i've decided on thus far is where my presidential vote will go.

*Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin

Thailand by way of Kansas. Just sent in my absentee ballot a couple days ago.

I agree that the idea of the video is to suggest that "protest votes" are either A) entirely counterproductive always, or B) particularly counterproductive in this election. And they chose to focus on Johnson because he fits their narrative of suggesting that policy-wise he is very different from Bernie Sanders, and they make the unspoken assumption that many people considering "protest votes" are Sanders fans that are disgruntled with Clinton.

I'm still very comfortable with my 3rd-party vote, and fully aware that there is a chance that it could "spoil" things for one of the main 2 candidates. Although realistically, since my vote will be counted in Kansas (very red track record, polling 47/36/17 Trump/Clinton/Undecided at the moment) that is incredibly unlikely to happen either way.

I understand people that would feel motivated to "hold their nose" and choose the lesser of two evils (whoever they determine that to be) if they were in a swing/tossup state, but personally I would stick with my vote even if I was in such a state.

If the election is "spoiled" one way or the other by 3rd party votes, it would send a pretty clear message to both parties: give us better choices, or face the consequences. Then again, maybe I'm being overly optimistic about the parties actually getting that message... Democrats should have been highly motivated to push for getting rid of the electoral college and/or considering a push for ranked-choice voting when Gore "lost" in 2000, but failed to do either.

I'm in California, and i think dans in Thailand. California Is a Clinton state. If i was in a swing state i'd be more inclined to vote for that p.o.s. Clinton. I'm lucky i get to vote my conscious. I fucking hate Clinton but as horrible as i think she is shes still the only real option.

These things seem to continue to ignore Jill Stein.

And in doing so, they miss an important point: Johnson is the "spoiler candidate" for TRUMP. In other words, the chances of votes for Johnson swinging the plurality of votes in a hotly contested state in favor of Clinton are massively higher than swinging such a state into favoring Trump.

Stein is the spoiler candidate for Clinton. But die-hard Democrats should be pleased with her poll numbers being low, which suggests that fewer usually-Democrat voters are looking for an alternative option than usually-Republican voters. In other words, the Democrat party is currently more unified than the Republican party.

...But before patting themselves on the back too hard, they should remember that perhaps the only reason that their historically disliked candidate is more unifying than the GOP option is that he is even MORE historically disliked. A dubious distinction at best.

I think I'll stick with my protest vote (for Stein), thank you very much.

No mention of Jill Stein?

I'm not undecided, but if we had something like ranked-choice voting I'd go:
1 Stein
2 Johnson
3 Clinton
4 Trump

To all the people that think that 3rd party votes are counter productive, you can take solace in knowing that I'm registered in a state that is pretty close to a lock (for Trump), so because of the electoral college my vote doesn't really count. But I'd be voting the same way even if I was in a swing state. 'Cuz fuck both parties. Right in the ear.

What's (shoulder roll) with (sticks elbows out) all (twists forearms) the (swings hands down towards crotch) weird (lifts arms to shoulder height) arm (makes devil horns with fingers while gesturing) movements (dab)?

Yah, hard to know the particulars---and the wind and current probably would have worked against this idea---but---I did have a sailing instructor who stress tested me in a narrow channel by proposing that I'd just lost the engine---now what would I do?

The correct answers? Well, it's a sailboat, dummy---you could sail. And if all else fails---drop anchor (as long as you had the swing room; and even if you didn't, the resulting collision would be less impressive.)

But---we don't really know how the captain and pilot got into this situation.

I look forward to learning more.

@newtboy: Trumps appeal to the LCD is successful mostly because the LCD has been allowed to grow so much in our post-Regan society. With inequality on the rise and decades of trickle-down government-by-the-wealthy-for-the-wealthy, those "left behind" have been growing faster and faster every year.

It Trump fails to win this go around then the pendulum may keep swinging further. My concern is that the next 'protest' candidate will be even worse than he.

@ChaosEngine:

We'll have to agree to disagree about some things. For me, as bad as Trump is, I'm not convinced that he is worse than what Hillary was revealted to be by the DNC Leaks...

...but perhaps instead of arguing about which shit sandwich is worse, it is more productive to work together to find out why there are only shit sandwiches on the menu?

On this:

"But things will never change until you fix your broken political system. You're barely a democracy these days."

I am in complete agreement.

When I first heard of the Brexit vote, I thought it was some nasty xenophobic/racist group that had somehow managed to capture 51% of a nation. But could Britian really be that full of xenophobes? It was in a bit of casual research on the subject when I discovered that J. Pie video I referenced in my earlier comment. I had to revise my first assumption about the group that voted to leave the E.U.. While there may have been an element of xenophobia involved, it was economic factors that was the driving force behind the Brexit vote.

People who have been screwed over by years of government for corporations which has only worsened since Glass–Steagall was repealed by Bill Clinton. The hold the wealthy have on government was tightened after Citizen's United.

Much of the support Trump has been able to marshal is a reaction to years of governance-for-the-wealthy-by-the-wealthy.

Lawrence Lessig's does a better job unpacking this quagmire in his talk: "We The People: the Republic We Must Reclaim" which has far too few views on YT or votes on the sift, IMO. For anyone who's ever been unhappy with the political system in the past number of years, I consider it a must-watch.


Link here:

http://videosift.com/video/lawrence-lessig-2016-will-have-two-elections-TED-talk

Bonus challenge, box on a swing.

So... he just walks around and swings his cane?

Wikipedia
"The combat side stroke is a relaxing and very efficient swim stroke that is an updated version of the traditional sidestroke. The CSS is a mix of sidestroke, freestyle and breaststroke. The combat side stroke allows the swimmer to swim more efficiently and reduce the body's profile in the water in order to be less likely to be seen during combat operations if surface swimming is required. The concept of CSS has been that it can be used with or without wearing swim fins (flippers), the only difference being that when wearing swim fins the swimmer's legs will always be kicking in the regular flutter kick motion without the scissor kick. This stroke is one of the strokes that can be used for prospective SEAL candidates in the SEAL physical screening test (PST), which includes a 500-yard swim in 12 minutes 30 seconds to determine if the candidate is suitable to go to the Basic Underwater Demolitions/SEAL school.

Basics

The combat side stroke utilizes the three main fundamentals of swimming:

Balance: There are two things that affect your balance in the water - the head and lungs. Most people when swimming, especially when using breaststroke, will swim with their head up[citation needed] which forces their hips to sink down which is like they are swimming uphill and is a sign of being less comfortable. However, if the body is flat/horizontal or more parallel to the water-line it is far more effective and will allow the swimmer to feel more comfortable in the water.
Length: The taller the person is, the faster the speed through the water. As a result, it is important that the swimmer is fully stretched horizontally in the water, as this will reduce the body's drag through the water and allow a higher speed.
Rotation: In most sports, such as baseball, when the batter swings the baseball bat they will rotate the hips to increase the power of the swing. The same principle is applied to swimming. If the swimmer engages the hips and uses the body's core muscles it will increase power."

You rather nailed it.