Not voting for Trump is practically the same as voting for Hillary.

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Aug 3, 2016 at 17:06

Hi, pfwag. You said,

"Not voting for Trump is practically the same as voting for Hillary."

This is what I have been saying to Daniel. It is based on the reasoning, that the only votes that matter in this election will be votes for Trump and votes for Hillary. They will be compared with each other, and the plurality in each state will determine whom ALL the electors in that state will vote for in the electoral college.

I believe Daniel is fully aware of this ...

In 1992, Ross Perot ran as an independent candidate against Democrate Bill Clinton and Republican Geroge H. W. Bush. A few months before the election, all three candidates were given rouughly an equal chance; but come election time, Perot was left without enough votes to carry any state. I voted for him, because I felt that he had the most compelling message: He was the ONLY candidate addressing the problem of US jobs leaving the country. One of those jobs was essentially mine, since I was out of work; so the choice seemed obvious. Clinton won; but since Clinton essentially followed Bush in foreign policy and trade, the things I was most interested in, I did not consider that I had "thrown away my vote".

In this election, Trump is addressing the same issues Perot did, with the exception that he has far more support, and the public is far better informed. The scion of the Bush line couldn't even win his own state in the primary; and Clinton may have lost to Sanders were it not for a very crooked Democratic Party; because Sanders also addressed some of Perot's concerns. The voters now saw NAFTA in hindsight, and realized just how right Perot was and Trump is. This is not "Fascism", as Daniel insists, but good old American common sense at work.

Isn't it curious, that the contenders in this race are essentially the same as those in 1992 and 2000? We are not talking about two or three candidates here, but two dynasties and an independent. Daniel is apparently comfortable with a continuing dynasty; I am not.

In 1992, Ross Perot got nearly 19% of the popular vote. I dare say, that Johnson and Stein together will not get that much, despite all the blood, sweat and tears coming from losers who supported Bush and Sanders. No matter how many votes they get, they are likely to merely cancel each other out; so voting for them is truly an exercise in futility.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".