That is why the ranked-choice solution is better (see above)
Let the parties do whatever they want to do. But the voters should have a better voting system in the general election
Instant runoff expects a lot of political literacy on behalf of the voter.
Not at all. Everyone would still have the option of voting for just one person if they prefer. The additional choice to rank a second....Third.....Or forth selection is completely optional.
 May 20, 2016 at 4:15pm
And yet most of his hotels are “gun free zones”. There’s also that annoying thing called his record: “I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,”
Most of his hotels but not all. He also has a CCW.
Dianne Feinstein had a CCW. Now she wants everyone to turn their guns in.
Those with casinos have no choice. It's a law. Even back in the good ole days casinos made people check their guns.
It's also good business in some cases.
[-1] May 18, 2016 at 3:48pm
Prediction: not only will Gary Johnson qualify for the debates, he’ll qualify the Libertarian Party for presidential matching funds in 2020; the key is to avoid another 2000 redux of the Reform Party split.
 May 18, 2016 at 3:21pm
Any answer to the reasonable issues I raised? Did he not call himself pro-choice? Did he not say that he supported gun control? Did he not contribute money to liberal Democrats as recently as 2008? Did he not praise Obama’s performance during his first 100 days? Did he not defend eminent domain for private development during the debates? Did he not defend the pap smears and mammograms performed by Planned Parenthood while ignoring the genocide?
 May 18, 2016 at 3:16pm
“He’s getting old, so he wants his Social Security and Medicare preserved in case he needs them.” And the award for most idiotic logic – in case the billionaire needs his Social Security check. His royalties from his Home Alone 2 cameo are worth more than his Social Security – royalties that wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Ronald Reagan.
 May 18, 2016 at 3:13pm
Nor did I deny that reality. In fact, I explicitly said “assuming Trump loses no matter what”. The question is, if you assume she wins regardless, is there value in keeping her under 50%?
 May 18, 2016 at 2:35pm
Either he’s playing the Republican Party and conservatives for fools or he’s done a complete 180 political evolution in the last decade: (1) supported John Kerry in 2004; (2) supported Eliot Spitzer in 2006; (3) supported Hillary Clinton in 2008; (4) considered himself strongly pro-choice, including late-term abortions; (5) supported gun control measures, including “assault weapons” ban; (6) said the economy does much better under Democrats than Republicans; (7) still strongly supports eminent domain for private development; (8) said Obama was doing a good job with the stimulus; (9) hired undocumented workers for his own projects. If you accept the reality that Trump’s nomination means Hillary wins, if keeping Hillary under 50% and robbing her of any public mandate for her 100 days, then a 3rd party might be the best option – a conservative third party candidate would likely draw from Trump/Clinton at about 70/30, undoubtedly making some red states competitive and solidifying swing states for Clinton; but more importantly – again, assuming Trump loses no matter what – it would keep Hillary under 50% and significantly weaken her going into her 100 days.
Are you delusional? Still going on about this third party nonsense, is becoming laughable. Cruz got crushed, get over it. I'm embarrassed for you.
Go back to the elections of 1992 and 1996. Your 3rd party best option elects a Clinton.
He woke up one morning, and it really hit him. He's filthy rich, and Obama, the Libs, and the Dems are scheming to take his money away. He has a hot wife and a young kid, and they need to be protected, not played with in Dem Lib socialist public policy experiments. He's getting old, so he wants his Social Security and Medicare preserved in case he needs them. Government regulations are killing him and his businesses, so he wants more freedom and liberty and less interference. Maybe he's done a 180. But that helps him, his businesses, and his family.
I will put my support behind Trump if I can hear the "off the record" interview between the New York Times and him, and see his tax returns... and everything looks ship shape. Until that day... nose to the grindstone.
i'd put money on the former, not the latter
I'm voting for the libertarian candidate.
I could give a rat's behind what happens now.
This country has made their choice known: they want statism. They want regulation, taxes and central planning.
They also want people of the lowest character to hold public office.
I'm not voting for that BS.
 May 11, 2016 at 11:24am
Or, instead of blindly attacking anything that is mildly critical of your candidate, you could read the poll and research its criteria and sample. But that would deny you the ability to rant aimlessly while only confirming Trump-supporter stereotypes as the new Know-Nothing Party.
May 7, 2016 at 9:13pm
Securing the border being an absolute necessity to any immigration reform package, instead of a politically toxic wall, a high-speed rail line from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean would be the better political sell. True high-speed rail (Accela at 90mph is NOT high-speed) requires significant safety measures in terms of fence heights (a penny tossed at a Japanese bullet train can kill someone). This would provide jobs in construction, create new economic opportunity – in the form of infrastructure – at border crossings, earn the support of Democratic members in border states, and create a template for high-speed rail in the US; additional freight lines can run parallel, creating real trade opportunities at both ends of the line; individual states can invest in regional passenger rail, using the border line as a hub to build off of. And everything would have the same effect on illegal immigration as a border wall. What does a border wall do besides keep people out? How shortsighted do we have to be?
You're being logical and you're forward thinking. You may get locked up for that soon or, at least berated for being tremendously stupid by the Trump camp, believe me.
We are slowly but surely turning into a lawless society! Why not just ENFORCE the laws on the books? No new schemes and wasted money, just enforce the law. No one seems to be able to just follow current laws. Nope! Special exemptions because of this, that, or the other reason. No line in the sand. It's like Obama's red line. Yeah, sure, who cares that there is a law. Your rail will not keep people out! When is the last time you drove across Texas? You think they will stop coming in because a train is coming?
 March 28, 2016 at 1:31pm
Do you support Cruz b/c he’s a fellow Hoser? Are you his secret gay Canadian love, his Calgary Flame?
March 25, 2016 at 2:14pm
jr, then how do we go about electing judges? appointments are even more corrupt than elections.
 March 24, 2016 at 9:08pm
Expensive to buy, not make in China.
 March 24, 2016 at 9:07pm
Unless he’s secretly collecting petition right now, he’s not going 3rd party. Ballot access laws and deadlines are specifically why Bloomberg had to announce this month.
 March 24, 2016 at 3:59pm
It was a Texas judge that bought into that nonsense. I thought the Lone Star State had better sense.
problem is judges are lawyers first and forever, we should train people in law school in 3 divisions prosicuters, defence, judges this switching between the 3 corrupts the system, also enter politice the law degree should become null and void forever
jr, then how do we go about electing judges? appointments are even more corrupt than elections.
The District Attorney's office screwed up and filed charges in Family Court as a Juvenile, instead of taking him to District Court charged as an adult.
We do elect our Judges here in Texas, and in partisan elections too. But people are generally too lazy to bother to find out about what the Judge has been doing on the bench. And in this Judge's case, she probably did divorces, paternity cases, etc. just fine.
March 15, 2016 at 9:08pm
If Kasich hadn’t been in the race, Trump would’ve won OH and the election would be over. If you support Cruz, then OH for Kasich is a victory. Never understood the Cruz strategy of trying to take out Rubio in FL. Cruz was never going to win FL, but Trump winning only gives him momentum moving forward. If the strategy is ‘prevent Trump from reaching the magic number’ and trying to outmaneuver him in Cleveland, the best chance for stopping Trump was Rubio winning FL.
If it was 1 on 1 a couple weeks ago he may have stood a chance.
Trump will now carry all the momentum and Cruz will fade away.
It is amazing how people refuse to use logic
Even if Trump won Ohio and if Kasich would drop out, Cruz could run the table on Trump the rest of the way. Cruz could have already been beating Trump by now if it weren’t for the other two splitting the vote. If Kasich drops out Cruz catches up and overtakes Trump, possibly even making it to 1237.
It was never an option for BOTH rubio and kasich to drop out. The establishment always has a candidate in the race. Whoever told you it could be Trump vs Cruz is a fool.
@jarhead.... Cruz would never get 77%, which is what he needs, heads up against Trump, not in anyone's wildest dreams. Games over for Ted, only 1 possibility for him going forward, VP with Trump.
 March 15, 2016 at 3:51pm
He praises the mammograms and pap smears by Planned Parenthood while ignoring genocide – how is that not condoning violence?
March 15, 2016 at 3:47pm
You do realize that the companies that process the drug tests are also the ones making campaign contributions? Testing every public employee would be worth millions of dollars, with little to no public benefit. History shows that drug testing of welfare recipients doesn’t save enough in benefits than the cost of the test’s administration. Cost versus benefit doesn’t add up.