Trump vs Clinton

I think if we think of "conservatives" as people who look for a small government and an increased sense of self-reliance I think that would resonate with younger people. The general sense I see among people who support left-leaning policies is a sense that those on the right are some combination of smug/hateful/greedy etc.

It's curious that the people who would naturally take advantage of tax breaks for themselves are quick to criticise others (individuals or corporations) for doing the exact same thing. If people see that the problem isn't the company that took advantage of the tax break, the problem isn't the person who was merely better at playing the game than they are, the problem is the government that writes a tax code so complex that even its own helpline doesn't know what the form means and it runs to many thousands of pages. The problem is the government that has grown so large the people within it are well placed to take all sorts of backhanders and promises to pass legislation that favors this group or that group, at the expense of everyone else.

A lot of the time right-leaning policies that avoid mandating things like paid family leave etc come across as hateful or discriminatory - largely, it would appear, due to the perception that "companies" are rich and not giving workers paid family leave is merely exploitative. But when people run their own business and realize that mandated family leave means that, even though they only have one employee, when that employee claims their right to time off they get to pay the employee for not doing anything while also paying someone else to do the work that can't wait, they come to see it's not just about greed but about making sure there's a job for the employee to return to once their leave is finished. It's easy for MegaCorp inc to hire a couple of temporary workers to cover crucial staff but the mom-and-pop business on the corner doesn't have an HR department to process that sort of thing, nor does it have eight figures in cash to hand out like candy when someone wants their leave. If specific benefits are mandated it actually removes the flexibility a company has to offer a benefits package suited to each individual worker. If you have kids you might be thankful for paid family leave. If you don't have kids you might prefer the freedom to work four 10-hour days instead of five 8-hour days and get a free day off every week to go hiking. If you're saving up for something specific you might like the freedom to work six 10-hour days, or pick up the slack when others are taking time off, to earn the extra money and would rather have an extra $2500 on your salary than annual leave, or at least the freedom to turn unused vacation time into cash at the end of the year.

I suspect the fact millennials are looking to Johnson rather than Hillary could be down to two reasons. It's entirely possible the issue is Hillary rather than the Democratic platform, but if that were the case I'd expect them to flock to the green party rather than the libertarians. Alternatively it could simply be that the libertarians are seen as more inclusive - with Hillary's comment about deplorables and all the vitriol thrown by supporters of both major parties at supporters of the other major party it's easy to see why voters of all ages are sick of the Punch and Judy show and are looking to politicians who act in a more statesmanlike manner. If you've got Trump apparently talking as if women are little more than playthings, Hillary talking as if voting for anyone other than her is indicative of a single-digit IQ, and A. N. Other wanting to talk about the issues facing the country then it's easy to see why people would express more interest in A. N. Other.

 

I've heard a few things from Jill Stein of the Green Party and she sounds like a kook. I know virtually nothing about the rest of the party. I suspect your first reason is the likely reality.

 

Actually, it only takes 270.

Total number is 538.

One for each house seat, one for each senate seat.
Washington, D.C., gets 3.

So 269/269 is a tie.

Takes 270 to win.

 

On the top 3?

I read something on one of Gary Johnson's Faceache posts that suggested that by winning New Mexico outright he could, in theory, take the White House. From what you're saying it sounds like there might be some truth in that - if he takes 5 of the votes and the rest of the states split such that neither Killary nor Chump gets their 270 votes and he ranks third (presumably in either the popular vote or EC votes) maybe it is conceivable that the legislature would elect him.

 

I heard that in Utah there is an independent presidential candidate that is polling quite closely with Trump and Clinton - Evan McMullin.

 

True enough. It is rare though to see third-party/independent candidates polling anywhere near the main two (although this appears limited to Utah only). However some decent polling/voting numbers for some of the other parties may actually lead people to think there might be some potential outside the big two.

 

Does anyone think Trump is now actively trying to salvage his own campaign?