24% of voters will opt out of a Clinton-Trump race.

[Barack_America]

Nearly one-in-four voters say they will stay home or vote third party if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the major party presidential candidates.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump and Clinton tied at 38% each. But 16% say they would vote for some other candidate if the presidential election comes down to those two, while six percent (6%) would stay home. Only two percent (2%) are undecided given those options...

...Trump is more toxic within his own party than Clinton is in hers. If Trump is the Republican nominee, 16% of GOP voters say they would choose a third-party candidate, while five percent (5%) would stay home. Sixty-six percent (66%) would vote for Trump, but 10% would vote for Clinton instead.

If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, 11% of Democrats would vote third-party, while three percent (3%) would stay home. Seventy-five percent (75%) would support the nominee, but 11% say they would vote for Trump.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, nearly one-third say they would opt out: 21% would choose a candidate other than Trump or Clinton, and 10% would stay home. Trump leads Clinton 38% to 27% among unaffiliated voters...

Link:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/24_opt_out_of_a_clinton_trump_race

Emphasis mine.

[Mz Pip]

1. So they say now.

A lot can change in 6 months. Election Day is to far out for really accurate predictions.

[runaway hero]

46. Yeah but everything other has her up by 8 points

She should not rest on her laurels.

[Sheepshank]

102. Just this last Friday on NPR, they informed the listener of this stat.

And then immediately followed up with the I formthat in 2008, there was also a 25% stat of those disappointed Hillary supporters who would not vote for Obama. Time, SCOTUS, the Republican nominee, women's rights, and social safety net...and yes, the first black President, all played into a great many of this non voters, changing their mind.

I must say, after the WHCD last night, Obama's firm, clever, amusing, informed, calm, measured demeanor (something he was vilified for from the right and even some on the left), seems like a god send in Comparison to what is being offered from the Right. We had been more lucky in having Obama for the last 8 years than we can ever imagine. Hillary may not have the comedic sense of timing that Obama has (very few on this planet does), but she is calm, and measured, informed etc etc.

[underthematrix]

2. People are in their feels right now. That's fine. However

people of color know what's really at stake if NAZI Trump gets in the WH and we continue with a GOP terrorist controlled Congress. So we're gonna rock the vote like our very lives depend on it because it does.

The rest of y'all can have a seat.We got this.

[SFnomad]

3. I won't just be a spectator ... I'm with you n/t

[underthematrix]

11. Thank you.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. most women till too, as will most lgbt.

more or less anyone who doesn't believe the world exists to cater to their whims and fancies

[underthematrix]

10. WORD! Our LGTB community

just got EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW and there's no way in hell we're gonna let that be overturned.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. and i think a lot of women will get really tired of the sexism directed at her

and that will be a motivating factor to vote and not sleep in

[underthematrix]

18. I'm already tired of that sexist madness

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. I mean the ones on the fence or not engaged enough

To vote in primaries or not registered dems.

[runaway hero]

47. Not every POC is going to vote for Hillary.

She needs to come out and campaign hard. Trump is malleable, don't forget that.

[Garrett78]

104. Of course not *every* POC will vote for Clinton.

Just as not *every* POC voted for Obama, or Kerry, or Gore, or B. Clinton.

But an overwhelmingly high percentage of POC will vote for Clinton. And a very high percentage of women will vote for Clinton. And a decent enough percentage of white men will vote for Clinton. Put it all together and Clinton is likely to win in an electoral college landslide.

[yallerdawg]

5. 24% of voters will opt out of a Clinton-Trump race?

Good thing we only need 50% plus 1 to elect her!

I'm getting more and more confident we are going to have a great November!!!

[TransitJohn]

106. 270

Not, "50% +1". Many Presidents have been elected while not garnering 50% or more of the vote.

[leftofcool]

6. Rass polls Republican women.

[HooptieWagon]

7. 11% of Dems voting for Trump...

is the same as voted for Bush in 2000. Jaw-dropping numbers for those voting third party from both parties. I doubt the third party Dems will reconsider and fall in line with Clinton, but I suspect a lot of those Reps will end up voting for Trump.

[bigwillq]

8. I will never stay home, and will vote DEM downticket

but I think Trump and Clinton are both awful.
I live in CT, the DEM nominee will win my state.

[woolldog]

9. How did Obama do with "unaffiliated voters" in 2012?

Just curious...

[underthematrix]

13. I don't know. I thought he won independents

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. not in 2012. still won though.

[bigwillq]

17. In 2008 Obama did. But Obama did not in 2012. (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. I'm a 21 percenter.

[reformist2]

14. That last sentence in your clip says it all.

[Barack_America]

25. It should for any sane political priority...

...but then again we all know by now the priorities of the current Democratic Party.

[TM99]

20. We keep telling y'all that there is trouble

but you continue to dismiss us.

Only 25% of registered voters are Democrats. If 11% of those vote 3rd Party, 3% stay home, and Trump leads with independents, the Democratic Party is fucked because Clinton loses the GE.

Thank the gods it is not too late to do the right thing and support Sanders for the GE.

[reformist2]

21. If Dem insiders look closely at how independents split, they would be smart to change horses...

before its too late.

[TM99]

22. It doesn't look like they are all

too smart, does it?

[redstateblues]

28. ah- the old Sanders' supporters' condescension

that has won so many converts

[TM99]

30. Look in the mirror friend!

[Marr]

23. They'd rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders.

That's been clear all along. I think they'd back Clinton over Sanders even if she was indicted.

[Barack_America]

24. +1. Exactly.

Fighting for their own corporate paychecks over party and country.

[libdem4life]

34. Yes, it's her turn...maybe, maybe not.

That's per the Establishment Democrats. The GE is another matter.

[TransitJohn]

107. This is absolutely true.

Look at Clinton's lead among superdelegates in states which Bernie won handily.

[redstateblues]

26. wishful thinking- Bernie would be a much weaker candidate

The current round with Jane as his main surrogate is not going well.

[TM99]

27. Polls say otherwise.

Jane is fantastic. So take your sexist bullshit elsewhere.

[redstateblues]

29. She seems like a nice person- very ineffective as a surrogate

but much better than Devine/Weaver. Those guys did a lot of damage to Bernie's brand.

[TM99]

33. Compared to say Hillary's husband?

Yes, that man is an incredible surrogate.

[libdem4life]

35. Oops. n/t

[aspirant]

37. Bernie doesn't like negative campaining

you've crossed the line here with "sexist bullshit"

[TM99]

38. I am sure Bernie wouldn't mind

me sticking up for his wife as she is slandered and attacked here for no reason.

So you ready to call out some HillaryBros on their 'fat' attacks of Jane Sanders on social media, or are you too busy trying to lecture to me?

Yes, someone has crossed a line, but it is not me!

[aspirant]

42. "sexist bullshit"

Isn't the way Bernie would respond and expect his supporters to respond.

Lecturing seems to one of your specialties.

"Yes, someone has crossed a line, but it is not me!" Oh yes it is, trying to play bully and censoring freedom of speech is way beyond the line.

Let's see what you got now.

[TM99]

69. At least I don't stalk

and harass users after I was suspended from another site for bad behavior towards mods and fellow Sanders supporters.

[aspirant]

71. This is called General Discussion

and i am free to choose who, when and where I post.

I see your ignore post was a complete lie.

"bad behavior" Is your definition of censoring free speech and locking threads with your childish behavior

[TM99]

74. Yet, you are the one on a two week time out.

Keep it up. You are revealing yourself for everyone to see.

[aspirant]

75. ..and your boss is banned, maybe you should rethink this

You are exposing yourself as a calculated promoter of the censorship of "free speech" for all to see, congratulations

[Kentonio]

86. There is no right to free speech on a privately owned forum

Just like you don't have a right to free speech in a private establishment.

[aspirant]

89. It's a constitutional right

So a corporation trumps the constitution, wonderful

Wanna take a guess what the Revolution is all about.

[Kentonio]

90. No it is not a constitutional right.

The first amendment only prevents the government from limiting your speech, there are and have always been a huge number of other limitations.

Try going to work and telling your boss you think he's and idiot for instance, or walking into a bar and loudly talking about how bad you think the beer is there. You can say whatever you want, but others have a right to fire you, eject you from their premises or in this case delete your post data from their website.

[aspirant]

91. Isn't that wonderful

So what do you think a Pro-Bernie, Pro-Revolution website should do?

You forget to tell us what the Revolution was all about, should The People have the power?

[Kentonio]

94. Why should your right to say anything you want

Be more important than a website owners right to not have things they find harmful to their business posted on their own site, using their storage space and their bandwidth?

[aspirant]

95. Is that the Revolution's view

Is it profit over people?

[Kentonio]

96. What are you talking about?

You keep repeating this bizarreness about 'the Revolution' as if it has any meaning in this discussion, which is frankly quite odd. Sanders doesn't have any weird positions about changing how the basic tenets of the constitution work, so why is he relevant here?

[aspirant]

97. Didn't you know the Revolution is about change

Do you think money should be free speech? Do you think this is a weird Bernie position?

What about "pure speech" do you think that should be free speech?

[aspirant]

98. A constitutional right

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment to the Constitution

"A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that it protects several basic liberties — freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. Interpretation of the amendment is far from easy, as court case after court case has tried to define the limits of these freedoms. The definitions have evolved throughout American history, and the process continues today".

A constitutional right with limiting court definitions (see post 90)

[Kentonio]

99. What's your point?

The distinction of it being a protection against government curtailing of free speech is not and is never likely to be up for serious discussion. The discussions traditionally revolve around areas where one persons right to expression collides with another persons constitutionally protected rights.

[aspirant]

100. Again I ask

"Do you think money should be free speech? Do you think this is a weird Bernie position?"

My right to expression, isn't that a wonderful concept?

"Pure speech in United States law is the communication of ideas through spoken or written words or through conduct limited in form to that necessary to convey the idea. It is distinguished from symbolic speech or "speech plus," which involves conveying an idea or message through behavior. Pure speech is accorded the highest degree of protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

[Kentonio]

105. You're asking what is basically a pointless question.

The problem with money affecting election campaigning is a result of constitutionally protected rights clashing. The right to a free and fair democratic process is impeded if people can just spend unlimited money on elections.

The idea that those people should be prevented from censuring speech in a private setting though is just completely unworkable, deeply undesirable and would be a terrible restriction on people's right to control personal property.

[aspirant]

110. On point

"The right to a free and fair democratic process is impeded if people can just spend unlimited money on elections." So why did the RW court define it as such and why shouldn't it be a principle to overturn it in a people's movement?

"terrible restriction on people's right to control personal property." You mean like the 1% and above after transferring our money into their "personal property" vaults. This would be a terrible restriction, unworkable but deeply desirable to "We the People" so it's time to find a way to do it, it's called the Revolution

[aspirant]

101. Just a thought

"The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating:

We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers.[37]"

[TransitJohn]

108. You should study some civics.

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution says that the government will make no laws abridging free speech. It says nothing about private individuals. That's the whole point, to protect your right to speak against the government. It says nothing about private parties limiting speech in places they control. This is a common misconception on the right. Just saying.

[aspirant]

109. You should study the Revolution

"A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that it protects several basic liberties — freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. Interpretation of the amendment is far from easy, as court case after court case has tried to define the limits of these freedoms. The definitions have evolved throughout American history, and the process continues today".

So the court's interpretations is defining the right to expression.
and "pure speech" is "highest degree of protection"

"Pure speech in United States law is the communication of ideas through spoken or written words or through conduct limited in form to that necessary to convey the idea. It is distinguished from symbolic speech or "speech plus," which involves conveying an idea or message through behavior. Pure speech is accorded the highest degree of protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

"The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating:

We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers."

So this is right wing thought, huh sounds pretty progressive to me. Did you notice the part "impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" kinda sounds like private corporations, too

It's already protected in the private world thru slander and libel isn't it?

"We the People" pursue freedom of expression everywhere and corporate rule (dependent on states to exist) should be returned to serving the people and not profit.

[TransitJohn]

111. What does that have to do with messageboards on the internet?

Quit with the deflection and conflation. You're the one who erroneously brought up constitutionality vis-a-vis communication on privately owned websites. How has the government prohibited your speech?

Sheesh, it's like arguing with an adolescent.

[aspirant]

112. A private corpopation has

and the constitutionality is defined by the courts, you must have overlooked that.

You see private corporations are only granted existence by state governments and the Fed, FCC sets rules for the media.

So its time to maintain and insure "PURE SPEECH" exists everywhere, that's what a movement of change is all about.

"The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles adopted in 2003 makes specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression for the "Information Society" in stating:

We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information society, and as outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organisation. It is central to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere should have the opportunity to participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits of the Information Society offers."

So this is right wing thought, huh sounds pretty progressive to me. Did you notice the part "impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" kinda sounds like private corporations, too

[aspirant]

113. The country we deserve

Last edited Sun May 1, 2016, 05:47 PM - Edit history (1)

The founders never envisioned that private corporations would usurp sovereignty, they were to provide for the people and not profits

When a private corp. can erase your "pure speech" tell you what to think, how to vote, how to dress, what words you can and cannot say, what you can do in your free time, etc. society has gone completely astray.

If you choose to live in that world, go for it but I choose a people's movement for change, "The Revolution"

[Kentonio]

116. This is nonsense. You have no right to free speech in a private setting and never have had.

What you seem to be demanding now is the right to post whatever you want to, using the storage and bandwidth paid for by other people. Why would you imagine that is fair?

And why do you keep talking about corporations when this began about posting limitations here? Do you bizarrely imagine Skinner is a huge corporation?

[aspirant]

118. Corporations big and small

The founders never envisioned that private corporations would usurp sovereignty, they were to provide for the people and not profits

When a private corp. can erase your "pure speech" tell you what to think, how to vote, how to dress, what words you can and cannot say, what you can do in your free time, etc. society has gone completely astray.

If you choose to live in that world, go for it but I choose a people's movement for change, "The Revolution"

[Kentonio]

119. The founders had no intention of forcing private institutions to allow people complete free speech

Which is why they didn't do so. The very idea is ridiculous, if you had pure free speech you could call your boss a stupid idiot and they'd have to be fine with you expressing that. It completely erodes the idea of freedom of association.

[Mz Pip]

68. The polls say that now.

That will change pretty fast when the GOP PACs and super PACs start flooding the media with negative ads portraying Sanders the second coming of Stalin. They've left him alone but if he's the candidate it will take 30 seconds for the hit job to begin.

We shall see.

[Kentonio]

87. Gosh, maybe his favorables might even reach the horrendous lows of Hillarys..

[aspirant]

39. ....

"Thank the gods it is not too late to do the right thing and support Sanders for the GE."

How do you do that when you support anti-Bernie titles like "Berni Sanders, Enemy of the World's Poor"?

[TM99]

41. Please show some decorum and maturity.

Don't drag your personal issues from one forum to the next.

Not only is it wildly inappropriate, but god damned creepy.

[aspirant]

43. What's creepy is your actions

trying to censor debate and speech.

You dragged your personal issues onto my thread and it was "wildly inappropriate"

[TM99]

48. You really need to stop.

You are way the fuck out of line.

[aspirant]

49. You don't have any lines, right?

Now you're out in the open, nowhere to hide and this is all you got.

Censorship of free speech, now there's a line not to cross.

[TM99]

50. What in the hell is your problem?

If you have a problem with me at another site in another capacity, have the maturity to bring it up with me there in private.

But what you are doing here is beyond creepy. It is grossly inappropriate, immature, and demonstrates quite bizzarre behavior for a supposed adult.

[aspirant]

54. What a hypocrite

"If you have a problem with me at another site in another capacity, have the maturity to bring it up with me there in private."

You came barging onto my thread with your problem in public with no PMS and now you ask for PM's

"It is grossly inappropriate, immature, and demonstrates quite bizzarre behavior for a supposed adult." Your childish bullish actions is beyond creepy and shows absolutely no class at all. You should resign in disgrace because censorship of free speech will never be a Bernie principle.

[TM99]

56. You are not thinking straight

and that is being kind.

No one has censored you. No one.

[aspirant]

59. Locking a thread to muffle voices is derfinately censorship of free speech

with your fingerprints all over it.

Your actions of controlling speech is crooked and cruel "and that is being kind"

Hypocritical thought, now there's some straight thinking.

[TM99]

60. Sadly, I can not place you on Ignore

elsewhere. But I can here.

Rant away and get in the last word if you must, I won't be reading any more of your delusional nonsense.

[aspirant]

61. The only "delusional nonsense" is yours

When you have to defend yourself you fall flat on your face.

So run away and hide and take your Establishment decorum with you.

[TM99]

62. Establishment?

Oh damn you are delusional.

I am only putting you on Ignore so I don't have to read your dribble and be tempted to put you in your place which will get me hides instead of the weirdo stalking me should.

[aspirant]

63. Now you're a liar too, obviously no ignore

Your Establishment decorum should be free of any hides.

Stalking, what a joke. I caught you out in the open where you are stripped of your childish toys. Anti- American, anti-Bernie "delusional" actions and your"weirdo dribble" and I'm not running anywhere, bring it.

[TM99]

70. Yet the only liar

here appears to be the user who was suspended for bad behavior towards mods and other users at another site.

[aspirant]

77. Links to my lies

your lie of putting me on ignore is vividly clear right here on this thread.

Shame on you for being a liar in plain sight

[aspirant]

44. look in the mirror

"Please show some decorum and maturity."

How's it feel to have to stand on your own 2 feet and not hide behind a super duper moderator

[Renew Deal]

53. I'm not interested in your blackmail

Better to lose with dignity than under the pressure of threats from the Sanders crowd

[TM99]

55. You call it unity

when y'all are in control and want to remain that way.

But when the reality of compromise and coalition building smacks y'all in the face, now it is blackmail.

It is not dignity that you will lose under, it will be pride.

[Renew Deal]

57. How about doing your part?

I'm not in control of anything.

You made a threat.
"Thank the gods it is not too late to do the right thing and support Sanders for the GE."

[TM99]

58. The primary is not over.

It is that simple.

[TheKentuckian]

114. Ever notice those that focus the most on compromise have to do the least of it?

What has the Turd Way ever had to sacrifice for the "coalition"?

[TM99]

115. Nothing, they literally compromise

on nothing.

Sure they triangulate but that is only lip service to the left and benefits to the right.

[TheKentuckian]

117. EXACTLY! Lying ass hypocrites.

[joshcryer]

72. It's easily dismissed.

The people who are overwhelmingly annoyed or apathetic are not a demographic that the Democrats have relied on for years now.

[Katashi_itto]

88. +1000

[GoneFishin]

103. I know it. Yet they accuse Sanders supporters of wanting unicorns that fart glitter. They are

the ones that need to do the math.

[donco]

31. A lot can

happen between now and Nov.For instance, a third party run is not out of the ballpark if hump looses his bid in Cleveland.

[Agnosticsherbet]

32. So that is 24% who love them some Trump

If they don't give a damn who governs. We will manage without the irresponsible.

[marlakay]

36. Sounds like he beats her with independents

Doesn't surprise me because Trump is not really a big republican.

[Ned_Devine]

40. Count me in

[runaway hero]

45. That is so ugly.

That is so ugly.


Voter turnout among whites will be low, depressing the numbers imo.

[Barack_America]

65. The media and Trump are so incestuous.

They're loving the "made for TV high political drama" and Trump knows exactly how to play the role for them.

Will the season finale in November be a general election victory or a defeat? Such a cliffhanger! I can't wait to watch.

[runaway hero]

66. People still think he's an idiot

He will lose but it will be less then six points. He is putting on a marketing class right, and succeeding at it.

[snowy owl]

51. My instincts tell me something similar...

Among general party democrats which many of my friends are, I believe their support is unquestioned. But, among independents and even democrats that don't like her for whatever reason, she is anathema. And if the media keeps giving Trump all that airtime - as they did today on all three cable shows - it's anybody's guess who will win. I used to assume she had it in the bag. But now, I'm not so sure. There has been so much disgust with party politics on both sides, Trump's anti-establishment reputation could win out. Esp. if enough people do sit it out.

When so many people voted for Bush Jr., I realized Americans can make some really dumb choices. If they like this guy - and I sort of like him in spite of myself - he can win.

[onenote]

52. Rasmussen: the perennial contender for least accurate pollster.

[Jitter65]

64. They were never in in the first place. nt

[COLGATE4]

67. Rasmussen Reports. All that needs to be said.nt

[Garrett78]

73. I'm sure it'll be more than 24%.

76% turnout would be phenomenal for the US. It was 64% in 2008.

[northernsouthern]

76. Crap.

Well we need a third party to pull away the cross-over votes since they will pretty much cancel each other out. 24% is enough to get funding for a 3rd party. Perhaps some good would come of this, and that may finally wake up both NCs.

[cantbeserious]

78. This Revolt Has Been Building For Years - The DWS, DNC, DLC, Third-Way Has Only Themselves To Blame

eom

[Garrett78]

80. 24% would be far lower than normal.

76% turnout would be phenomenal. It won't happen. Turnout was under 58% in 2012 and under 62% in 2008.

[DonCoquixote]

79. The Media made Trump

and that same Media will record every insult and folly he makes. Hillary is in a position to take advantage, but only if she tells her advisors to stop trying to keep her along a path of just waiting for Trump to ruin himself. She needs to play Matador, making that idiot charge right into the sword.

[davidn3600]

81. That's what happens when both candidates are highly unpopular

Many seem to refuse to believe it...but many are going to sit this race out.

[Garrett78]

82. Many sit out every race.

Turnout in 2012 was below 58%. Turnout in 2008 was below 62%. Turnout in '04 was about 60%.

24% is nothing. 40% is more like it.

[davidn3600]

83. The poll is 24% of voters, not of all adults

And no matter how you want to sugar coat it or make excuses....turnout compared to 2008 is way down.

Voters hate their choices. It's truly is that simple.

[Garrett78]

84. And the turnout numbers I posted are also for registered voters, not all adults.

I suspect 2016 turnout will be between 55 and 65 percent, as usual.

[silvershadow]

85. Uh-oh. If she's the nominee, we will have an extra-heavy lift. I don't know if I

have that kind of energy. I hope she can reverse her numbers soon. They've been in the tank for months and months now, and still going down- opposite of Bernie's trend. Oh well...there's not much more I can do than what I have been. I was thinking of taking some time off after convention to re-charge, and my plans won't be changing. I have multiple projects at home that cannot wait, and this fall is when I intend to get them done.

[Sky Masterson]

92. I'm in there.

Why stand in line and do something when your vote doesn't mean anything.
The parties choice is a bad retread and the other guy is your drunk uncle.
The Parties want these two, the populace doesn't.
We are in for a decade of shit.
And I as a single person have zero power to change it.
Democracy!

[CobaltBlue]

93. Primaries & General • Yes & No

I can believe significant dropouts—both parties—by those voters who participated in their respective party’s caucuses/primaries who are not okay with their party’s eventual nominees.

Yes—I can believe that there will be Republicans and Democrats who participated voting during primaries season and are genuinely turned off and will reject Republican Donald Trump (R-New York) and Democrat Hillary Clinton (D-New York).

The numbers would have to get made up in the general election—much more participation there. (They are not comparable.)

In 2008, there were about 131 million votes cast for president of the United States. That came down to 128 million in 2012. So, I would not be surprised if that number goes lower. It would actually support, to an extent, this issue.