Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)

[sunny]

Sorry for double post but I'd like to ask Bass (or anyone else who feels like answering) this because I'm genuinely curious.

Why/how do you think Bernie could win a general election? To me it seems that Clinton is an overall more electable candidate, and also considering that only 47% of US citizens said they would vote for a socialist. Among democrats, that number is a staggeringly low 59% (In retrospect with a leftist party). Also take into account that 25% of voters are considered swing voters, and less than half of those swing voters said they would vote for a socialist candidate.

(Also don't give me that stuff about "Democratic Socialist" because I know the difference, but the vast majority of the electorate sees the word "socialist" and only pays attention to that aspect)

Here is the poll I used. Bear in mind that it's from early in the race, but it's still worth taking into account.


EDIT: Another question I just thought of. If elected, how would Bernie be able to change anything? Given a Republican-majority congress that may or may not change with this election, but will most likely change come 2018 (When the majority of Bernie's supporters, white millennials, no longer care about politics)?

 

[toshimelonhead]

This isn't an election based on issues; it is based on anger, and the candidate that understands why voters are (rightfully) pissed off about the state of America is going to win. That's Bernie's appeal to democrats. That's Trump's appeal to republicans. Clinton gets the anger and has the best ideas, but people don't care about detailed plans right now, and her previous experience is a liability in an anger based election. Bernie's hope is that anger spills over to other demographics and he becomes a more dynamic candidate outside of attacking banks and promising free college tuition.

 

[Bass]

Sorry for double post but I'd like to ask Bass (or anyone else who feels like answering) this because I'm genuinely curious.

Why/how do you think Bernie could win a general election? To me it seems that Clinton is an overall more electable candidate, and also considering that only 47% of US citizens said they would vote for a socialist. Among democrats, that number is a staggeringly low 59% (In retrospect with a leftist party). Also take into account that 25% of voters are considered swing voters, and less than half of those swing voters said they would vote for a socialist candidate.

(Also don't give me that stuff about "Democratic Socialist" because I know the difference, but the vast majority of the electorate sees the word "socialist" and only pays attention to that aspect)

Here is the poll I used. Bear in mind that it's from early in the race, but it's still worth taking into account.

Considering how well Bernie has done even in the primary, that poll is far from accurate. If you want to look at polls, then consider hypothetical head-to-head general election polls. Not only does he consistently do better than Hillary does in all of these polls (and this has been for virtually every poll since January, I might add), but Hillary actually loses to Kasich in these polling averages.

The funny thing is, some of these polls also asked which candidate the voters considered to be more electable, and guess what? Hillary was deemed such, even though Sanders did better in the actual head-to-head polling. It's textbook cognitive dissonance, and I feel that this primary has been a perfect example of such. The fact is that millennials and late Gen X'ers, having been born after the brunt of the Cold War, don't have an inherent fear of socialism the way that baby boomers do. As Bughouse demonstrated in his post, older democrats are afraid that a progressive candidate is weaker in the general election because George McGovern got demolished by Nixon in 1972. But again, if you read my reply to Bughouse, I have provided evidence that younger voters actually prefer socialism to capitalism overall according to GOP pollster Frank Luntz. And by the way, such head-to-head polls have predicted the winner of the general election correctly nearly 70% of the time.

The other but related statistic is that independents and first-time voters strongly prefer Bernie Sanders. This is why he was able to win in a state like Michigan which favored Hillary demographically. On average, he wins Independents in a 70/30 split according to most exit polling from all of the primary states so far. Among first time voters, he also wins by similar margins. As I said previously, many primaries are closed (do not allow independents to vote) and have incredibly early deadlines for voter registration, so the current primary hardly reflects this advantage. In a general election, where independents make up over 40% of the electorate, this will not be the case.

To address your point, I believe many voters by now have become aware of what a democratic socialist / social democrat actually is, and those that are still put off by the term will not vote democrat anyway. Remember, the Republicans constantly called Obama a socialist but he still won convincingly in 2008 and 2012. It's not nearly as big of a deal as some people think.

EDIT: Another question I just thought of. If elected, how would Bernie be able to change anything? Given a Republican-majority congress that may or may not change with this election, but will most likely change come 2018 (When the majority of Bernie's supporters, white millennials, no longer care about politics)?

Read my previous post. Bernie's whole campaign is to get millennials interested in politics. The fact is many millennials aren't interested in politics because they have lost faith in the system. They don't trust mainstream candidates from either party and don't expect either of them to offer any realistic reassurance that they will address the issues that effect them the most. Specifically, health care reform, climate change, and student loan debt. As I said earlier, Bernie hasn't really won by convincing Clinton supporters to switch to his side, but bringing people into the political process who have never voted before in record numbers (and in fact, there is a positive correlation between Bernie's margin of victory in primaries/caucuses and turnout with respect to 2008). Ultimately, the key to achieving a revolution is making sure that the electorate remains politically active every day rather than just during the general election, which is something I am 100% Bernie will do but Hillary will not. Do not underestimate millennials. We have historically been disengaged, but the political system has voluntarily chosen to disengage us by refusing to address the issues that matter to us. We know very well after Obama's presidency that real change will not come if we elect someone into office and then expect them to do all the work for us. Change comes from the bottom up, and the president's true responsibility is to remain true to his or her principles and keep the grassroots movement alive long after he or she is elected. Or you can think of it this way. Obama's policy of incrementalism has done nothing to end congressional gridlock, let alone bring about any notable progressive policies beyond the Clean Power Plan because the Republicans DO NOT WANT TO COMPROMISE. I repeat, they won't compromise. We lost the midterm elections in 2010 and 2014 yet managed to win the presidential elections in 2008 and 2012. Why? Turnout! In 2014, it was below 40%, which is absolutely abysmal. To generate turnout, you need to create excitement among your base, which is something the Tea Party has done for the Republicans. I cannot understand how anyone could believe Hillary could ever hope to bring about any positive change in this way when Obama could not. In fact, since she is further to the right on foreign policy, I would expect things to get worse if she were elected.

Anyway, I know it's a bit of an abstract concept. In terms of conventional politics, this idea is a bit unprecedented, since by and large our electorate doesn't remain engaged after elections are over, and so we can only hope that our elected officials adequately represent us. That's what I find inspiring about Bernie's campaign. Not only does he bring in voters who were previously disengaged from the political process, but his stances on the issues resonate so strongly that he has managed to scrounge up an incredible volunteer base. Even I volunteered for the campaign in Colorado before our caucus, and given the margin Bernie won by I felt very satisfied by the work we put in. Even now, many volunteers unaffiliated with the campaign, including several from other countries (because Bernie's policies are already mainstream in the rest of the developed world) are actively phonebanking.

 

[mertyville]

This is kinda veering off topic but I feel like I need to address this. It's crap like this that gets me REALLY mad. Before you go spouting off nonsense like this, maybe you should do a bit of ACTUAL research into why Obama (or any semi-competent person given enough information) would want to update our doomsday devices. (Getting rid of them wouldn't really help us... Ever heard of North Korea? I'm sure they would be a lot more brazen against South Korea without the threat of US ICBMs)

Let me list a few facts about our nukes:
1. The average age of a warhead is 28 years old.
2. In some ICBM complexes, the doors are too rusted to CLOSE.
3. Three ICBM complexes had to share ONE wrench. When they needed it, they'd just FedEx it.
4. The US Air Force uses FLOPPY DISKS FROM THE 1960s to operate and launcher ICBMs that could start a nuclear apocalypse.

We are literally one accident, one rusted door, one delayed FedEx shipment away from nuclear apocalypse. Yet you criticize one of the few people who actually have the power to fix the flaws and lead us away from fiery death in a nuclear apocalypse.

Interesting, then you can tell me why he even considered getting rid of those nukes without knowing any of this or even give a proper answer why he modernized them regardless instead of dodging the question.

 

[sunny]

Interesting, then you can tell me why he even considered getting rid of those nukes without knowing any of this or even give a proper answer why he modernized them regardless instead of dodging the question.

I'm sorry, I'm just having a bit of trouble understanding what you're trying to ask. Can you rephrase the question?

(Do note that politicians often give empty promises in order to win elections, which is a possible motive why he would say he would get rid of them.)

 

[mertyville]

I'm sorry, I'm just having a bit of trouble understanding what you're trying to ask. Can you rephrase the question?

(Do note that politicians often give empty promises in order to win elections, which is a possible motive why he would say he would get rid of them.)

It is simple, you mentioned why the nuclear weapons needed to be modenized but Obama has never mentioned anything of this kind of reason, which implies to somebody with common sense that either he didn't know or that wasn't even his goal in the first place.

The second thing you said was " Yet you criticize one of the few people who actually have the power to fix the flaws and lead us away from fiery death in a nuclear apocalypse.".
You know you are talking about the president that killed the most compared to any other American president including Bush. So does that one thing justify the countless people he killed as well?
Should Trump be elected because he should have a change of heart about Muslim or dark skinned people? Or should Hilary be elected because she could be able to do something proper?

And yes, politicians do empty promises time to time but that does excuse all of them especially if they don't explain themselves.

 

[MikeDawg]

It's kind of funny, looking back at these posts, eh? When we have no idea who could win, besides the fact that it's between

Ted cruz - the zodiac killer
Bernie Sanders - no taxes, free college and free healthcare propaganda
Hillary Clinton - A liar with no back-bone
Kasich - Literally only staying in the race to fuck Trump
Trump - Build the wall. Build the wall. Build the wall.

I don't know... I think it's still pretty obvious that Clinton has this in the bag. She also really isn't _that_ bad. The republican party is even more of a mess now than it is months ago!

 

[verbatim]

Sorry for double post but I'd like to ask Bass (or anyone else who feels like answering) this because I'm genuinely curious.
Why/how do you think Bernie could win a general election?

Clinton gets indicted. Republicans don't pick a moderate.

EDIT: Another question I just thought of. If elected, how would Bernie be able to change anything? Given a Republican-majority congress that may or may not change with this election, but will most likely change come 2018 (When the majority of Bernie's supporters, white millennials, no longer care about politics)?

I'd wager that the congress will change enough that the new president can get their Supreme Court nomination through, which, given how monumental an impact the Supreme Court has had in the past few years (repealing Civil Rights Act, Citizens United, Obergefell v. Hodges, etc) will have way more of a lasting impact than anything else.

 

[colours]

Clinton gets indicted. Republicans don't pick a moderate.

As a general point, if she hasn't been indicted by now, she likely won't be. You really can't indict someone for doing something that isn't against the law at the time they were in office, and if it took the U.S Government over two years after she left office to officially criminalize the action, well...that's really their fault.

Really, no one cares about the whole e-mail scandal/w/e anymore except really hardcore republicans that hate her and the media (who also dislikes her).

 

[verbatim]

It's kind of a catch all statement more than a prediction. I'm not expecting anything to come of it.

 

[veiva]

Really, no one cares about the whole e-mail scandal/w/e anymore except really hardcore republicans that hate her and the media (who also dislikes her).

Is your usage of "media" inclusive of all mainstream media sources or some subset (i.e., right leaning)? Because the media at large promotes a positive image of Clinton and this is reflected in the bias, from slightly-to-overbearing, since the beginning of her campaign.

 

[Ampharos]

Deck Knight

 

[colours]

Is your usage of "media" inclusive of all mainstream media sources or some subset (i.e., right leaning)? Because the media at large promotes a positive image of Clinton and this is reflected in the bias, from slightly-to-overbearing, since the beginning of her campaign.

Mainly speaking of right-leaning, though I am interested in your point, as well! Part of me had the impression that the media at large would not hesitate to jump on any Clinton baggage and harp on it for like, ever, which is annoying. :<

 

[tehy]

Mainly speaking of right-leaning, though I am interested in your point, as well! Part of me had the impression that the media at large would not hesitate to jump on any Clinton baggage and harp on it for like, ever, which is annoying. :<

This is quite frankly the opposite of the truth.

For example, the e-mail thing was at best a monumentally stupid decision (and clearly illegal), done by the Democratic favorite. And it gets discussion, yes, but not nearly as much as it should. Meanwhile Hillary goes on TV and says it's because she hates having multiple devices... Too bad she already boasted about having an Ipad, Iphone, and Blackberry... Again, this stuff is talked about, but comparatively little by mainstream media.

Fun fact, by the way - media companies have already donated millions to her campaign, and only her campaign. But I'm sure they want to see her fail.

 

[Ununhexium]

Are there any legit conservatives on smogon?

A few

 

[veiva]

Mainly speaking of right-leaning, though I am interested in your point, as well! Part of me had the impression that the media at large would not hesitate to jump on any Clinton baggage and harp on it for like, ever, which is annoying. :<

In addition to tehy (e.g., brushing over Clinton's flaws), the obfuscation of delegates leads to misleading and dishonest delegates for Sanders and Clinton, with Clinton seeming to have have a giant lead (in reality, she still has a lead, but never as large as the media suggested). Further back, the tremendously poor coverage of Democratic candidates other than Clinton (especially when compared to similar coverage of the Republicans)--in essence, you'd have thought only Clinton was running for the Democratic nomination (no Sanders, or O'Malley, or the others), with Biden being a possible contender. There's more, such as post-debate discussion unsoundly favoring Clinton, but they tend to be aligned with or supportive of the larger tactics used by the media.

 

[Deck Knight]

Sorry for double post but I'd like to ask Bass (or anyone else who feels like answering) this because I'm genuinely curious.

Why/how do you think Bernie could win a general election? To me it seems that Clinton is an overall more electable candidate, and also considering that only 47% of US citizens said they would vote for a socialist. Among democrats, that number is a staggeringly low 59% (In retrospect with a leftist party). Also take into account that 25% of voters are considered swing voters, and less than half of those swing voters said they would vote for a socialist candidate.

(Also don't give me that stuff about "Democratic Socialist" because I know the difference, but the vast majority of the electorate sees the word "socialist" and only pays attention to that aspect)

Here is the poll I used. Bear in mind that it's from early in the race, but it's still worth taking into account.


EDIT: Another question I just thought of. If elected, how would Bernie be able to change anything? Given a Republican-majority congress that may or may not change with this election, but will most likely change come 2018 (When the majority of Bernie's supporters, white millennials, no longer care about politics)?

Since I've been tagged a few times in the thread and these are the most recent questions:

1) Bernie's strategy is to do what Obama did in 2008 by turning out the Democrat Base. The problem is, Bernie doesn't turn out as many people as Obama did in that race because everything else about the political environment is different. Instead of being at the tail end of an 8-year Republican administration featuring an economic crisis, Bernie's environment is the tail end of an 8-year Democrat administration where people openly discuss how cooked the books are on this supposed great economy. For the first time in a presidential election cycle people actually think they will have a lower standard of living than their parents.

Bernie also doesn't turn out as many people because a significant part of the Democrat turnout model is tribalist identity politics, and Obama shares the tribal identity of the least motivated general election voters and was therefore able to get them to vote against the MaleWhiteCisHet tribe in sufficient numbers. Bernie's sympathies lie with the Anti-MaleWhiteCisHets but his identity doesn't, and it's sharing the identity that's important to those voters. Stated succinctly: "First Socialist President" does not resonate like "First Black President" did. "First Woman President" won't do the trick either because women are a group of more evenly distributed voters. Women are more likely to be the strongest advocates on both sides of the abortion issue, for example, whereas there isn't as big a push for a libertarian mindset vs the more common authoritarian mindset on securing rights among minority activists.

In Summary: Obama reminded voters of the promising young intern/associate/colleague from a different background - especially if they were that person. Hillary Clinton reminds voters of the worst female boss/supervisor they've ever had - that goes for both men and women. Bernie reminds voters of their crazy, somewhat endearing uncle or grandfather. The first turns out many more Democrat voters than the second or third.

Yes, Bernie does appeal to socialist millennials. So did Obama. It's a null set.
Bernie is a better general election candidate, but not by a significant margin. He has a lot less baggage but also a lot less organization, and, believe me, if he denies Hillary the nomination he better have Secret Service guards watching him every night while he sleeps. I don't know if Clinton, Inc. could handle losing a second Democrat Presidential Primary - this time to a cranky septuagenarian - without trying to implode the Democrat party as payback.

2) If elected Bernie will probably continue ignoring Article I of the Constitution and acting as if the legislature doesn't exist when its priorities clash with his. His election (or Hillary's) will signal that radical presidents pay no electoral price for expanding their Article II powers infinitely, and his ability to nominate the people defined in Article III will ensure that we continue down the path where EPA Bureacrats and Judicial Activists have more power to influence the law than actual legislators. So basically, four more years of what we have now with the President usurping various legislative powers, getting sued by state-level authorities, and then waiting 2 years for 9 Ivy-League lawyers in black robes to weigh in on whether the President has more power or not. If he gets shot down Republicans will celebrate, but the Republic is already lost because we've basically turned America into a Soap Opera: "As the Supreme Court Turns." So I guess if you really want radical change, hope Bernie is smart enough to expand his executive powers immediately and then set your clock for June of 2018.

As an aside, one of my big problems with Trump is he will also potentially abuse Article II powers to override the legislature, but thankfully the media actually cares about executive overreach when Republicans are in office and the Republican Party has a lower tolerance for that behavior generally, as evidenced by the fact the only alternative left standing to win the Republican nomination is Ted Cruz, a Constitutionalist conservative.

 

[blank]

Since I've been tagged a few times in the thread and these are the most recent questions:

1) Bernie's strategy is to do what Obama did in 2008 by turning out the Democrat Base. The problem is, Bernie doesn't turn out as many people as Obama did in that race because everything else about the political environment is different. Instead of being at the tail end of an 8-year Republican administration featuring an economic crisis, Bernie's environment is the tail end of an 8-year Democrat administration where people openly discuss how cooked the books are on this supposed great economy. For the first time in a presidential election cycle people actually think they will have a lower standard of living than their parents.

Bernie also doesn't turn out as many people because a significant part of the Democrat turnout model is tribalist identity politics, and Obama shares the tribal identity of the least motivated general election voters and was therefore able to get them to vote against the MaleWhiteCisHet tribe in sufficient numbers. Bernie's sympathies lie with the Anti-MaleWhiteCisHets but his identity doesn't, and it's sharing the identity that's important to those voters. Stated succinctly: "First Socialist President" does not resonate like "First Black President" did. "First Woman President" won't do the trick either because women are a group of more evenly distributed voters. Women are more likely to be the strongest advocates on both sides of the abortion issue, for example, whereas there isn't as big a push for a libertarian mindset vs the more common authoritarian mindset on securing rights among minority activists.

In Summary: Obama reminded voters of the promising young intern/associate/colleague from a different background - especially if they were that person. Hillary Clinton reminds voters of the worst female boss/supervisor they've ever had - that goes for both men and women. Bernie reminds voters of their crazy, somewhat endearing uncle or grandfather. The first turns out many more Democrat voters than the second or third.

Yes, Bernie does appeal to socialist millennials. So did Obama. It's a null set.
Bernie is a better general election candidate, but not by a significant margin. He has a lot less baggage but also a lot less organization, and, believe me, if he denies Hillary the nomination he better have Secret Service guards watching him every night while he sleeps. I don't know if Clinton, Inc. could handle losing a second Democrat Presidential Primary - this time to a cranky septuagenarian - without trying to implode the Democrat party as payback.

2) If elected Bernie will probably continue ignoring Article I of the Constitution and acting as if the legislature doesn't exist when its priorities clash with his. His election (or Hillary's) will signal that radical presidents pay no electoral price for expanding their Article II powers infinitely, and his ability to nominate the people defined in Article III will ensure that we continue down the path where EPA Bureacrats and Judicial Activists have more power to influence the law than actual legislators. So basically, four more years of what we have now with the President usurping various legislative powers, getting sued by state-level authorities, and then waiting 2 years for 9 Ivy-League lawyers in black robes to weigh in on whether the President has more power or not. If he gets shot down Republicans will celebrate, but the Republic is already lost because we've basically turned America into a Soap Opera: "As the Supreme Court Turns." So I guess if you really want radical change, hope Bernie is smart enough to expand his executive powers immediately and then set your clock for June of 2018.

As an aside, one of my big problems with Trump is he will also potentially abuse Article II powers to override the legislature, but thankfully the media actually cares about executive overreach when Republicans are in office and the Republican Party has a lower tolerance for that behavior generally, as evidenced by the fact the only alternative left standing to win the Republican nomination is Ted Cruz, a Constitutionalist conservative.

i don't mean to turn this into "deck knight q&a time", but what's your opinion on kasich? a lot of moderate republicans (and even conservatives) i've talked to think he's the most sensible of the 3, but they don't really want to support kasich due to him having seemingly zero traction. do you think kasich would be a better president than cruz, and is the main appeal of cruz that he's not trump? also, do you think either kasich / cruz would actually have a chance against bernie / hillary in this election?

i really don't give a shit who wins as long as it isn't trump / cruz. i won't get into trump because, welll... as for cruz, i just think he's far too conservative and overly-religious. i would really rather not want someone who wants to make gay marriage illegal again, limit the rights of LGBT people, limit the rights of muslims, etc. etc. D:

edit: i'm not trying to debate anyone here, and i don't want to hear anyone's opinions on LGBT stuff. i just brought it up as my reasoning for not liking cruz personally.

 

[Bull Of Heaven]

Clinton gets indicted. Republicans don't pick a moderate.

Are there any moderates left in that party?

 

[Kalawishis]

Well, Trump and Clinton both won New York. Both by rather large margins, no less. Trump completely demolished everybody else and Hillary's leading Bernie by double digits.

Some of you might want to go to Reddit and savor the tears.

 

[Donald Trump]

Bernie Sanders will need to sweep penn/california pretty hard now, but Hillary has too much momentum. But at least this election has shown there is hope for electing presidents who don't have establishment support.

I wouldn't expect anything less from myself in New York. I'm probably going to win the nomination at this point.

 

[Kalawishis]

Gosh, the man himself.

 

[gvmgvm40]

Official Sanders campaign anthem:

 

[JES]

Glad to see this is still going. I'm tempted to pull my hair out, now that my candidate of choice no longer has a chance (those super delegates would never go for Sanders unless they were offered a carrot or a stick!). Hillary has received donations from at least three of the "Big Four" banks of America (and for those who are aware, their heads are among the controlling real life Legion of Whom), and I'm afraid of what I'll find as I keep digging. Gee, no wonder she doesn't want to break them up!

And then we have Trump. He is bombastic, feeds on people's (perhaps righteous) passions. I have not heard him make a campaign promise that he will get money out of politics, which might be worth his taking the risk that he'll carry out his threat to kick all illegal aliens and their children born in the U.S. out of the country, and into their respective lands of origins, or that he'll kill any families ISIS if he gets the chance. It's gonna be hell for kids who have lived their entire life in the U.S., and all the sudden find that their Cuban homeland's PTB do not tolerate any dissent or democratic idealism. Then again, I don't want to feel responsible for electing a possible lunatic into office, and probably have the responsibility to kick him out, along with anyone else who won't tolerate such behavior. Yeah, in case you don't know, I'm fed up with the bullshit and incompetence.

Maybe the most logical option would be to not vote for any one of the two primary parties, who could use a swift kick to the rump anyways! Anyone else want to help start a movement encouraging voters to just give a middle finger to the establishment, and vote for a third party candidate? That oughta send them a message at least (and begin some much needed political participation, awareness, and activism)!

CNN in particular is owned by Time Warner, which has donated $600,000 to Hillary's campaign's over her lifetime, so the idea of a holding of Time Warner being allowed to criticize Clinton doesn't seem likely. Making mountains of Clinton's rival's molehills seem like a much more likely course of action for something like CNN. Media biases in general are what's keeping Hillary's image way cleaner than it should be, as well as feminists pushing for her regardless of how terrible she is. It's to the point, both in the US and abroad, where I wouldn't really call people who read the mainstream news "well informed" but rather "well misled".

Oh, I was peeking at who was financing Hillary's campaign, and I saw Time Warner on her campaign list, but didn't know what it meant! Now I can link her to CNN, which we all know is corporate media, and misinforms the public, or doesn't tell them enough. In my view, taking money from them is a no-no, since they perpetuate the status quo that has put us in the trouble our country is in now!. That gives me just another reason not to vote for her! Thanks!

It's kind of funny, looking back at these posts, eh? When we have no idea who could win, besides the fact that it's between

Ted cruz - the zodiac killer
Bernie Sanders - no taxes, Big Bank Breakup free college and free healthcare propaganda
Hillary Clinton - A liar with no back-bone
Kasich - Literally only staying in the race to fuck Trump
Trump - Build the wall. Build the wall. Build the wall.

Not just a wall. Apparently it's gonna be a great wall.

Oh, and I fixed/added something for you.

Makes you convinced that voting third party would be the smarter decision, doesn't it. Fuck the "but your vote won't count", or the electoral college. It will if there are enough people who are smart enough to make the right decision!

 

[Kalawishis]

Anyone else want to help start a movement encouraging voters to just give a middle finger to the establishment, and vote for a third party candidate? That oughta send them a message at least (and begin some much needed political participation, awareness, and activism)!

The problem with voting for a third party candidate is that you're going to be voting for someone who's dumb enough to run on a third party ticket. There's a reason why the anti-establishment candidates Trump and Sanders are running within their parties - that's the only way they stand a chance. If Trump were, say, running as an independent or a Reform Party candidate (and he actually has run as a Reform Party candidate before), he would be laughed out of the race. His high poll numbers would be disregarded since it would be a foregone conclusion that he wouldn't stand a chance in the general.

But that's where the genius of Trump comes in. When he runs as a Republican, people have no choice but to pay attention to him. The niche he captured in mid-2015, which would have been disregarded if he didn't run as a Republican, now allowed him to do better than all the other candidates, who were merely fracturing the anti-Trump Republicans and making Trump's supporters stronger. Most importantly, Trump started winning states. The Republican Party is obliged to hand the nomination to the person who wins above a certain number of delegates, so Trump's leveraged niche has turned from an ignored part of the population to a powerful coalition.

Trump's once-small niche is also growing. His initial crucial popularity meant that a great deal of Americans - Republicans, Independents, and Democrats - were forced to consider him as a candidate, and the more people were exposed to him, the more people started to flock to him. Even as more candidates dropped out and the anti-Trump Republicans became less fractured, they still couldn't compete with Trump's growing base. At this point even if he doesn't win the nomination he has irreversibly changed the political makeup of the United States, and has become probably the most influential political figure in the U.S. save Obama. His base is still growing, mind you. Various ceilings have been put on his poll numbers, and he continues to break those ceilings.

TLDR: Don't run on a third party ticket.