Clinton, Johnson, Stein & Trump: On The Issues Who Would You Vote For?



As we enter the final stretch of the presidential election we examine the possibility of voters voting on the issues that are important to them. The reality is that poll after poll and article after article has shown this election has the two major political parties headed by two of the most unpopular candidates ever submitted for president. Yes, there have been unpopular candidates before but usually at most one party submitted a weak candidate and so the opponent was elected. This year however both the Republican and the Democratic parties are headed by candidates that the voters are uncomfortable with. You would think therefore that this would be an opportunity for alternative parties such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party to surge to the forefront.

The reality however is that even though some of the national press and media have given Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party candidate, and Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party candidate, more coverage than ever before (see CNN’s town halls, invitations from shows such as the recently departed The Tonight Show, Colbert, The Daily Show and even newspaper endorsements); the two alternative candidates have not resonated barely cracking the ten percent threshold together. This means that they won’t even qualify for the critical exposure that the national presidential debates bring as they are not likely to meet the required fifteen percent individual threshold. Although as Bernie Sanders said this past week-end maybe that bar is too high.

Some pundits would like to think that a third party upset won't happen because citizens are afraid of a repeat of the 2000 election in which some believe that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election, or because the alternative candidates running this year aren’t Ross Perot and able to generate the enthusiasm and financial backing that he was able to, or simply because of voter disgust and potential low voter turnout. The more likely reason is that once voters delve into the issues that are important to them, most voters are finding out that even including the smaller party candidates they do not have a candidate that represents their views.

Looking at this election through the prism of two issues makes this very clear. In the graph above we illustrate this with the vertical axis as likely support of economic global issues such as the TPP and other globalist agendas and on the horizontal axis the continuum from conservative social to liberal agendas. If as above you set up a chart and note where the four existing candidates fall based on at least general perception, historic tendency and some investigation of their website; you realize that voters that are socially conservative but economically globalists do not have a candidate that represents their interests. Neither do voters that are socially liberal but economically nationalistic. Adding Bernie, Cruz and Rubio to the mix makes this clear. Not to mention voters in the two quadrants that do have candidates but are not that far off from the center as the current candidates are. If anything what we see is the top two contenders trying to broaden their platforms to appeal to the platforms of their counter-party losing candidates.

Yes, everyone is talking about tone and trust but the reality for a lot of voters is they don't have a candidate that really represents their interests. I strongly encourage voters to pick two to three issues of importance, call them deal breakers, research the candidates likely positions as noted on their websites and third party evaluations sites such as On the Issues, and make a decision based on their research. In fact, On the Issues has a short twenty question quiz that is then evaluated against the candidates positions. Try it by clicking here: http://www.ontheissues.org/Qui...

https://www.hillaryclinton.com

https://www.johnsonweld.com

http://www.jill2016.com/

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/

Disclaimer: Graphic consists of author's best interpretation of the candidates positions at time of publication and cannot reflect constantly evolving and sometimes changing positions.