Election 2016

Dear Democrats: No One Owes You Their Vote

Clinton has been going full-force Millennial Whisperer recently, after learning that she's losing young voters to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Why it won't help.


Ricky Fitchett/ZUMA Press/Newscom

The Hillary Clinton campaign thought for sure it could count on a few key demographics: racial minorities, gay voters, young women, and to some extent young people broadly. Now that many of these groups—but especially the kids—have proven less gung-ho about her than expected, Clinton is going full-force Millennial Whisperer, throwing out free-college proposals and Pepe the Frog references with abandon as her minions in media and politics hammer home one point: a vote for a third-party presidential candidate this November is a vote for Donald Trump.

The new rhetoric comes in response to several signs that millennials won't simply go good-German in a post-Bernie world. In the latest Quinnipiac national poll, just 31 percent of 18- to 34-year-old voters favored Clinton, with 29 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 15 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Another recent poll, this one from New York Times/CBS News, found 26 percent of 18- to 29-year-old respondents saying they would vote for Johnson and 10 percent professing support for Stein.

"A month ago Democrats were amused to see Johnson leading Trump along millennials," noted Dave Weigel at The Washington Post Monday. "Now, Johnson's support is being tackled like a crisis."

The anti-third-party message has been coming from Clinton herself—on Monday, she gave a speech at Temple University "laying out the stakes of November's election for millennial voters"—and from new YouTube and TV commercials put out by Clinton SuperPAC Priorities USA. It's coming from Clinton surrogates like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, speaking on Facebook and at swing-state college campuses; and from pro-establishment voices in the media, such as The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Mother Jones executive editor Clara Jeffery.

On Thursday, Jeffery tweeted the results of a new poll showing high support for third-party candidates among young voters with the comment: "I have never hated millennials more."

Jeffery's comment typifies a certain sort of left-leaning boomer leap-of-logic wherein the large number of Trump supporters within their own ranks aren't the issue and its the under-35 crowd's rejection of both Trump and Clinton that is truly unconscionable. Meanwhile, Krugman weighed in today on whether any sane person could vote for Gary Johnson, concluding sure—if they think it makes no difference whether Trump or Clinton gets elected and they agree with every policy position Johnson takes.

The last bit is an especially strange assertion to make while simultaneously arguing for those who don't love Clinton to support her because she's better than the alternative. In Krugman's column logic, voting for Clinton while opposing much of what she stands for is righteous and normal while voting for Johnson because you support much of what he stands for is absurd unless you also agree with him 100 percent on environmental regulation, Medicare, school choice, and everything else.

Riffing on Krugman, let's ask a similar question: Does it make sense for millennials or racial minorities to vote for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for president, when they really want to vote for a third-party candidate?

Sure, as long as you believe a few things. First, you have to accept a system in which two increasingly similar and incoherent political parties get to dominate American politics in perpetuity and in which the quality (or lack thereof) of the candidates they put forth makes zero difference. Second, you have to believe that Donald Trump presents an unprecedented threat to American society and this election holds unique historical significance that subsequent elections will not match. And third, you have to believe that certain classes of people can and should reliably be expected to vote against their own consciences and material interests to serve the greater good as it is perceived by an elite ruling class.

The problem for Clinton, I suspect, is that very few of the voters she's seeking to sway away from third parties—be they millennials or whoever—believe all those things. The people who would even consider a third-party vote in the first place tend to either be true believers in that philosophy or so fed up with (one or both) parties that they're desperate for an alternative. Neither group seems likely to be swayed by appeals to how its their job to see that the lesser of two evils gets elected and their fault alone if that doesn't happen. In fact, it's that very attitude that turns people to third parties in the first place.

There are many people for whom Clinton's current rhetoric resonates, though. When I was home in Ohio last week, I heard some iteration of it—or its reverse, that voting third-party would tragically throw the election toward Clinton—from all sorts of older relatives and other folks for whom voting either Republican or Democrat is almost always a given. Which makes sense: the types to see their side as reliably better than anything the other side has to offer will of course reject any courses of action that could boost the other side, even if they despise their own party's candidate (which was also pretty par for the course among those I consulted). As a get-out-the-vote strategy for generally committed partisans, then, drumming up third-party fears seems to be a fine tactic.

But where this shame-based messaging works less well is with the very people that Clinton is courting. Telling people to vote for someone they don't trust or believe in simply to stop someone else they don't believe in from taking power plays right into people's major complaints about Clinton—that she's a sellout for whom power trumps principles; that she'll say anything to get elected; that she's running more on symbolism than substance.

And as several young Sanders supporters told Weigel, they're open to Clinton but don't believe she's genuine or will keep promises she makes on the campaign trail. They want a reason to believe, but she isn't delivering.

Yet rather than focusing on ratcheting up her credibility on issues that are important to independent voters, instead Clinton's campaign has turned to bullying. Her message—vote for me no matter how bad I am or else the truly bad guys win—is just a subtler (and yet more cynical) version of Trump's "I alone can save you" rhetoric.

It's not surprising, unfortunately. Historically, the Clinton campaign and its allies have always gotten nasty when the going gets tough. When young voters went overwhelmingly for Sanders in the Democratic primaries, Clinton and company were quick to chastise young male "Bernie Bros" for sexism and young women for voting socialist so boys would like them. During the 2008 election season, Clinton cast Obama's higher ratings as a toxic mix of sexism and unfounded black-on-black voting habits. Clinton's entire presidential oeuvre has been built on one motif: she's owed this goddamn office and anyone who can't see that is deplorable.

But for a lot of idealistic young voters, "hey, at least she's not Trump" just isn't inspiring enough to warrant a vote for Clinton. And the idea that they, by virtue of being young, or black, or any other surface attribute typically associated with liberal voting, owe the Democrats their electoral devotion as a matter of course is downright insulting. It typifies an upper-class feminist/liberal agenda in which good minority-groups of all sorts are supposed to go along to get along—to subsume their own specific goals to some general progressive political good—even when it repeatedly leaves them on the margins. That Clinton and Democrats feel so comfortable shaming certain classes of people for voting in accordance with their own values and interests illustrates just how much Clinton and the mainstream left takes these groups for granted.

A vote for neither Clinton nor Trump—whether that means casting a ballot for Johnson, Stein, or some other candidate or abstaining from voting altogether—can say to the ruling parties that people are tired of being taken for granted (or tired of being offered a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche, as South Park would put it) and that Democrats and Republicans need to do better next time. That's important, too.

NEXT: Terror Suspect in New York Caught, Feds Say Christie Knew About Bridge Closures, Immigrants Mistakenly Granted Citizenship: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The way to the millennial heart might just be $16 an hour.

    1. No it’s through the breastplate via the sternum.

      1. Riiiight… next thing you’re going to tell me is that they have spines, too.

        1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

          ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

        2. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily… You can earn from 9000-14000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail… http://goo.gl/jPtLqx

      2. Through the stomach. Less armor and bone that way.

      3. Nope. Not with millennials, they just hang on their arms. And they’re always bleeding.

    2. Until they figure out that those jobs don’t exist. And neither does the $9 an hour job that they used to have. Economics 101 the hard way.

      1. #RobotsForHillary

    3. The math checks out.

  2. OK, I think we’ve heard enough about Clinton’s joke of a campaign.

    1. No, no we haven’t.

    2. Each day brings us more and more material to openly mock.

  3. RE: Dear Democrats: No One Owes You Their Vote
    Clinton has been going full-force Millennial Whisperer recently, after learning that she’s losing young voters to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.
    We little people have been given a choice between the fascist Trump the Grump or the socialist slaver Heil Hitlary. Both are rich, stupid, arrogant and elitist.
    Only a fool would pass up a chance voting for either one.
    Just look what the two party elitists have done for our country so far.

    1. Define Fascist. I keep hearing people accuse Trump of fascism when they have no clue what fascism is.

      Define fascism and give examples.

      1. For the majority of the Political Left, Fascist means ‘bad’. See; Franco, Pinochet, and a certain Austrian corporal were ‘fascists’, but Stalin and Mao were Communists, which excuses that they mudered more people.


        The consmetic differences mostly boil down to Fascists are likely to be Racists while Communists are Classists.

        1. National Socialist. Often nationalism is confused with fascism. Nationalism tends to manifest as racism while fascism is an economic system. By definition Obumbles is a fascist, or has fascist policies and Cankles isnt far behind.

          Trump is in no way a fascist, but he does appeal to nationalists and he is definitely a populist. Still, I don’t see him calling for camps for adults.

          1. Fascism isn’t primarily economic, it’s defining features are (usually ethnic) nationalism and concentration of power in the hands of the head of state. The Nazis were arguably more truly fascist than the Itslian fascists; Mussolini never had as absolute power as Hitler was he near as successful in implementing nationalist and militarist policies.

            One could validly make a distinction between Felangism and fascism, the former more being traditionalist, monarchist, and pro-aristocratic, all generally at odds with fascism.

            1. By which definition Trump is well into fascist territory. Clinton is a generalist authoritarian.

            2. Fascism isn’t primarily economic, it is ONLY economic.

              Read. You might learn.

              1. economic merger of State and corporate, and necessarily enforced politically. You cannot have fascism without a cudgel.

      2. Mussolini, the original author of fascism, defined it as a merger between the State and corporate power, with the following dictates:

        1. Everything in the State
        2. Nothing outside the State
        3. Nothing against the State.

        And you violated those roles at your peril.

    2. Trump is a fascist, yet Hillary’s slogan is Stronger Together. All she’s missing is the fascio. Go figure.

      1. Specify how Trump is a fascist.

        1. Well he’s certainly a nationalist, that you don’t dispute, right? Wants to make America great and wants everyone to be proud to be an American. On civil liberties he’s horrible on the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment inasmuch as they’re impediments to American security and greatness.

          And his economic policies are very protectionist with some increased welfare mixed in like maternity leave and not touching Social Security/Medicare. It’s what many of us here would call socialist if advocated by a Democrat. The only difference is Trump isn’t bothering to pretend to be able to pay for it with more taxation.

          So what do you call a person who’s platform is a mixture of socialism and nationalism?

        2. Nationalism
          Concentration of political power in the Head of State

          He’s advocated for all of that.

          1. The defining feature of fascism is the state working through favored industries, i.e. state-corporate collusion. I have heard none of that from Trump.

            The other features you mention were characteristics of Hitler and Mussolini regimes, not their philosophies.

  4. Would Democrats be better off if they would have run a stuffed effigy of Che? I mean it would have looked more alive than Hillary and not be prone to seizures.

    1. Would Democrats be better off if they would have run a stuffed effigy of Che?

      Bernie Sanders lost, fair and square.

      1. I bet Bernie smells better than Hillary though. Can you imagine hanging out with grandmao pantsuit all day? What if she has a depends blow out or something when she faints? Those secret service guys sure earn their pay.

        1. Or maybe… when he thought the country had too much deodorant, he was really just projecting his own behavior and preferences.

        2. She has a person for that….

    2. I think they could have done better than that. Maybe use some of that Hollywood magic and make him robotic or something.

      1. I think Hollywood learned their lesson about making a robot version of something that old during production of Jurassic Park.

    3. Che would have been easy to defeat just ask him how he feels about black people and gays.

  5. As several young Sanders supporters told Weigel,

    DON’T YOU MEAN BUTTPLUG??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    I agree completely with the last paragraph. I’d add the fact that many Bernie-lovers are obsessed with Clinton’s corruption – both in her past and with the Democratic primary – so that factors in, too.

    1. Well, these naive young chillins are unfortunately swayed by the fake scandals they read about on those internets. We need common sense internet control.

    2. The only crime Hillary committed was not sewing up the primary and America what with all of her qualifications.

      1. But but but my sister told me that Clinton is the *most qualified* candidate ever!

  6. Anyone else notice it’s been “Mrs” Clinton lately rather than “secretary”?

    Also, is there any doubt that these interviews she’s giving from her plane aren’t really from some stage sonewhere in her bunker, where they wheel her out for a few mins whenever the drugs are just right?

    1. A prog told me a few days ago that she has actually been appearing in public often after her ‘pnemonia’, but the only image I’ve seen of her since then is seated on a plane looking like the undead.

      1. I’m convinced that the plane interview thing is a scam. It’s a great way to make it look like she’s actively running around the country and is just so busy she can only fit plane interviews into her busy schedule. When you add in the undead look I’m sure I’m right

        1. Like when medieval armies would prop their dead General up on his horse and send riding around to rally the troops.

          Of course it’s also possible they noticed every time she shows up and talks her numbers go down rather than up and decided to just take a long vacation to Boca while Obama campaigns on her behalf.

        2. It’s filmed in the same studio where they did the moon landing. Are they still using film?

  7. Well, as I said earlier, expect this to continue ratcheting up either until the election or until Johnson and Weld are seen as nothing more than Trump’s more-Nazi, stoner, dopplegangers.

    This was announced. In no uncertain terms. The Clinton campaign said they were going to delegitimize voting for Johnson. They announced a multi-million dollar commitment to doing just that. The only thing I’m surprised about is that anyone fails to see the transparent propaganda campaign (and when I observed it this weekend, the response was little more than a sneer and an accusation of conspiracy thinking).

    Again, progressives aren’t the friends (at least politically) of libertarians. They’ll only tolerate libertarians to the extent we’re irrelevant. If that ever changes, they’ll have more venom for us than they do for conservatives.

    1. A movement which believes the only flaw in government is that there isn’t enough is going to be the mortal enemy of libertarians. Full stop.

      1. I hear they also represent libertarians as hyperbolic one-dimensional caricatures, but I don’t waste my time reading their publications to find out for sure.

        1. ” …You understand the mentality, you can call it conservative, some would say libertarian. Well, libertarian doesn’t fit, because you wouldn’t join the army…”

          Oliver Stone commenting on Edward Snowden.


          Ars goes the full Proggtard these days.

          1. Ollie always manages to bring the stupid to the party.

          2. Ars is ok for tech stuff and gaming, but holy fucking shit they have gone full progtard in so many ways.

            Congresscritter wants publicly funded climate scientists to hand over work emails related to their taxpayer-funded research? Denier! Nazi! Kochzombie!

            Do you oppose gun control? Murderer! Childkiller! Nazi!

            I once pointed out in Ars comments that consensus is a poor basis for science. You would have thought I suggested we fire up the showers and ovens. JFC what a bunch of self-righteous drones.

        2. One tiny example, I’m searching for the circle-jerk that was Fed Up’s “protest” at Jackson hole, but I’m having trouble finding it. People who were there were alarmed at how the Fed Up organization demanded that the Fed do more of what the Fed does, keeping interest rates at zero and engaging in endless stimulus. Then a lot of cross-table congratulatory speech and backslapping ensued.

          This theme comes up again and again. Oh, there was Bernie Sanders, almost forgot about him.

        3. “I hear they also represent libertarians as hyperbolic one-dimensional caricatures, but I don’t waste my time reading their publications to find out for sure.”

          Just reading the clip from Paul Krugman’s piece above will confirm this idea.

      2. I think part of the problem is that they know exactly how to approach a conservative. Conservatives just automatically disagree with them on everything. But go join in on a thread about cannabis where a lot of the progs are supporting legalization and you start agreeing with them. So they think you’re one of them. When they find out you’re not, this enrages them. They have no idea how to deal with this.

        1. How much are you really agreeing with them?

          What they are ok with is government granting permission to engage in behaviors they deem acceptable. They are also totally for government prohibiting anything they do not think acceptable.

          Can’t say I find much there to agree with.

        2. I posted a comment similar to this a couple of weeks ago, where you think you have common ground when you start talking about the bailouts, but the nano-second you suggest the bailouts never should have happened, you’re met with rhetorical throatclearing, suggesting that the bailouts were absolutely necessary to save the system from the corporations. Somehow, people manage to hold the belief that bailouts were both evil and necessary at the same time.

          I just scrolled through my text history, I’ll have to edit for brevity:

          Democrat: Banks and Wall Street hold all the power, they manipulated the system.

          Paul. : Congress commands the military and the legislative pen, they authorized the bailouts.

          Democrat: Money is fungible

          Paul: I point out that the banks never should have recieved the bailouts (using more colorful language)

          Democrat: The bailout was necessary! Congress has failed to act to keep them from happening again.

          Paul: Congress acted to codify bailouts into law!

          Democrat: *makes some off topic remark* then replies with start honesty, and this is direct quote: It offend [sic] botyh my libertarian and socialistic tendencies at the same time. How is that for cognitive dissonance.

          This comes up again and again. You think you have some common ground, and it’s obliterated the moment you suggest reducing the footprint of government.

          1. So giving away a few hundred billion dollars to corporations is going to save us from corporations. That makes a lot of sense I guess, if you’re a progtard.

          2. One can argue that the bailouts were necessary to avoid a liquidity shortage, but the liquidity shortage caused by failing banks is itself the result of regulatory barriers to entry in the moneylending industry.

            I’m not convinced a massive contraction in available credit wouldn’t have been a very bad thing, but even fairly mainstream economists have argued that at least semi-private ways of dealing with it were viable and less expensive, and Anna Schwartz has argued the industry would’ve recovered fine without any bailouts; I would say she has some credibility on the matter.

            Even if the bailouts were necessary, the way to prevent the is the exact opposite of the progressive solution: we need a less stringently regulated, more competitive credit market, not a more stringently regulated less competitive market.

        3. Something similar happens when a libertarian criticizes a USA conservative for being opposed to small government. I once was a guest on a conservative radio talk show and disconcerted the host by calling the non-military space program, of which he was a big booster, an example of pork-barrel spending.

          1. You’ve spoken to a libertarian?

    2. Will have? Not sure where you’ve been, but I frequently read comments on other sites, like WaPo, and the left already hate libertarians 1000x more than they hate conservatives.

      1. They hate libertarians because libertarians expose their ‘tolerant, free thinker’ pose as an utter lie.

        1. Are you implying they don’t really fucking love science!?

          1. They freaking love a consensus. So, that’s the same as science, right?

      2. Conservatives will give in to most of their agenda as long as they agree to let them keep raising defense spending and subsidize industries conservatives are in bed with. Many libertarians, the ‘good ones’, will go along with progs altogether for the sake of ‘social progress.’

        More adamant classical liberals, the bad ones, are the ideological threat to progs because they 1) can’t be bribed with more defense spending and pork barrel, and 2) realize that almost all of the ‘social liberal’ common ground has already been accomplished, and therefore is moot. If one accepts that, there’s almost nothing left to compromise over.

      3. Think about what happens at HnR. Assuming the trolls aren’t sock puppets, the hatred of libertarians and Reason.com seems to come almost entirely from the left.

  8. Perhaps eventually people will realize that if you blindly vote for either party at ridiculously high rates, they have no incentive to actually do anything for you.

  9. “”””Pepe the Frog references”””

    Big mistake, everyone loves Pepe.

  10. Vote as if it matters

    “You’ve gotta mentally masturbate like nobody’s watching, whine like you’re hurt, bloviate like there’s nobody listening, And live like it’s proggie heaven on earth.” – Krugman inspirational quote of the day

  11. Right on cue, my FB feed is filled with Progs issuing dire warnings about Gary Johnson. My favorite was the guy who seriously posited that Johnson would bring back malaria.

    Libertarians have foolish core assumptions about how human beings think and why they do what they do. Those assumptions deeply corrupt their ideas about how humans can and should work together to achieve common goals. I can’t imagine anyone more unqualified to make decisions about public policy than a libertarian.

    1. Libertarians have foolish core assumptions about how human beings think and why they do what they do

      That’s some high level proggy projection right there.

      1. What impressed me the most is the coordination. No mention of GJ, and suddenly, they’re all spewing the same talking points.

        1. It’s a mark of how tight the poling between Clinton and Trump has become.

      2. Nearly all progressive criticisms of libertarian thought is projection. They can’t understand that somebody would be naturally altruistic, for example, without government forcing them into it.

        1. Their conservative criticisms are projection too. It’s the only thing they do consistently and well.

        2. I’m skeptical that, for many of them, altruism is really even the issue. Beneficence is just the mechanism for obtaining power and control.

          Progressivism is deeply puritanical.

          1. Progressivism is deeply puritanical.

            This, exactly.

            1. Literally, in fact. Of course, if you tell a younger Progressive that their movement is rooted in the worst instincts of religion they’ll scoff at you. It just couldn’t be true, you see, because Religion is gross unless it’s a minority religion of several billion people.

        3. “They can’t understand that somebody would be naturally altruistic, for example, without government forcing them into it.”

          This is a characteristic shared by progs and most religious people. It’s really a display of ignorance about animal and human behavior.

      3. The really derptastical thing about it is how progs are always talking about ‘natural’ things and the way nature wants it to be and how capitalists are corrupting all of that.

        For the vast majority of human history, people were hunter gathers in small groups, cooperating to survive. Huge mega-nation states are something new and they are not the natural state of humans. Thinking you can take a being whose nature is to exist in a small cooperative groups and making them a cog in a great machine of hundreds of millions and thinking that is the ‘natural’ state is insane. Socialism will only work in small tight knit groups where the goals of each individual are very much in alignment.

        1. True. As Hayek said, socialism is not progressive but atavistic.

        2. “Socialism will only work in small tight knit groups where the goals of each individual are very much in alignment.”


          It can work in small groups whose members are at least somewhat loyal to one another and unwilling to screw each other over. It also requires some means of expelling those who don’t pull their weight.

          Trying to implement it in even a small town these days would be suicidal; the population is simply too large and diverse to have that cohesiveness. Plus, such an arrangement would leave you with two choices:

          A) Expel or kill anyone who attempts to leech off the system,

          B) Tolerate the loafers and watch the whole country spiral into poverty.

          1. Exactly.

            Convent = example of success
            Commune = example of failure

        3. For the vast majority of human history, people were hunter gathers in small groups, competing for survival


          Any ‘socialism’ seen in small hunter gatherer groups is an illusion provided by minds tainted with the notion from outside.

    2. “Those assumptions deeply corrupt their ideas about how humans can and should work together to achieve common goals.”

      What happens when you point out that coercive violence is not the same as “working together?” Do they just own up to it and admit that this is just what they want? Is that what they mean by “should work together?”

      Are they aware of this or do they just not care? I usually don’t challenge people about politics because it can get unpleasant, so I really don’t know.

      1. Are they aware of this or do they just not care?

        No and yes, respectively.

      2. Yes, it’s really bizarre that this seems to be their belief system:

        People cooperating and competing peacefully with other producers of wealth = Cold, uncaring, cut-throat, dog-eat-dog capitalism

        Government monopolists using the implied threat of deadly force to force people to give up their wealth so that the government can distribute it as they see fit = Compassionate, democratic, social progress

        1. I keep thinking the latest example of government corruption and cronyism will open their eyes, but it never seems to happen.

          1. Willful ignorance.

            See: Global Warming

    3. Those assumptions deeply corrupt their ideas about how humans can and should work together to achieve common goals.

      I think their use of the word ‘should’ says everything you need to know about their mindset.

  12. I voted for Ross Perot in the first election i ever voted in.

    It was mainly because “He wasn’t one of the other two”.

    It reminds me of the apocryphal story Shelby Foote told about the Confederate Civil War soldier who had kept fighting after the surrender, and when finally cornered by rebel troops, asked why he was so loyal to a government which had never done anything for him and which no longer existed. He replied = “Confederacy? Never heard of it. I’m fighting cause all y’all down here.”

    1. Same here for same reason, but since I was instinctively repulsed by the Clintons, I enjoyed all of perots charts showing how Arkansas was last or close to it in most economic and educational metrics

    2. The best thing about The Civil War (documentary) really is Shelby Foote’s telling of these short anecdotes with the wistful remembrance of someone who was actually there.

  13. My new conspiracy theory: Hillary’s going to croak, but they’ll keep the body double out on the campaign trail until someone discovers the body. Forced to address the revelation, the campaign will announce that the double, who kept up appearances while Hillary recovered from pneumonia, has died.

    1. My new conspiracy theory: Hillary’s going to croak

      I don’t think that’s even a longshot, let alone conspiracy theory.

      1. Croak?, you mean like Pepe the frog?

  14. These millenials are getting uppity.

    1. deplorables*

  15. So, now they’re fighting us. Next we win?

    1. No I think we’re stuck in a perpetual loop where they alternate between fighting us and laughing at us.

  16. If it weren’t for third parties, we’d still have slavery.

  17. Where do these people get the idea that the Johnson supporters today, or the Ralph Nader supporters in 2000, would have voted for one of the mainstream parties if their preferred third-party candidate was not on the ballot? Isn’t it just is likely, if not more so, that they would not have voted at all?

  18. Hillary gets accused of having brain damage, and so she declares war on a cartoon frog. This is supposed to rally millennials to her side? It just makes her look stupid. She got trolled.

    I see many anecdotal clues. E.g. very little Hillary swag in SF, when in 2008 and even 2012 we were drowning in Obama signs. Pro-Trump posts on anonymous social media get more likes than pro-Hillary ones.

    She is obviously flailing at this point. There’s no way she can make it through three debates and six weeks without coughing or stumbling or having a brain-freeze or just stroking out. Terror attacks just play into Trump’s hands. And now she’s going to advocate more Muslim immigration and more gun control?

    Get ready for President Trump. As I keep saying, the best thing for libertarians is to craft some libertarian solutions in specific areas. He’s a pragmatist, he likes to save money and win, so he might go for them.

    But Hillary is toast. It’s over.

    1. Hillary gets accused of having brain damage, and so she declares war on a cartoon frog.


    2. For a while now I’ve been saying Trump’s going to win, and the more time that passes, the more firmly I believe that. I completely agree with your observations regarding Hillary swag versus Obama swag. I may not be in San Fran, but I do live in Southern California. I remember seeing lots of Obama stickers and t-shirts at this point before the ’08 and ’12 elections. (Hell, I still see some people with bumper stickers for that fool) So far I’ve only seen 1 car with a Hillary bumper sticker. Seen plenty of cars with Trump stickers. She’s going to lose. I’m starting to think it might be by a fairly wide margin now too.

      1. Yes. It will be ‘surprisingly’ decisive for Trump. I’ve been saying this for a few months, and still get ‘No way’ from most of my friends.

      2. Among our gay friends, here in Dallas, it’s a virtual certainty that at any get together at least two of them will be wearing Hillary shirts. I see a few, but not ‘a lot’, of her stickers on vehicles along the North Tollway as well. Way, way less than I saw during either of Big O’s elections but at that time I was living in a Republican county so not that surprising either way.

        Texas will go for Trump, although our great State is directly in the crosshairs of the Democrat party. They really, really want more than just our major cities.

  19. So, the leftards are scrambling the biggest naked emperor they’ve got in the court astrology racket to sneer at Gary Johnson? Fuck you, Krugman: you don’t know shit.


    1. Fuck you, Krugman: you don’t know shit.

      Should be on t-shorts, bumper stickers, and, maybe even the official statement for Reason.

      OK, maybe I don’t want him to get that much credit. But, he can go fuck himself.

        1. I have nothing against crotchless hot pants on the right people.

      1. T-shorts

        There’s a dick joke in there somewhere.

    2. A poster here once referred to Krugman as the world’s most accomplished writer of Keynesian fan fiction.

      I have yet to hear a better description of him.

      1. Nice. Best I’ve heard and there were already some good ones on the Krugman article yesterday.

  20. It’s going to be interesting to dissect voter patterns once the election is over and the very unloved Hillary Clinton moves back into 1600 PA Avenue. Which of the awful things about Donald Trump sent it her way? What third party candidate stole whose votes? How much money was spent to guarantee this result?

    Hillary is going to be declared winner in November.

    1. It depends on the debates.

      If Trump can come across as not crazy and not obnoxious and somehow also bring up Hillary taking money from foreign governments while Secretary of State, he’ll win in November.

      Since Trump’s new campaign staff have taken over, he’s been doing all the right things, saying all the right things, and shutting the fuck up at all the right times.

      I see no reason to think that will stop.

      Hillary, on the other hand, can’t even get sick without discrediting herself.

    2. No way, Fist. She’s toast now. Too many indicators of impending defeat.

      1. He didn’t say she would win the election, he said she would be declared the winner.

        1. His previous three sentences indicate to me that he wasn’t talking about fraud.

      2. Oh she’ll win by a long shot. I’m calling it now.

        1. You really think she’ll win by a large margin? Wanna bet?

          My bet with Suell is looking pretty good now.

  21. The first rule of progressive club is: “The people want what we want”.

    The second rule of progressive club is: “If the people don’t want what we want, see the first rule”.

    The progressives cannot imagine a world in which the people don’t want what they want.

    If the people vote Tea Party, it isn’t because they’re rejecting progressives. It’s because they’re stupid, it’s because they’re racist, it’s because the oil companies pay think tanks to lie, it’s because the Koch brothers, it’s because Fox News, it’s because of the basket of deplorables, . . .

    But the people always want what the progressives want–even when they don’t.

    I hope Hillary loses so hard.

    The right still hasn’t caught on that Johnson is pulling more votes away from Hillary than anyone else.

    The left is only starting to realize they have a problem with millennials. They still don’t own it, though. It’ll take a presidential election loss for the progressives to start processing that, but even then, they’ll come to the conclusion that it’s all Hillary’s fault for being a crook.

    They’ll never own that the people don’t want what the progressives want. ’cause that’s progressive club rules number one and two.

    1. If you don’t want what they want, it’s because you’re suffering from the false consciousness of Ronald Raygun.

    2. Someone posted this yesterday: just substitute progressivism for socialism

      Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
      We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

      ~Fr?d?ric Bastiat

  22. Labor union writes legislation– exempts themselves from said legislation, sends it to city council in manila envelope, passed unanimously.

    The language and mechanisms of the bill make it purposefully onerous on businesses. So onerous that it might be more convenient and cheaper to hire union workers. Why? Because union-backed businesses get a special exemption from the law, even if through collective bargaining the secure-scheduling alternative offers fewer protections to the workers. If this were about helping workers, the union wouldn’t get a pass.

    1. As we reported, the new law would give workers at big retailers, coffee chains and restaurants two weeks advance notice of work schedules. Additionally, any changes by an employer will result in the worker getting extra pay.

      Big retailers and restaurants are businesses which have long ‘down periods’ and intense ‘busy periods’; the risk is that the staffing sometimes isn’t appropriately matched and creates losses by using labor where it isn’t needed.

      Taking the ability to flexibly adapt and target labor to when/where its needed is essential for these fairly low-margin operations.

      “Well just raise the prices then!” screech the progs, not realizing that they themselves already unconsciously curtailed their Latte consumption by 30% when they went from $2.75 to $3.25.

      1. They advocate a million things that raise the cost of doing business, but when the costs of products/services go up, they start squealing about “price gouging” and “corporate greed”.

        1. And how difficult it is for the poor.

        2. Which justifies the need for price controls.

    2. This is the very definition of fascism for those of you who were trying to define it above. Government-business collusion.

  23. How does it go?

    If you’re young and not a liberal then you’re heartless. If you’re old and not a conservative then you’re clueless. If you’re a libertarian then you have a clue, but no heart.

    Or something.

  24. Millennials should opt to break their well-deserved stereotype and show everyone how serious and thoughtful they really are by breaking big for Donald J Trump #MAGA

    1. Enough of them will.

  25. My Progressive Friend’s response to this article:

    “Eh. I’m honestly not convinced the writer’s conceit is sound. In fact, I think Krugman’s article was pretty spot-on. And the author’s hyperbolic summary of it, that Krugman thinks sane millennials could vote for Johnson “if they think it makes no difference whether Trump or Clinton gets elected and they agree with every policy position Johnson takes” is actually at least half true regardless.

    What always irritates me about Reason, though, is how self-congratulatory its politics are. This article is a prime example. After setting up its straw man, “Does it make sense for millennials or racial minorities to vote for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for president, when they really want to vote for a third-party candidate?” — which itself was already answered by the blithe summary of Krugman’s article, with the answer being an affirmative for third-party voters — then devolves into dismissal of the latent and explicit sexism Bernie Bros promulgated, as well as more or less branding all millennials with a broad swath, neglecting the actual fact that, despite the fact that she is probably the most unpopular person not named Trump ever to run for president, she is still winning among all non-White Male groups — including among millennials”

    1. What always irritates me about Reason, though, is how self-congratulatory its politics are.

      How can you discuss Paul Krugman’s writing and call someone else self-congratulatory?

    2. I can’t make heads or tails of any of that.

      Most of the sentences don’t even make sense taken separately. Taken together its an incomprehensible splurge.


      I’m honestly not convinced the writer’s conceit is sound.

      the “writer’s pride in themselves is unwarranted”? i’m not sure what he’s even referring to as the ‘conceit’. they don’t actually identify “it” before declaring it unsound.

      And the second paragraph doesn’t get around to ever identifying what’s “self-congratulatory” either. It suggests there’s a prime example… but then what it describes has nothing to do with self-congratulation (and doesn’t actually make sense either)

      the latent and explicit sexism Bernie Bros promulgated

      yeah. I’m pretty sure that was like the “ubiquitous racism of the tea party” – something entirely invented by media-spin.

      1. I believe that some emails revealed that the “Bernie Bros” stuff was promulgated by the Clinton camp.

        1. I believe that some emails revealed that the “Bernie Bros” stuff was promulgated by the Clinton camp

          It was supporters! Not the campaign itself……..until more hacked e-mails show that it WAS the campaign–and then it will have been ‘rogue employees’.

      2. I think he meant ‘conceit’ as in ‘main concept’, not ‘pride.’

        1. MarkLastname|9.19.16 @ 9:25PM| block | mute | #

          I think he meant ‘conceit’ as in ‘main concept’, not ‘pride.’

          Sure… its that when used to describe an “idea”, a ‘conceit’ mostly suggests a frivolous, vain, disposable idea. its not a definition that strays very far from its root meaning suggesting ‘vanity’. And you wouldn’t describe an already-essentially frivolous idea as ‘unsound’. A “sound conceit” seems almost like an oxymoron

        2. There a similar contradiction in terms when they said =

          the latent and explicit sexism Bernie Bros promulgated

          “latent sexism”… being “promulgated”?

          “latent” means “existing but not yet developed or manifest; hidden; concealed”
          “Promulgated” means “promote or make widely known (an idea or cause).”

          Advertising their hidden ideas?

          Its this sort of shit that brings out my subsconscious 9th grade English teacher mom. I want to red-pen everything.

          They’re basically trying to have their cake and eat it too, suggesting that their “sexism” was well hidden… but they were spreading it like crazy!! Its why there’s no evidence of it… but everyone knows about it!!

          Its just very fuzzy-thinking producing sentences that don’t really mean anything.

    3. What exactly did the Bernie Bros do that was sexist? Other than being male?

      I never got the accusation. Really it just seemed to be that any candidate popular among males is evil. It’s also profoundly hypocritical since Hillary’s campaign’s central argument is ‘vote for me because I’m a woman.’ If she were a man she would be irrelevant at best and disgraced at worst. Her candidacy is overtly sexist.

    4. As a millenial who started his libertarian conversion 2 years ago, I was pushed away from the left precisely because they’re the most self-congratulatory assholes on the planet. Including this asshole. Libertarians, or at least the ones who brought me over, come off as skeptics of the alternatives rather than zealots for their own cause, and that was what first appealed to me. You want self-congratulatory? Go to your liberal echo chambers at Vox or HuffPo

    5. “latent and explicit sexism”

      Your progressive friend needs to stop spending so much time on trying to sound smart and more time on putting together coherent sentences.

  26. “Shut ub, Bernie bros, I own you!”

  27. But what about Trump? When will reason do an article about how awful Trump is? Oh and when will reason do an article about how awful millennials are?

    I’m going to hold my breath and refrain from any donations until my demands are met!

  28. Hillary is pro-choice.
    She will choose for you who to vote for and it shall be === Hillary!!
    You’re with her whether you like it or not!

  29. As much as a Trump presidency would suck there would also be so much joy in the morning after when all these hacks on Team Hillary write their inchoate screeds of anguish that a boorish reality TV start snatched the presidency away from a woman.

    1. I predict a lot of explaining why they aren’t actually moving to Canada

  30. The most aggravating thing about Krugman’s blithe dismissal of those crazy libertarian ideas is that you know he has to have at some point talked to an economist or read a book that touched on economics, the guy can’t be wholly ignorant of the subject. He has to heard of the idea of cost/benefit analysis. He knows if you eliminated public schools, for example, you would also eliminate the cost of public schools and that’s a trade-off you have to weigh. All these things he mentions are not pure benefits, they carry costs. How much cost? Well, at least about 120% of the government’s income last time I checked – and Krugman seems to think that amount of spending is too low. Anything that costs more money than you’ve got year after year after year is something you’d damn well better be taking a closer look at regarding that cost/benefit analysis because something’s definitely off with the math. You’d think somebody familiar with economics might intuitively grasp when something just doesn’t add up.

    1. Years ago, my brother and I had gone into Hardees for breakfast, ordered a couple biscuits and handed the kid a 20. He was new and wasn’t real familiar with the cash register and missed something with the decimal point and the machine said he owed us 1994 bucks and some change. The poor kids scrounged around in the drawer then called the manager over because he didn’t know what to do since he didn’t have two thousand dollars in the cash drawer.

      I have to imagine Paul Krugman frequently finds himself in that sort of puzzled state.

    2. Krugman used to be a real economist, and then he went full prog. “Politics is the mind-killer.”

    3. “You’d think somebody familiar with economics might intuitively grasp when something just doesn’t add up.”

      Krugman used to write some halfway decent stuff. Old Krugman is not exactly a raging libertarian, but he sounds like an actual economist. He’s much more lucid and honest than the New Krugman, who basically writes a puffed-up, drawn-out version of “Democrats R gr8 and any1 who disagreez is stoopid and raciss”.

      1. Forgot to add:

        My theory (and many others have voiced this opinion) is that he dreams of being appointed to some cabinet-level position, so he has transformed himself into a hack who will parrot whatever talking points he thinks the Democrats want to hear.

        1. I agree with this. He’s too overt a shill (and became such a line tower so fast) not to be pining for a position.

        2. Robert Reich is actually a decent guy who got tossed under the bus when the Clintons had no more use for him, maybe Krugman is hoping to avoid the same fate with some pre-emptive kissing up?

          1. “Robert Reich is actually a decent guy”

            On what planet? He is an ardent socialist. And a liar. Scum.

  31. I’mWithHERed and wrinkly

  32. Serious questions: 1. How many millennials read the NYT? 2. Aside from loyal NYT readers (average age probably at least 55), does anyone really give a fuck what Paul Krugmann thinks?

  33. Was at a craft beer festival this past weekend and there were these three middle-aged women with Hillary signs near where they sold tickets who looked more out of place than a priest at an orgy and I didn’t see anyone really even acknowledging them. Most of the people there were 40-somethings with young kids like myself and this is solid Northern Virginia Dem territory. If this is the Hillary’s effort to reach out to the snake people, GJ and Stein have nothing to worry about.

    1. I’m near where you are and I’m surprised that I haven’t seen more Hillary swag. NoVA is always a solidly blue area, but this year its been pretty quiet. Most of my friends and family are either quiet “hold your nose and vote Hillary” or solidly GJ. None of my friends are out of the closet Trump supporters.

      I did have one Hillary supporter knock on my door at 9AM to talk about Hillary’s candidacy. It was the weekend, I was hungover and did not appreciate it.

      I’m a millennial and so are my friends, most of which probably won’t vote this time around.

  34. That’s it.

  35. Who thinks she’s a sellout? That implies having had principles in the first place.

    1. Could blink 182 or limp bizkit sell out?

  36. I kept thinking that the article was about to be over, but the savage onslaught of facts kept coming. Top notch, ENB. I may be over-enjoying this one because it addresses something that pushes some specific buttons for me (being told that I owe my fealty to someone based only on my demographic), but it really was well-written and exceedingly thorough.

  37. I’ve noticed a universal truth about Progs: They talk a good game. They would have you believe (and I think many of the rank and file actually believe it themselves), that they are compelled by genuine selflessness. One very quick way to enrage them, I’ve discovered, is to point out that whenever they have to give support for a position that invariably requires expropriating other people’s resources, they’re no more than two sentences away from referring to how this is going to help THEM. Sure they’ll start out with “this is for The Greater Good” or somesuch, but if you press, and if they have to continue their argument, it ALWAYS falls back to “let me tell you what this particular policy has done or will do for me and mine.” I have never had sputtering vitriol thrown my way quicker than when I call attention to their selfishness.

  38. “you have to believe that certain classes of people can and should reliably be expected to vote against their own consciences and material interests to serve the greater good as it is perceived by an elite ruling class.”

    Yep, that’s about it.

  39. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  40. As long as we pick up 1-2 states we are good to go.

    Deny ClinTrump the 270.

    That will get their attention.

    And, no, Hillary, you cannot count on the support of tons of people: millennials ( whom you hate and they know it), enlisted personnel ( who hate you), as well as Independents.

    HRC is going down the toilet too fast to watch.

    Giant douche.

  41. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
    ——————>>> http://www.highpay90.com

  42. “A month ago Democrats were amused to see Johnson leading Trump along millennials,” noted Dave Weigel at The Washington Post Monday. “Now, Johnson’s support is being tackled like a crisis.”

    And … ?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.