Third Party Candidates Widening Trump's Lead Over Biden
There's a reason why Democrats are freaking out over comparative anti-interventionists RFK Jr., Jill Stein, and Cornel West.

Though the majority of general-election presidential polls at this stage of campaign 2024 feature only President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, a growing number are beginning to reflect what most voters' ballots are going to actually look like: pretty crowded.
So what happens when other names are added to the two least popular presidents in the modern polling era? Led by former Democrat and current independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., they combine to attract support in the low double digits, usually. But what really has Democratic operatives in a funk is how the introduction of competition affects the spread between the Big Two. Long story short, it widens Trump's lead. At least as of now.
There have been at least 19 polls taken since mid-January that include both the simple Trump-Biden option and a choice that adds 1–5 additional candidates, thereby allowing an apples-to-apples numerical evaluation of the third party/independent impact on the same set of voters. In only two of those polls—one in Pennsylvania, the other in Georgia—did Biden's position vis-à-vis Trump improve with those extra names; in 13, Trump gained ground.
For example, an I&I/TIPP survey of 1,266 registered voters released Wednesday showed Trump leading the two-way race within the margin of error—43 percent to 41 percent (with 10 percent saying "other" and 6 percent undecided). But adding five new candidates to the mix extended Trump's lead by 4 points: 40 percent to 34 percent, with Kennedy receiving 8 percent, presumed No Labels candidate Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W. Va.) 3 percent, independent progressive Cornel West 2, and presumed Green nominee Jill Stein and presumed Libertarian Lars Mapstead tied at 1 percent apiece. ("Other" shrinks down to 2 percent, and undecided shoots up to 10.)
No Labels will decide whether it will jump into the fray, and if so with what ticket, sometime after the March 5 Super Tuesday primaries; the organization has amassed ballot access in 14 states and expects to achieve 32, with hopes that any eventual nominee can elbow onto most of the remaining 18. Cornel West, who raised just $250,000 in the third quarter of 2023 (compared to RFK's $8.7 million in the third and $7 million in the fourth), and whose personal finances are notoriously shambolic, nevertheless has unofficially qualified for ballot access in two states, and is (like RFK) forming new political parties in selective states to reduce his petitioning burden.
The Libertarian Party, which has led the non-Democratic/non-Republican field for presidential ballot access five elections running, says it expects to be on 48 ballots; the Greens north of 30.
While much of the Democratic Party's freakout over third-party challengers has focused on No Labels, with its untold millions and clustering of well-known centrist politicians (Manchin, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, former Sen. Joe Lieberman, and perhaps former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie), at least two factors suggest a low electoral ceiling for the group: 1) As I pointed out last July, "the centrist moneybags lane of presidential politics over the past half-decade is full of carcasses: Evan McMullin, Larry Hogan, John Kasich, Howard Schultz, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Weld, and American Renewal, for starters." And 2) the organization and its floated candidates are considerably more hawkish on foreign policy than Joe Biden, at a time when much of the political passion being expressed particularly on the left is focused on criticizing Israel (and Biden's support thereof) for its war in Gaza.
"It will be difficult for [Biden] to talk about redeeming the soul of the nation when he is enabling genocide," Cornel West told The Washington Post in an article published Thursday.
Biden in his public appearances has been serially hounded by anti-Israel protesters. White House staffers in the hundreds have been engaging in semi-regular protests against his Mideast policy. Fifty-one percent of Democrats, per a YouGov survey in November, and 55 percent of all Americans ages 18–29 (a key Democratic Party demographic) consider Israel's actions in Gaza to be a "genocide," compared to just 29 percent of independents and 20 percent of Republicans.
A December New York Times/Siena poll showed that the 18–29 cohort thinks that Biden has been too supportive of Israel (45 percent vs. 6 percent who said too supportive of Palestinians); that the Palestinians were the most sympathetic side (46 percent to 27 percent for Israelis); that America should not send more support (55 percent); that Israel is not seriously interested in a peaceful solution (59 percent); and that Israel should stop the war even before all its hostages are free (67 percent). All of those numbers are way out of whack with the rest of American adults, and help explain why—in this one poll, anyway—the under-30 vote prefers Trump over Biden 49 percent to 30 percent.
"Forget No Labels. Biden's Third-Party Peril is on the Left," went the headline on a Politico magazine article this weekend written by the influential campaign journalist Jonathan Martin. "How many Biden speeches must be shouted down," Martin wondered, "until Democrats realize that a hot war in Gaza this fall may mean 30,000 fewer votes apiece in Madison, Dearborn and Ann Arbor and therefore the presidency?"
In five-way general election polls this cycle—Trump vs. Biden vs. Kennedy vs. Stein vs. West—Stein and West are polling at around 2.2 percent apiece. That may not sound like a lot, until you consider that a combined 4.4 percent for left-of-the-Democrat candidates would be the highest number since the Progressive Party's Robert La Follette over a century ago. Also, in the five such polls taken in 2024 that also feature the simple Trump vs. Biden matchup, the bigger ballot saw Trump's lead widen by an average of two percentage points.
Both Stein and West and the entire field currently seeking the Libertarian Party nomination are decidedly more anti-interventionist, and critical of the American empire, than Biden or Trump. For most of the 21st century, comparative foreign policy skeptics have punched far above their weight in presidential elections: Ralph Nader in 2000, Howard Dean in 2004, Ron Paul and Barack Obama in 2008, Paul again in 2012, Trump in 2016.
The wild card this time around might be RFK Jr., who initially thrilled many anti-interventionists with his dovish take on the Russia-Ukraine war only to alienate them with his staunch post–October 7 support for Israel. According to The Washington Post, Kennedy's advisers "say he will deliver a speech soon to address concerns both among leftist activists and libertarians that his approach to Israel is too hawkish."
You will rarely go broke betting against independent and third-party candidates to undershoot their expectations and to fail (as they have every presidential election after 1968) to win a single state. Many, though not all, of the conditions that dampened third-party enthusiasm in 2018, 2020, and 2022 remain in place, chiefly high negative polarization and the related anxiety that the worse of the two major parties will introduce authoritarianism. Third-party poll numbers almost always march steadily downward from February to November, and even the final day's polling typically overstates support by a third.
But America's anti-interventionist sentiment almost always dwarfs that of their highest representatives in Washington, even those who were elected promising a more humble foreign policy. And it's not hard to imagine overseas entanglements sprouting all over the globe this calendar year, against a domestic backdrop of highly charged politics and profound youth-vote alienation from the rest of the country.
"This is a disaster politically," an unnamed House Democrat told Politico's Martin. "The base is really pissed—and it's not just the leftists. I have never seen such a depth of anguish as I've seen over this Gaza issue."
Expect that anguish to nudge Biden further toward confronting Israel over the conduct of the war, even while his own coalition derides him as "Genocide Joe" and plays footsie with third-party candidates to his left. Even if the major-party primaries turned out to be an uncompetitive dud, the general-election campaign is already trending toward weird.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Funny the framing here, how it hurts Biden and that is a bad thing.
#libertariansforlesschoice
It's not like any third party candidates are going to poach Trump voters. The Faithful have made up their minds and nothing can change it.
So any gaps created by third party candidates can only hurt Biden.
iT's a cULt!
Could anything convince you to promote another candidate?
If the LP ran a Milei type candidate?
^BINGO
Good.
I would put it the opposite way: the only thing Biden really has going for him is that he is not Trump. But, so do all these other candidates.
But, in a Libertarian sense, why is that a bad thing?
Beg to differ. Trump's true base is about 21% of voters, and Biden's is about 16%. The rest are voting more against someone than for someone.
That's probably close to accurate. People who get labeled "moderate" just lean less hard to one side or the other. I think maybe 15% of the electorate can really say they honestly look over both candidates and decide based on issues. Of course half that decide that voting is a waste of time and stay home.
Perhaps I missed something, but I don't really where it's saying that it's a bad thing that it hurts Biden. Seems like it's more or less just running down the poll results, not advocating for fewer ballot choices. But again, maybe I missed something.
I agree. It's not a lamentation but the title sets you up for it to be a lamentation.
The supporters of the two major parties lament the loss of votes to minor parties and try to sell a lesser of two evils argument. The Libertarian rebuttal has always been, "you don't own those voters. You have to earn their votes."
This article does seem to argue that the votes that the other minor parties are attracting are Bidens votes to lose.
I think they got the headline wrong. Third parties are not the primary reason Biden is struggling. He's struggling more because Democrats flatly refuse to modify policies that lack popular support. Three quarters of voters hate his management of the border, and 70% dislike blue crime policies.
They aren't going to win demonizing third parties. To win they'll need to try actually representing the 45% of voters who now identity as Independent. In 2023 the percentage of Independents was the highest since Gallup began tracking it, while Dems fell to 25% for much of the year.
Isn't democracy about representing popular will?
Minor parties. If there was only one alternative to Dems and Reps then maybe you could call them a third party, which typically means people not involved in the events they witness. Since we are discussing at least 4 other options we can't collectively call them a third party.
That and third party pretty much sets you up to fail. Minor party is more neutral.
It's the framing as them harming Joe for one reason or another and the use of Democrats for the impact quotes. Add to that a similar article on how No Labels could hurt Trump and help reelect Biden and there is a slant even in the sections that are just polls.
Reason truly hates this country in its present form as a constitutional republic. They’re fully on board with a borderless global Marxist society that Soros, Schwab, and the democrats want to inflict on all humanity.
Currently, Trump is the only viable path forward for this country. Period.
I think Reason is made up of people who align with the so called intellectual elite. Thus without calling themselves Democrats they side with the Democrats because the Republicans have allowed themselves to be identified with ignorant redneck savages who want women to be kept as slaves.
If those were your two choices which one would you take?
Omg. Really? This is why we can’t have nice things. Whatever fragment of the population that wants what you claim Rs side with is less than 1% of the population.
Yet the vile things the majority of democrats want doesn’t turn people away. This is so idiotic.
Also, as a member of No Labels, I can say that some of the info about that initiative is inaccurate. First, we're up to 15 states, not 14 as reported. (Added Maryland the past week.)
Second, the writer seems unaware of the process for getting No Labels on state ballots. The rules differ widely by state, and no one has to elbow their way anywhere. Thirty-two states allow ballot access drives before a candidate is named, or with assistance by entities that are not a political party. In other states, it must be the candidate or political party that drives the ballot access effort. Also, some states don't allow access petitions to start until certain dates in 2024. It's a pretty complex challenge to get on 50 ballots as a newcomer.
(And unfortunately the legacy parties are moving to make it harder still, through lawfare they openly admit lacks legal basis. They're stated strategy is to cost us money and weaken us in the process. Sadly it's 90% drivenby Democrats, who believe this blatant voter suppression is necessary to "save democracy. " Can't make this stuffup!)
It's also odd to see the media always mention Lieberman, Manchin and Hogan, and never mention Ben Chavis, thecivil rights icon who is the other national co-director with Lieberman.)
Yeah, the major parties work hard to make it unfair to anyone who might try to challenge them. It takes a lot of effort to run national campaigns. That's why I think local, county and state elections are far more important. Win those races and you can start affecting ballot access laws.
Right?
Cornell West turns out to be nothing more than a campaign ad for Biden. He said as much in an interview.
Someone needs to explain things to Cornell:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2020/may/22/joe-biden-charlamagne-you-aint-black-trump-video
And... I didn't even know Jill Stein was running.
I'm shocked the LP is even bothering this time. They had their best chance in 2016 and blew it when Bill Weld went on Rachel Madcow to "vouch for Hillary Clinton" instead of his own party's ticket.
Yeah, it will take a while to wash that stain away. I guess it wasn't just the major party hacks that Trump broke. He broke some minor party ones as well.
Dunno, when their NEXT candidate said we MUST be "anti-racist", that killed the tiny bit of respect I had for the LP.
I don't vote LP for demands I do something, especially something fucking idiotic.
Yeah, the party is getting slowly taken over by the left. Which is weird. Generally it's the party out of power that warms up to the LP to try and scare their party into returning to core values. But then Biden is an embarassment along with the losers in the House and Senate.
LP did it to themselves nominating anti-gunner Weld to back up "I agree with 73% of what Bernie Sanders says" Johnson.
I figured at that point, I might as well vote to Trump. And, after voting for Reagan in 1980 in my first election, I had voted Libertarian consistently up to that point.
I voted Trump twice, against the advise of the LP. I think groveling double bags, back stabbing dick heads and mealy mouthed butt plugs had been well represented in government. It's about time we assholes get some representation. So I will vote Trump this time too. Assholes unite! In Trump we trust.
The democrats would like to keep it that way.
>> the two least popular presidents in the modern polling era
so unpopular! especially considering only 158 million votes were cast for those jokers.
To be fair most of those voters are genetically engineered to vote for one party and fear the court appointments the other party may make. If the Democrats revived Pol Pot and ran him as their presidential candidate he'd still get 30% of the votes. If the Republicans ran the corpse of Ronald Reagan he'd pull even more votes.
I wasn't old enough to vote for Ronbo it would be fun to get a shot at his zombie.
Dems are already voting for zombie Biden.
Biden is living-dead proof that you don't actually have to be alive to be president.
“Gosh, I sure miss voting for that man”
- Hank Hill
Zombie Reagan would still be better than Zombie Biden. But I didn't mean an animated corpse. I meant a inanimate corpse, literally dug up, casket and all, and put on the campaign trail.
and you would be right. was proven true in last election cycle i believe when an actual dead guy won for the Dems.
And I actually have no problem with that. Why would anyone vote for someone who is merely a proxy for their party's policies or machinations... why would they vote for the exact opposite of what they approve of and for that which they fear and hate? Its not rational.
Given that everyone knows dems are a hive mind.. it doesnt matter if the guy is brain damaged, or compromised by China, or a serial rapist {clinton(?), and maybe biden, etc.} they are 'managed' behind the scenes and all the progressive crap mind virus will be introduced into the body politic regardless.
At best you should expect the ones with conscience to sit on their hands for one election cycle IFF they dont think their mortal enemies of the other tribe would win and fundamentally screw up all their hard won 'gains'.
To be fair, the number of voters is unrelated to the number of votes.
der ... general-election presidential polls otoh are rock solid
Third Party is a bad term. The "third party" is seen as uninvolved in the conflict of the two parties that are clashing. We humans think in dichotomy which is why the two major parties have such an advantage. But when we refer to other options as third parties we may as well not even consider them. Also it's a stupid term. So the Libertarians are a "third party". Does that mean the Greens are a fourth party? The no labels a fifth party?
Minor party, if we must distinguish between the Republcrats and Democans uniparty and everyone else, is a lot better. It doesn't say uninvolved, it just says smaller. We may not appear on all 50 state ballots, we may not enjoy automatic ballot access, and we may not get special status with the major media sources.
But we are not uninvolved in the process. Especially if we are drawing voters away from the major parties we clearly are involved.
I like to think of them as a "reserved option." Just screw up bad enough guys (they're getting close.)
If Republicans or Democrats want me to vote for them maybe they should try fronting some politicians worth voting for. Until then, I'm going to keep voting for people who I actually prefer.
Such as?
*sigh*
Ron Paul... again.
Don’t think he runs for office anymore.
And yet... still came closer to winning the office in 2016 than Gary Johnson.
The Democrats could always lighten up the ballot-access laws so the Constitution Party could get an opportunity to “steal” Republican votes. But no, that would involve loosening their control, so it likely won’t happen.
It's all about blocking the Green Party.
Only if you assume they would have voted for someone else, instead of just staying home.
I predict historically low voter turnout on election day. Of course all of the mail in ballots dumped in the following week will put the Democrats over the top.
Biden wins with 500 million.
Don’t you mean eleventy kajilion?
Cleanest election ever!
I predict historically low voter turnout on election day.
So 97 million votes for Joe Biden.
My dyed in the wool Democrat sister denied voting for Biden and sat she would not vote again. Real tired of paying for illegal immigrants. She thought Biden was the best in 2020. This is a big change. Now my dad still claims Biden is as honest as the day is long. But he also watches ABC news nightly and denies ant Democrat would lie. He told me last night that he knows that only 2 of his 7 children would vote D ( my older brother is D). Thinks he is a failure for allowing his children to stray from the Democrats. His best friends have also started. He is 87 yrs old and I can understand not changing at that age.
Senior dementia is a difficult thing. Although that doesn’t explain young democrats.
For now, it benefits Trump. When there's a named libertarian candidate, expect that to shift the scales somewhat. There's no libertarian whose name is getting listed right now, so all the potential additions are more appealing for parties more to the left.
RFK isn't going to pull a Ross Perot, here. He'll be lucky to get Gary Johnson numbers.
I'll just leave this here.
If you're gonna January 6, THIS is how you January 6.
InSuRrEctiOn!
I can't help but enjoy the histrionics and pretzel logic Democrats are spewing to justify one anti-democratic move after another, in order to protect democracy.
Or they could just come out of the socialist authoritarian closet and use the Bolshevik label.
Oh no, there is no way Democrats in general are going to be honest about who they are. They rotate through labels every decade or so when they have sufficiently sullied the last one.
Notice how they resurrected Progressive (like good old KKK fan Woodrow Wilson) again after the majority of voters forgot about the label's history. Bolshevik hasn't lost it's bad image yet. They might resurrect Fabian soon though since the voters don't remember all the Fabian traitors and USSR collaborators of the 40s, 50s and 60s.
As a reminder, Trump won Iowa by the widest margin (ever), and also broke records for NH.
Anybody who says he's unpopular doesn't actually have connection to reality.
This
Anybody who says he’s unpopular doesn’t actually have connection to reality.
As a reminder, they are largely the same anybodys who said he couldn't win in 2016 also. Largely the same anybodys who said "mostly peaceful protest". Largely the same anybodys who said "100% safe and effective with no downsides". Largely the same anybodys that participated in the cover up of the Hunter Biden's laptop. Largely the same anybodys reported in both Time Magazine, the Twitter Files, the Facebook Files, and now the Amazon Files to have participated in "securing our democracy". The same anybodys who, just in the past several weeks have started getting liquidated in large numbers and are *still* staring down the barrel saying "WTH?"
As a reminder, he has a very low ceiling with independent voters. Biden will smoke his ass in November.
Haha. Brandon will be in a nursing home by November.
He may well still be sniffing hair in November, but he will be smoking no ass. You’re delusional. Most self described heros are.
But why would those so called independents bother to vote for Biden? I doubt they like him any more than Trump. It's far more likely they will simply stay home. This will come down to how hard the bases get motivated. Will Republicans be more willing to hold their noses for Trump or will Democrats be more willing to hold their noses for Biden?
To paraphrase the old Vietnam War saying: The Democrats have to destroy democracy in order to save it.
apparently so...being a Colorado resident it's crazy listening to the dems in our state gov't try to justify blocking Trump from the ballot while saying he's somehow a threat to democracy - isn't blocking voters from being able to vote for the candidate of their choice the ultimate threat to democracy? Seems to me if Trump is so bad then the dems should have nothing to worry about. Besides it's not like Trump has a snowball's chance in hell of getting any electoral votes from CO anyway...the majority of voters here would vote for literally anyone that's either A. not Trump and/or B. has a D after their name
Isn’t this the whole reason they worked to shut out the greens, et. al. in 2020?
the two least popular presidents in the modern polling era
I'm not sure how you're making this calculus. Joe Biden won the 2020 election with an historic number of votes-- far greater than the total that the very popular Barack Obama earned.
Now, if you want to start discussing the details surrounding that official number, be my guest, but the more you keep calling Joe Biden "unpopular" the more I'm going to press you on how you call over 81,000,000 votes "unpopular" and I'm going to want diagrams and definitions of every term in your argument.
Especially when the runner up in that election still holds most of his previous base and has even made gains.
Now, if you want to start discussing the details surrounding that official number, be my guest, but the more you keep calling Joe Biden “unpopular” the more I’m going to press you on how you call over 81,000,000 votes “unpopular” and I’m going to want diagrams and definitions of every term in your argument.
That's not fair you jerk! If you were going to question everything they reported prior to 2022, you shouldn't have granted them the amnesty they asked for everything they did prior to 2022. You Indian Amnesty Giver!
the two least popular presidents in the modern polling era
he's referring to opinion polls, not votes in 2020
"Joe Biden won the 2020 election with an historic number of votes– far greater than the total that the very popular Barack Obama earned."
2004: Bush and Kerry each received more votes than any candidates in history to that point.
It's almost like "total votes received" is biased in favor of more recent candidates?
It’s almost like “total votes received” is biased in favor of more recent candidates?
*rubs temples*
Riiiight... and it's almost like "the two least popular presidents in the modern polling era" doesn't. So... either the two statements almost like directly contradict each other and one of them is almost like false, or we need a definition (or several) and illustration (or several) of something almost like "absolutely most popular but proportionately least popular" or "popular polling has fuck all to do with voting" or a combination of the two to reconcile the difference.
I know you were sure DeSantis was the GOP's only shot at the presidency as long as Biden didn't put boots on the ground in Ukraine, but this isn't that hard.
Using "total votes received" to compare the popularities of candidates who ran in different years is idiotic. I've been consistent on this ever since I ridiculed Clinton dead-enders for their "Hillary got more total votes than any white male candidate in history!" cope.
"I know you were sure DeSantis was the GOP’s only shot at the presidency as long as Biden didn’t put boots on the ground in Ukraine"
And I still think DeSantis would have been the underdog against Biden. Just a less severe underdog than the Kamala Harris donor who already lost to Biden, and who has been embarrassing himself with toxic-to-swing-voters #StopTheSteal whining ever since.
Using “total votes received” to compare the popularities of candidates who ran in different years is idiotic.
No it's not. Especially if Trump or Biden got fewer votes than Obama or Gore. Unless you're saying votes don't matter, in which case I don't exactly disagree with you but when you say "Least popular candidates in the modern polling era." vote counts matter. It's arguably the single most knowable and quantifiable statistic. You might think relative proportions of available votes matter more but, still "total votes received" is requisite as well as a definition for any proportioning done/not done "in the modern polling era".
If I click the "Kamala Harris Donor" link does it link to an explanation of how "Trump's marginal lead widening with the inclusion of independents." makes him a "more severe underdog" than not-running DeSantis or does it link to the quote where you said he had no chance without Biden putting boots on the ground?
Because, pretty much any way it makes you look like any one of the other reality-denying loons around here that, e.g., predicted Biden successfully packing SCOTUS on day 1.
Since my analysis is so flawed and I underestimate Trump's chances to such a degree, just tell me what you think is the likelihood Trump wins the 2024 Presidential election.
Stossel's Election Betting Odds puts the figure at 50.1%. Does that seem right to you? Maybe it's even higher?
Bonus question: Do you believe Trump's excuse that 2020 was rigged? If so, do you think the same forces that rigged an election against a sitting President would fail to replicate that scheme 4 years later against a private citizen?
Elections are always rigged. That's just a fact. Ours are so bad the UN should be putting observers in our polling places.
The question is never who gets more votes, it's which side did a better job of cheating.
It seems almost like the population were growing and there were more and more voters to draw upon over time!
"I’m not sure how you’re making this calculus. "
The votes were against Trump rather than for Biden. Biden was only on the ticket because it was his turn and he wasn't Bernie. He was never popular. Check out the approval ratings. He had a honeymoon period for the first six months, never scoring more than 55%, and then it was over.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
Never forget the antisemitic Nazi asshole trueman is on record as a champion of bullshit:
trueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
How many of those 81 million were votes for Biden, as opposed to votes against Trump?
Probably as many votes for Trump were actually votes against Biden.
They can't both have the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics!
What's next, are you going to try to convince us that Ukraine blew up NS 1 and 2 with the Biden Admin's blessing after Biden vowed to end the pipeline?
An ostensibly libertarian publication spends an entire article discussing every third party and candidate *except* the Libertarian Party. With friends like these...
Who is the Libertarian party candidate?
Does it matter? I had never heard of Jo Jorgensen before 2020, but I voted for her given the other options.
Mr. Magoo is losing votes to ham sandwiches!? What a shocker, what with his superior mental facilities, I figure everyone (whose not a deplorable) would want him leading the country. He even just told us his memory is fine, and him being a career politician means that's the Truth.
The fact he got pissed off yesterday when the special counsel appointed by his own AG questioned the geezer in chief’s memory speaks volumes. If he didn’t think it was a problem, he would have laughed it off.
Fifty-one percent of Democrats, per a YouGov survey in November, and 55 percent of all Americans ages 18–29 (a key Democratic Party demographic) consider Israel's actions in Gaza to be a "genocide," compared to just 29 percent of independents and 20 percent of Republicans.
In other news, 55 percent of all Americans ages 18-29 don't know what 'genocide' is and apparently get any and all news directly from Hamas.
That should probably be more concerning, if we're honest. That puts over half of that demographic firmly on the side of rapists and terrorists.
Which, also if we're honest, means this poll is almost certainly trash.
To be fair, the schools keep telling them the European settlers of North America practiced Genocide on the Aboriginal paleolithic population.
As far as I'm concerned it's not genocide if the targets managed a decent body count. Like I always ask, how many Nazis did the Jews take out during that genocide? I think the number is in the tens...
This is a great point. Even if 100% of "Palestinians" were killed it would not be a Genocide as they are NOT a single genotype nor are Palestinians 100% of any genotype.
Yasser Arafat for example is EGYPTIAN. Most "Palestinians" are Lebanese, Jordanian and Egyptian in origin. In fact many if not most of them have recent ancestors who were citizens of those nations and a significant number (like Arafat) were not even born in "Palestine".
Not saying Israel SHOULD kill them all, (although if it were my country living with constant attacks against civilians day after day for years and years I might feel differently) but it would not be genocide.
I have a really good meme in mind and no place to post it, showing President Trump behind bars, signing Executive Orders and legislation from his jail cell.
I doubt the Secret Service is going to allow Trump to spend an hour in prison. Tower of London treatment at Mar a Lago.
I have less and less enthusiasm with each election I really don’t want to vote in this one. The only reason I will is that I do not want someone to claim my unused ballot, whether or not there are other candidates to vote for than the two dipshits
It's how gutless cowards can vote for Trump without voting for Trump.
I think RFK supporters more than anything else are anti-interventionist. The faction of the left that is highly interventionist and wants him to take a position in favor of Hamas will never be his supporters anyway. I think the best move for RFK is to say that Israel has a right to its own self-determination, but the United States will not be funding them at all. They are a rich country, and according to a recent article by David Stockman, former head of the office of budget for President Reagan, Israel just needs to raise their own taxes on their own people 3% to fund their own war. Stockman suspects that if Israelis had to pay their own freight, they'd be singing a different tune. Then, RFK can maintain his position that Israel is justified in securing itself, that the ratio of civilian to military casualties is much lower than just about any other conflict on record, and that the Palestinians have been given ample opportunity for a two-state solution and they have literally and figuratively blown up every one. Those are points that can be argued by any reasonable person, but funding a rich country on its endless military adventures is not.
I see Israel as that stumpy kid on the playground with the big brother who has been held back a few times. He can be an obnoxious twit to the other kids because his big, make that really big, brother can beat them to jelly.
Israel can be a dick because we will back them against the whole damn world if that's what it came to. We will spend blood and treasure to keep them as a going concern. With that, why try for diplomacy?
"Israel can be a dick..."
Those damn jooze, amiright?
Care to cite where Israel has been a dick, or are you just full of it?
"Third Party Candidates Widening Trump's Lead Over Biden."
Headline is inaccurate. It should be:
Democrats Complete and Total Refusal to Modify Positions that 75% of Voters Hate Is Widening Trump's Lead Over Biden.
Fixed it for ya. No charge.
I think they got the headline wrong. Third parties are not the primary reason Biden is struggling. He’s struggling more because Democrats flatly refuse to modify policies that lack popular support. Three quarters of voters hate his management of the border, and 70% dislike blue crime policies.
They aren’t going to win by demonizing third parties. To win they’ll need to try actually representing the 45% of voters who now identity as Independent. In 2023 the percentage of Independents was the highest since Gallup began tracking it, while Dems fell to 25% for much of the year.
Isn’t democracy about representing popular will?
I think you're a steaming pile of TDS-addled shit.
"All of those numbers are way out of whack with the rest of American adults, and help explain why—in this one poll, anyway—the under-30 vote prefers Trump over Biden 49 percent to 30 percent." This is illogical, unless you perceive Trump, the guy who finally moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, to be less supportive of Isreal than Biden, which is a strange thing to assert.
I have no idea how you made that assumption based on the numbers you cited. And I doubt anyone does.
The magazine of the Libertarian Party coming out against third party candidates. You can't make this shit up.
Fuck off and die, shit-pile.
The USA isn't a Democratic [Na]tional So[zi]alist nation therefore it's not your country.
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of shit.
Hmmm, interesting that the “stupid redneck” is capable of finding the content funny despite the show allegedly “mocking stupid rednecks like you” , while such a sophisticated intellectual as yourself is incapable of doing so.
When you go looking for “stupid”. may I suggest you save time by starting with your own mirror?
Eat shit and die, steaming pile of shit.
I retired my parody character just before the 2022 midterms.
"Now be a good girl and do the dishes and get to bed."
I'd rather be a woman named Sandra than a man named Lynn.
Eat shit and die, steaming pile of shit.
The libertarian, green and trumpets are hideous pro ruzzia eunuchs.