Is it me or does 400k seems like pennies for the defense industry? Didn't she get 200k to do a talk at goldman? Does 400k really in debt these pols so much? How much media does 400k even buy?

That kind of money gives the donor access.....that means the donor can talk to the politician, and present their side of the story (as convincingly as possible).

The politician will feel that she maintains neutrality, and is making decisions for herself (not influenced by money), but since she has only heard one side of the story, she is likely to choose in that direction.

Similarly, if someone says to you, "hey, I have a problem, can you help me?" then you will probably help them if it's not too much trouble. Politicians are the same, except it costs $400k to be able to tell them that. And then the politician feels good that they have helped someone.

Keep in mind its at least 400k, it does not include money given to PAC's or given directly to the DNC to get her elected via the victory for Hillary fund[0], also her foundation takes many questionable donations[1]. Add to that favors, like donating to allies campaigns, speaking fees, board postions and revolving door type jobs for friends.

[0] http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-... [1] http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/08/another-day-an...

Bit of a leap from the facts in that article (Clinton got $454k in donations from defence industry workers vs $310k to Sanders for example) to her having to go to war as a result.

So the choice is between war hawk and unpredictable megalomaniac. Sophie's choice of US politics...

The unpredictable megalomaniac is at heart an isolationist, though. I can't ever recall anyone else in my lifetime expressing the desire to step back from NATO and reduce overseas commitments.

Trump's offer to Kasich (as confirmed by Kasich himself) was that he would be the quote 'most powerful VP in history', in charge of both domestic and foreign policy, while Trump would be in charge of 'making America great again'. So the other poster is exactly right, Trump doesn't have anything at heart beyond self-aggrandizement.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/07/politics/john-kasich-donald-tr...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/trump_repo...

You might reasonably expect that Pence was made a similar offer. If that's how it played out, you could probably expect a relatively vanilla foreign policy from Pence.

The problem is there's no guarantee that's how it would play out; Trump is narcissistic and unstable. He might actually intend to do that until Pence does something he doesn't like, and then Trump takes the reins back.

If all you care about is foreign policy, maybe Pence is okay with you. The guy is a garbage person though and made me ashamed of my home state on multiple occasions.

Pence is actually also a terrible choice and even people in Indiana don't like him.

For the record I'm not a Trump fan either. I'd like to reform some stuff like patent law but Trump would burn most of it down.

I'm just saying that ~in theory~ Pence is an olive branch towards the middle. I don't think Trump will follow up on it in any way, nor will he be elected given the polls.

I don't see evidence Trump has anything at heart beyond self-aggrandizement, just that he panders even more shamelessly and offensively than other politicians.

Given the utter disdain for both major candidates, perhaps this year we can hope for a 3rd party candidate. Here is a nice visualization of the 4 top candidates and their stances on a wide spectrum of issues http://imgur.com/gallery/n1VdV

In the eyes of a considerable many, voting for anyone else is the same as a vote for Trump.

Maybe it has always been this way.

In the eyes of supporters of either major party, a vote for a third party is a vote for the other major party. It may not have always been this way, but it has for as long as I've been an engaged voter (~20 years).

It depends on who the third party is.

More from Republicans: Theodore Roosevelt, probably George Wallace and Ross Perot

More from Democrats: Henry Wallace, Strom Thurmond, Ralph Nader

Who knows: John Anderson.

I think that Roosevelt, Perot, and Nader all had strong effects, I don't think that Thurmond, either Wallace, or Anderson changed the outcome.

When anyone says that to me, I respond with, "No, because otherwise I would vote for Hillary." That both angers and confuses them, which delights me.

Alternately, to people who consider it the same as voting for Hillary, I blithely say, "No, because otherwise I would vote for Trump." Same lovely effect.

And 3rd party. If there's ever a year where they gain traction, it's this year.

> And 3rd party. If there's ever a year where they gain traction, it's this year.

No, to all evidence, 1992 was a far stronger year for that; while things might change between now and November, for pretty much the entire election season then Perot alone was polling above the combined total (at the same point in the campaign) of all non-major-party candidates this year. (And, during the primary season, sometimes ahead of both of the major party frontrunners in head-to-head polls that year.)

In terms of the electoral votes, there's essentially no chance of a third party result this year more successful than 1836, 1892, or 1948, and little chance of either electoral or popular vote success of a third party candidate more than 1856 or 1924.

1856 was arguably a success, because it set the stage for a bigger electoral victory the next election cycle. You can't really expect a party to come from nowhere and win in a single election, they have to build up momentum, structure, and supporters.