Hypothetical 2016 match-up

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

[1] Clinton
[2] Sanders
[3] Christie

Attack me for it.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Sanders, actually. I'd rather vote for an open socialist who gives attention to civil liberties.

This is mainly what I was going for. I'm starting to let go of my Christie-fanboyism.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Sanders, actually. I'd rather vote for an open socialist who gives attention to civil liberties.

This is mainly what I was going for. I'm starting to let go of my Christie-fanboyism.

Damn you!

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Sanders, actually. I'd rather vote for an open socialist who gives attention to civil liberties.

This is mainly what I was going for. I'm starting to let go of my Christie-fanboyism.

Damn you!

Sorry, Cathdawg. The transformation is almost totally complete.

[traininthedistance]

Clinton and Christie are on the same level of awful. She's not even halfway liberal.

The bolded part is obviously false even if you don't take into account the divergent contexts in which their careers have taken place, and is even more laughable if you do.

As for her not being "even halfway liberal"; that may be true if you mistakenly consider "liberal = leftist", but I know that you don't do so, so it's kind of a bizarre statement coming from your mouth.  The best slam against her is that she is a poll-driven opportunist without particularly strong principles, but that's still leagues better than what Christie is, and it also means that if left ideals start polling well, she'll move in that direction.

[Goldwater]

Sanders, actually. I'd rather vote for an open socialist who gives attention to civil liberties.

This is mainly what I was going for. I'm starting to let go of my Christie-fanboyism.

Damn you!

Sorry, Cathdawg. The transformation is almost totally complete.

[Oak Hills]

Sanders, without a doubt.

And I would vote Sanders whether he could win or he could not, because Christie isn't that much worse than Clinton.

Yes, he really is: Christie is way, way worse than most lefties seem able to recognize, and Clinton is likewise not nearly as bad.

I realize this is the case on economics, but I can't vote for any candidate who supports the surveillance state. I often doubt the correctness of my economic views, but I am much more staunch about the surveillance state, which I view as something that cannot be undone if left as is much longer. It might already be too late.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Christie, but I could vote for Sanders out of protest if the situation was right.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Christie, without a doubt.

[H. Ross Peron]

Sanders, without a doubt.

And I would vote Sanders whether he could win or he could not, because Christie isn't that much worse than Clinton.

Yes, he really is: Christie is way, way worse than most lefties seem able to recognize, and Clinton is likewise not nearly as bad.

I realize this is the case on economics, but I can't vote for any candidate who supports the surveillance state. I often doubt the correctness of my economic views, but I am much more staunch about the surveillance state, which I view as something that cannot be undone if left as is much longer. It might already be too late.

By that logic one should support a Ron Paul candidacy over Obama's or Clinton's.

[Mordecai]

[1] Clinton
[2] Sanders
[3] Christie

[Antonio the Sixth]

I guess that with a this PV, the electoral map would look something like this:

Clinton: 219
Sanders: 187
Christie: 132

[Oakvale]

Probably wouldn't vote.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

I guess that with a this PV, the electoral map would look something like this:

Clinton: 219
Sanders: 187
Christie: 132

Wouldn't it make more sense for NE-2 to vote for Clinton, rather than NE-1?