Would you like to have both candidates replaced?

[Higgs]

Yes please.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The results of this poll... is so low-energy SAD!

Yes 67% vs 33%

[Adam the Gr8]

Yes, Bush vs Lessig please.

[elcorazon]

I voted no. I am happy with Hillary as candidate despite her poor negativity ratings. I can't stand Trump and fear his winning so I considered voting yes, but my fear of other possible winning Republicans actually having a good chance to win made me go with the relatively solid chance that Hillary wins and in the end I think she's the one who will be the best President.

[Fargobison]

Yes, I would like to have a president that I don't loathe with every fiber of my being. Words can't describe how depressing both candidates are.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

There shouldn't ever be a criminal at the top of a major party ticket. So crooked Hillary shouldn't be there. But Donald Trump is a great candidate so I had to vote no. I have no idea what other pathetic pinko the Dems would nominate besides crooked Hillary since the party has nobody to offer. A crazy old communist? Pocahontas? LMAO

How does putting someone on ignore work?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

No. They both won fair and square, and Hillary is the best Democratic candidate.

Hillary isn't a bad candidate(well, except for the fact that most of the electorate hates her and she would thus lose badly to an actually electable republican), but she is far from a perfect one.

On the poll I voted no(unless I get to nominate a baby-eating out of touch rich Nazi boy).

[Averroës Nix]

Yes, of course.

*wakes up to a Walker/Christie vs. Cuomo/Booker election* Gah!

Democrats had better options even if they weren't looking for someone to appeal the party's left: Kirsten Gillibrand, Jerry Brown, Tim Kaine, John Kerru.

(Also, worse ones... *cough* Biden *cough*...)

Republicans had a lot of awful options, most of which would have been less outwardly threatening than Trump although horrifying in their own ways. Also, Trump's rise has exposed a large number of their leaders as craven opportunists whose chief moral guide is political expedience... in a country in which we now know that a large share of voters are not bound by conventional democratic norms of rule of law, rejection of political violence, human dignity, etc. Under these circumstances, how much comfort could we really take in anyone else holding the Republican nomination?

You know, Trump supporters complain about Hitler comparisons, but the thought of what someone like Reince Priebus would do in Nazi Germany might actually be more disturbing. Here we are not talking in terms of historical parallels - which don't necessarily fully reflect the character of the figures involved, a distinction that most people seem to miss - but in terms of those vapid but ambitious men, lacking in principle, who have appeared to lick the boots of every tyrant through human history.

Look at the face of Priebus and tell me that you don't see shades of Eichmann. We can come up with similar stories for clin gets like Giuliani or Christie. Whether it's a swastika, a fascio, a hammer and sickle, or an eagle - what difference does it make to this kind of person?

[Clark Kent]

Absolutely. Give me Kasich/Rubio/Bush/Walker/Cruz/Ryan any day.

[Beet]

Yes. Hillary is an even weaker candidate than I'd imagined. Her unpopularity among whites is deeply alarming. The level of bitterness among some people I've seen since the convention has shaken me to the core. One liberal white lady almost sneered at me as she told me Salazar was the nail in the coffin and she might vote Trump because "Nobody will listen to him." I had to remind her that he'd be the most powerful man in the world. An old , very liberal and well  educated good friend responded to my arguments with a simple "F*** her." Nominating Clinton was a historic mistake. Sanders would, amazingly, be doing better. If by some dint of miracle the country somehow rejected Trump and elects her, it will be just that: rejecting Trump, but absolutely zero mandate for Clinton. She would in that case be best off sticking to completely nonpartisan issues like mental health, aid to small business where she can work with the Republican Congress and keep her head down.

[Hermit For Peace]

Yes. Hillary is an even weaker candidate than I'd imagined. Her unpopularity among whites is deeply alarming. The level of bitterness among some people I've seen since the convention has shaken me to the core. One liberal white lady almost sneered at me as she told me Salazar was the nail in the coffin and she might vote Trump because "Nobody will listen to him." I had to remind her that he'd be the most powerful man in the world. An old , very liberal and well  educated good friend responded to my arguments with a simple "F*** her." Nominating Clinton was a historic mistake. Sanders would, amazingly, be doing better. If by some dint of miracle the country somehow rejected Trump and elects her, it will be just that: rejecting Trump, but absolutely zero mandate for Clinton. She would in that case be best off sticking to completely nonpartisan issues like mental health, aid to small business where she can work with the Republican Congress and keep her head down.

Hillary is not the type to keep her head down. She's got too much going for her to hide like that. And that's why she gets such a bad rap all through the years, because people think she ought to stay in her "place". But she has never done that. She is a trailblazer, and our society is uncomfortable with female trailblazers.

The country is rejecting Trump right and left because his candidacy is a joke and has been from the very beginning. He has nothing going for him in the political arena and it shows.

I agree that if Hillary wins it won't be because people love her and embrace her wholeheartedly, but I hope she surprises the pants off of all those who think she doesn't have what it takes to be one of the best Presidents we've ever had.

Trump needs to stay in his element, which is show business and real estate.

[Arbitrage1980]

Yes. Hillary is an even weaker candidate than I'd imagined. Her unpopularity among whites is deeply alarming. The level of bitterness among some people I've seen since the convention has shaken me to the core. One liberal white lady almost sneered at me as she told me Salazar was the nail in the coffin and she might vote Trump because "Nobody will listen to him." I had to remind her that he'd be the most powerful man in the world. An old , very liberal and well  educated good friend responded to my arguments with a simple "F*** her." Nominating Clinton was a historic mistake. Sanders would, amazingly, be doing better. If by some dint of miracle the country somehow rejected Trump and elects her, it will be just that: rejecting Trump, but absolutely zero mandate for Clinton. She would in that case be best off sticking to completely nonpartisan issues like mental health, aid to small business where she can work with the Republican Congress and keep her head down.

Hillary is not the type to keep her head down. She's got too much going for her to hide like that. And that's why she gets such a bad rap all through the years, because people think she ought to stay in her "place". But she has never done that. She is a trailblazer, and our society is uncomfortable with female trailblazers.

The country is rejecting Trump right and left because his candidacy is a joke and has been from the very beginning. He has nothing going for him in the political arena and it shows.

I agree that if Hillary wins it won't be because people love her and embrace her wholeheartedly, but I hope she surprises the pants off of all those who think she doesn't have what it takes to be one of the best Presidents we've ever had.

Trump needs to stay in his element, which is show business and real estate.

Can you explain to me how she's a "trailblazer" when the only reason she is in this position is because she happened to marry the most gifted politician of our lifetime?  Liberals talk about her as if she's Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, or Sally Ride.

[AGA]

No, because most Republicans would have an advantage in this presidential election.

[Figueira]

Assuming we can handwave the breach of democracy that this would entail?

Trump, sure.

Clinton, I might replace her with a vaguely left-wing Senator, maybe Tammy Baldwin or someone like that. Sanders wouldn't be my first choice.

[Hermit For Peace]

Yes. Hillary is an even weaker candidate than I'd imagined. Her unpopularity among whites is deeply alarming. The level of bitterness among some people I've seen since the convention has shaken me to the core. One liberal white lady almost sneered at me as she told me Salazar was the nail in the coffin and she might vote Trump because "Nobody will listen to him." I had to remind her that he'd be the most powerful man in the world. An old , very liberal and well  educated good friend responded to my arguments with a simple "F*** her." Nominating Clinton was a historic mistake. Sanders would, amazingly, be doing better. If by some dint of miracle the country somehow rejected Trump and elects her, it will be just that: rejecting Trump, but absolutely zero mandate for Clinton. She would in that case be best off sticking to completely nonpartisan issues like mental health, aid to small business where she can work with the Republican Congress and keep her head down.

Hillary is not the type to keep her head down. She's got too much going for her to hide like that. And that's why she gets such a bad rap all through the years, because people think she ought to stay in her "place". But she has never done that. She is a trailblazer, and our society is uncomfortable with female trailblazers.

The country is rejecting Trump right and left because his candidacy is a joke and has been from the very beginning. He has nothing going for him in the political arena and it shows.

I agree that if Hillary wins it won't be because people love her and embrace her wholeheartedly, but I hope she surprises the pants off of all those who think she doesn't have what it takes to be one of the best Presidents we've ever had.

Trump needs to stay in his element, which is show business and real estate.

Can you explain to me how she's a "trailblazer" when the only reason she is in this position is because she happened to marry the most gifted politician of our lifetime?  Liberals talk about her as if she's Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, or Sally Ride.

Read her history. If you think that she got where she is just because of Bill, then that's your perception and I won't mess with it.

[Arbitrage1980]

Yes. Hillary is an even weaker candidate than I'd imagined. Her unpopularity among whites is deeply alarming. The level of bitterness among some people I've seen since the convention has shaken me to the core. One liberal white lady almost sneered at me as she told me Salazar was the nail in the coffin and she might vote Trump because "Nobody will listen to him." I had to remind her that he'd be the most powerful man in the world. An old , very liberal and well  educated good friend responded to my arguments with a simple "F*** her." Nominating Clinton was a historic mistake. Sanders would, amazingly, be doing better. If by some dint of miracle the country somehow rejected Trump and elects her, it will be just that: rejecting Trump, but absolutely zero mandate for Clinton. She would in that case be best off sticking to completely nonpartisan issues like mental health, aid to small business where she can work with the Republican Congress and keep her head down.

Hillary is not the type to keep her head down. She's got too much going for her to hide like that. And that's why she gets such a bad rap all through the years, because people think she ought to stay in her "place". But she has never done that. She is a trailblazer, and our society is uncomfortable with female trailblazers.

The country is rejecting Trump right and left because his candidacy is a joke and has been from the very beginning. He has nothing going for him in the political arena and it shows.

I agree that if Hillary wins it won't be because people love her and embrace her wholeheartedly, but I hope she surprises the pants off of all those who think she doesn't have what it takes to be one of the best Presidents we've ever had.

Trump needs to stay in his element, which is show business and real estate.

Can you explain to me how she's a "trailblazer" when the only reason she is in this position is because she happened to marry the most gifted politician of our lifetime?  Liberals talk about her as if she's Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, or Sally Ride.

Read her history. If you think that she got where she is just because of Bill, then that's your perception and I won't mess with it.

I'm very familiar with the Clintons.  Read a ton of stuff on them and am actually a big fan of Bill's presidency.  Hillary is very smart, hard working, and competent.  Even if she had not married Bill, she would've been extremely successful.  But let's be totally frank; she has virtually zero political talent or charisma but is on the verge of being the first woman president.  She was able to win the 2000 NY Senate race due to her being a sympathetic first lady after the Lewinsky scandal.  She then leveraged that into a 2008 run, which was horribly managed and ended in her defeat.  Then, to placate the Clintonistas and to garner Bill's goodwill for his 2012 re-election, Obama gave her Secretary of State.  She accomplished very little during her tenure there.

[Ronnie]

I support Hillary to a large extent because I agree with pretty much all her positions on domestic policy; as a person or a politician, she doesn't exactly thrill me.  If replacing her means we can replace the travesty who is Donald Trump, then I would oblige.

[Mister Mets]

I'd be happy with it, and it would be an improvement in both cases.

It would be weirder for Democrats given how much they've hyped the idea of first female President. It'll be a bit strange if Biden or Kaine suddenly becomes their nominee. Warren or Gilibrand haven't really been tested on a national level, and I kinda doubt they'd opt for Pelosi (who is a national figure.)

If Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Reince Priebus were to issue a joint statement that the individuals on the top of the ticket have opted not to run, and that they will not fight the other party's efforts at change, I would take it as very good news.