Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

He hasn't ended his Presidential campaign. He's ended his bid for the Democratic nomination. David Weigel at WaPo asked him if he would run (pointlessly) as an independent; Lessig would (unsurprisingly) not rule that out. Note that he is still taking donations.

View on HN

I really, really hope he doesn't. That will destroy any goodwill I ever held towards him.

My only consolation is that his campaign is such an abject failure that it probably can't even function as a spoiler.

Why? He's not going to get any noticeable amount of votes and won't cause any damage to another candidate.

That's the consolation, but there's always the risk that he actually somehow manages to win over a few percent.

It has only been 15 years since Ralph Nader got W elected for two terms and cost us about $10 trillion in stupid wars and bad economic decisions, and just about destroyed the US economy to boot.

Do you already need yet another new lesson on why Lessig running as an independent could easily be disastrous? Really?

The big difference is Ralph Nader had people who wanted to vote for him, Lessig does not.

The person Lessig would theoretically be Nadering, you do realize that as a Senator she voted on the wrong side of all of those bad things you're pointing out, right?

There are probably very few people on this thread who would pick Hillary Clinton as their dream candidate, but there's also very few people here who think that she wouldn't be a million times better than President Cruz.

Based on the actual voting record, on the most serious issues, she's about on par with the worst president of the modern era. Cruz and Trump would be worse, sure, but not by "a million times", more like 2x.

Four years of letting Republicans remind everyone how terrible they are at governing for a chance to be rid of Clinton for good and take back Congress and the White House in 2020? Maybe worth it.

You seem to be deeply confused. Hillary casting a pro forma vote for something does not equate in any way with initiating the thing in question.

Deep down, you know this, of course. You know it's blatantly silly for you to say that Hillary Clinton is "on par" with W. But somehow your filter just failed to kick in.

I agree that she is on par with Bush, honestly. She's been central to an administration that has conducted just as much war and added just as much debt as Bush's.

And I would also pick Trump over her, if only out of sheer morbid curiosity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com