When the likely opponent is Hillary the Hawk, just about anyone other than Andrew Jackson would line up favorably on the other side of the table for an anti-war advocate.

Pretty Sire Samders has a strong anti-war platform.

But there is one other candidate worth mentioning, look at who the libertarian party is running, and look at where they are on US military spending.

Sanders has pretty much already lost, and Johnson is extremely unlikely as it stands.

Yeah, it's Hillary v Trump, just like the mass media decided it would be back in late 2015.

It is weird, but if the anti war issue is the most important issue at stake in this Presidential election, and it should be, then you should be inclined to vote Trump. Hilary is so deep in the pocket of the military industrial complex a vote for her is impossible. That being said, I am not voting at all. I don't like anyone in the race, including Gary Johnson, who seems boring and unprincipled.

Not voting means you lose all right to complain for the next four years, eturnage, so I'm going to assume you aren't voting because you're not 18 yet :)

Not voting is a neglect of your political duty to the country. Find someone you like. I don't care if they have a legitimate shot or not. Third party votes still hold significance.

This election sucks pretty hard. I'll be voting Trump because I actually don't think the president has too much power, and Hillary shouldn't be rewarded for all her corruption and lies.

Even without all the dirt against Hillary, her policy options are simply not good. They have little to do with continuity and stability and more to do with bloodlust and the same sort of partisanship that Bush infused in our Congress. She has "ineffective president" written all over her.

Trump has "laughingstock" written all over him and would be far worse than basically anyone else running. I don't understand why anyone would vote for him. He will decimate the long-term goals that others before him, particularly Obama, (who, regardless of what you think of him, has been extremely effective in creating long-term legislation and policy) have laid out at the expense of basically everything except his own pocketbook. He has zero foreign policy other than to attack people who he doesn't like, he has absolutely no regard for social matters, which is about the only thing besides foreign policy that the POTUS actually has an influential role in shaping, and he is quite possibly the most self-interested, bureaucratic shitstain I have ever seen try to force his way into politics. How does he make sense to people?

I'll rephrase, she has "establishment president" written all over her.

@"Cohen makes the point that Trump, alone among the presidential candidates..."

if you are saying, alone between Hillary and Trump. Then yes, i would agree with you.

That said, "If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote (currently at least 270), the President is determined by the rules outlined by the 12th Amendment. Specifically, the selection of President would then be decided by a ballot of the House of Representatives."

You never know, Johnson could get selected by the house if he wins enough electoral college votes to stop either of the other two passing the 270 mark.

Which would be highly amusing.

If the election went to the House, Hillary would win in a landslide. She'd probably use a significant sum of leftover campaign donations in order to do it, but she would.

I would like to know whether it is the newly elected House or the old one. (given that elections will happen at the same time for the House)

Old.

The "new" one is technically not yet Congress until they're sworn in just weeks before the presidential inauguration.