Looking At The Loser Candidates -- 2016 Edition

Patriarchy Watch

If we vote Hillary Clinton into office as our 45th president, several alternative candidates will be left by the curb for pick-up.  What happened to them?  What would explain the ruins of their campaigns?

1.  Gary Johnson / William Weld, Libertarian.  The one candidacy that could conceivably still win for losing is the Libertarian ticket.  If their usual 1% in elections past becomes 5% or more, they have automatic ballot access in the 2020 contest: a win.
Optimistic Outlook: If the Republicans (see below) opt for a hollowed out rump, casting off all but the pure ideologues who 1) fear God, 2) carry guns, and 3) see conspiracy to their left, the cast out refugees from the Republican fever swamps would likely become Libertarians--absent any centrist alternative.  So, building on a 5+% result in 2016, the party could then nominate a William Weld in 2020 on a modified platform emphasizing realistic goals.  This would mean the party could conceivably vie to become second-most popular, matching the Republicans' 30% slice of the electorate, and, as a result, would become a key source of innovation in politics.
Pessimistic Scenario: the Republican party leaves its recent past behind, returning to a Jack Kemp centrism.  The Libertarian tendency to embrace simplistic solutions (open all borders, decriminalize all drugs, privatize Social Security, eliminate environmental regs) results in their usual 1-2% in 2020.

2.  Jill Stein / Ajamu Baraka, Green.  Paradoxically, the Greens are the most dependent on how the other parties shake out, even more so than the Libertarians.  A large majority of their natural base sees the folly of throwing away votes on a party likely to get at most 1%, and instead vote Democrat.
Optimistic Outlook: If the Libertarians or some other third party were to break open the duopoly of Red/Blue in American politics, the Greens could conceivably become competitive.  Let's say the Libertarians became a relatively centrist alternative to the Democrats and the Republican rump circled the wagons on the right.  The left would then, conceivably, open up.
Pessimistic Scenario:  Same old same old.  Doomed to marginal results at best; spoiler status at worst.

3.  Donald Trump / Mike Pence, Republican.  If the election were an episode of The Simpsons titled 'Bart v. Lisa', the cowabunga dude would talk a good game, but would fritter away his time cleverly pranking Moe's Tavern ("I need to talk to Amy Hurl, please").  Meanwhile, Lisa would have many thoughtfully prepared positions all ready to go, and would be the obvious choice.
Sure, Bart--like his dad--sees the light once in a while, but time and again just can't let go...of boyhood.  Likewise, no matter how many campaign managers tell him what to say, Trump simply can't let the trickster go.  Like Bart, his cleverness revels in the neato sleight-of-hand and turn-of-phrase that attract attention.
Optimistic Outlook: As I 'll explain below, Republican chances for redemption are discouraging.  A best case would be a sound thrashing for Trump, and for the Republican graybeards to organize around a much more centrist candidate for 2020.  Unlikely, since those out of touch with reality are prone to repeat the same mistakes.
Pessimistic Scenario: Due to a rousing debate performance, plus opposition research, Trump is able to salvage a relatively close, Romney-esque defeat, or do even better.  This leads to yet another boner-prone wannabe strongman to re-mix the drunk skunk recipe.

Conclusions
What all three loser parties will have in common, post-election--assuming Hillary victorious--is an inferior grasp of where a winning strategy lies.  And if we revisit the male and female archetypes we've been discussing over the past three posts, we'll see where each party likely fails.
   * Male: comparative, leading to an ideal
   * Female: positive, contextual networking

Patriarchy can be obvious.  For example: Trump's reliance on the male mindset to the exclusion of positivity (belittling as a tactic), context (his rallies could occur anywhere, as opposed to Hillary's thematic campaign stops), and networking (generally, he doesn't mix with supporters, and has a hard time listening to others' opinions).  Instead, he likes to compare his performance (polls, crowd size, zingers) and supposed winning streaks (wealth, conquests, brand).

Patriarchy can be much less obvious, in fact hidden--even taking the feminine form.  For example: Jill Stein is a woman, but the Green platform is comparative, identifying ideal positions, irregardless of political context.

Likewise, the Libertarians identify ideological answers, then apply them to contexts in which they won't fit in a politically successful way.

Here, then, is the big surprise.  Hillary Clinton represents feminism, not because she advocates the most radical approach to rectifying the injustice of sexism (what most people think of as 'feminism'), but because her positive, contextual, networking campaign is feminist in spirit.