U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[Duke87 1,070]

The cynic in me says this is all hot air and we can forget about any of these people making a third party run.

That said there is an intriguing and plausible scenario in which this could occur, because it would be a backdoor power play for the Republican establishment. The electoral college system of the US is oft the subject of discussion for how it can result in someone becoming president when they don't get a majority of votes or even necessarily the most votes (see: 2000). But one other quirk of it that is much less frequently discussed is how a candidate, in order to win, must secure a majority of the 538 electoral votes. In an election with only two viable candidates (which let's face it has been just about every US presidential election within the lifetime of anyone still walking around), the only way for this to not happen is for there to be a tie. But, with three candidates capable of winning electoral votes, there are much greater odds that none of them will win a majority. If this happens, the House of Representatives gets to choose which of the candidates becomes president.

So consider this scenario: Trump wins a majority of delegates and is the Republican nominee. The Republican establishment chooses a more moderate candidate (can be Kaisch, or anyone they like) and runs him under a third party, thus splitting the conservative vote. At worst, the result is that the Democratic nominee becomes president. But if their third party spoiler candidate succeeds at drawing some electoral votes and denies any candidate from having a majority, then the House of Representatives, currently controlled by the Republican party, can take their spoiler candidate and make him president. Either way, it prevents Trump from getting into the White House.

Unfortunately this strategy only works for the Republicans. If the losing candidate in the Democratic primaries runs under a third party, neither of them will become president since either the Republican will get a majority of electoral votes, or no one will and the Republican-controlled congress will declare the Republican to be the winner.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

An interesting sidelight of the two party system.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

21 hours ago, MintberryCrunch said:

One can only hope...

But has this ever happened before where candidates went back on the pledge? It certainly seems like this election is pretty unique, which makes it all the more interesting to follow. 

This is kind of the first or second time where all the candidates have taken a pledge like this. It started with the Republican establishment using it against Ron Paul. They'd constantly ask him if he's endorse the front-runner should he lose. The pledge was a way to guarantee that the establishment candidate was backed by the grassroots candidate, but now it's the other way around and the RNC is regretting this whole pledge business.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The G.O.P. has taken a fox to their bosom and now find it is eating its way to their heart.  But they are not ancient Spartans, so they need an animal control officer.

[matias93 7,535]

The problem is, if the lower chamber chooses a candidate who is not the winner of the popular vote, no one could guarantee that there will be a 'clean' transition. At least one candidate will have a reasonable motivation to denounce the election as rigged and name himself 'legitimate president'¹. Also, even if there's bipartisan congressional accord in giving the presidency to a second-runner, voters of both parties could simply reject the pact, and even back the rebel candidate. It's all too complex

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You have a good point or two there.  It is rather clear that the traditional parties need a good house cleaning.  The general staleness of American politics is what is frustrating the electorate.  Forget the presidency and instead concentrate on fixing Congress.  Every seat in the House is up for grabs, so why not find some new blood there?  And you get to select a third of the Senate.  Why continue with the same old, same old?

What do you suppose would happen if there was, say, 30% new blood in the House of Representatives?  Getting rid of some of the old sell-outs is probably what is needed.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Op Ed piece by the Associated Press on the Wisconsin primary.

Could this be the beginning of the season of discontent for Der Donald?

[LexusInfernus 908]

7 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Op Ed piece by the Associated Press on the Wisconsin primary.

Could this be the beginning of the season of discontent for Der Donald?

No. 

I mean come on, since he announced he would be running for president people have been predicting hes gonna fail. He hasn't so far, I doubt this will be the 'beginning of the end' so to speak for Donald. 

[igotthis 12]

Oh, I really hope Trump gets the nomination, or at least disrupts the GOP so much they can't recover. His candidacy has revealed the ugly side of the party, a huge chunk that only reinforces the the disaster they have themselves created. He won't stand a chance in a general election. Republicans can put off their review of a SCOTUS judge all they want. If they don't go Merrick, they just might end up with a full Liberal when they lose the POTUS and a lot of seats. I am eagerly optimistic.

IGT

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I think the real question is whether any Republican candidate in the current set is electable at all?  Trump has zero governmental experience and hasn't really shown any talent for international/national governance.  He is a performer in the public eye, not in the backrooms of power.  Cruz is too far right, and the remaining one seems to be a one-trick pony.  Cruz will have "birther" troubles since he was born in Calgary.  I suppose things will look different Wednesday morning.

[Delta 88 262]

12 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

I think the real question is whether any Republican candidate in the current set is electable at all?  Trump has zero governmental experience and hasn't really shown any talent for international/national governance.  He is a performer in the public eye, not in the backrooms of power.  Cruz is too far right, and the remaining one seems to be a one-trick pony.  Cruz will have "birther" troubles since he was born in Calgary.  I suppose things will look different Wednesday morning.

Remember, Arnold Schwarzanagger was elected governor of California in 2000. In America, celebrity status wins over political experience. That's why Trump actually has a significant chance of winning. If the republican party chooses anyone other than Donald Trump as their front-runner, they will absolutely lose. They'll be left with the same fragmented mess that caused Mitt Romney to lose by a landslide in 2012.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Being governor of a state is not the same as being elected POTUS.  The main difference being the "football".  If elected I expect that Trump will be a complete mushroom and very pliable in the hands of the various advisory services.  I doubt he is tough enough to really survive his first security briefing.

[Sabretooth78 808]

15 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

I think the real question is whether any Republican candidate in the current set is electable at all?  Trump has zero governmental experience and hasn't really shown any talent for international/national governance.  He is a performer in the public eye, not in the backrooms of power.  Cruz is too far right, and the remaining one seems to be a one-trick pony.  Cruz will have "birther" troubles since he was born in Calgary.  I suppose things will look different Wednesday morning.

The "remaining one" you alude to is probably Kasich?  He's the only one I would consider voting for.

2 hours ago, Delta 88 said:

Remember, Arnold Schwarzanagger was elected governor of California in 2000. In America, celebrity status wins over political experience. That's why Trump actually has a significant chance of winning. If the republican party chooses anyone other than Donald Trump as their front-runner, they will absolutely lose. They'll be left with the same fragmented mess that caused Mitt Romney to lose by a landslide in 2012.

That, but the gop doesn't have a monopoly on such fragmentation, either.  The fact that Willard couldn't inspire paint to dry sure didn't help them, either.  So obvious it's hard to argue that the kid glove treatment he received from the media - while everyone else was barbecued (Perry, Cain, etc.) and/or ignored (Paul) - and ultimate selection wasn't by design.

[igotthis 12]

Reagan was also elected to govern CA with no experience (if I recall correctly) and look where he went (or what he did)...

IGT

[Larks2242 251]

https://i.embed.ly/1/display?key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FCfUpKrmWIAAuyXm.jpg&width=500

 

Trump's  path just got a little harder!

[Delta 88 262]

14 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Being governor of a state is not the same as being elected POTUS.  The main difference being the "football".  If elected I expect that Trump will be a complete mushroom and very pliable in the hands of the various advisory services.  I doubt he is tough enough to really survive his first security briefing.

Maybe not, but it's still a big deal when you consider that California is the most wealthy, influential, populous, agriculturally productive, and culturally diverse of the fifty states (not to humble-brag, but it really is that way). Besides, pretty much every president is pliable as you described. No matter who is currently POTUS, the powerful keep the power.

7 hours ago, igotthis said:

Reagan was also elected to govern CA with no experience (if I recall correctly) and look where he went (or what he did)...

IGT

Not sure if you were trying to, but your statement actually furthers my point. His intensification of the drug war during the 1980s, political scandals involving his administration and their eventual resignation, escalation of the Cold War during his first term, and I'm not sure if you're a fan of his notorious "Reaganomics" policies which skyrocketed national debt and outsourced millions of manufacturing jobs to overseas.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Being governor of a state such as California is certainly a training ground for further political office.  Reagan turned out not too bad, but remember that he had been political for quite a while before he became governor, being president of the Screen Actors Guild where he learned some techniques on herding cats.  The Donald, on the other hand, is trying to jump in at the top with no appropriate experience.  Can you imagine him conducting a negotiation at a meeting with Vlad Putin?  Vlad would eat him for an appetizer.

[Sabretooth78 808]

14 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

https://i.embed.ly/1/display?key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FCfUpKrmWIAAuyXm.jpg&width=500

 

Trump's  path just got a little harder!

Fact that I appreciate the result notwithstanding, I really don't understand how you can call an election with 5% reporting.  Is our population that homogeneous that 5% is an adequate sample size?

Congrats to the great state of Wisconsin, though, for Bernie as well.  Proving that despite Gov. Walker, some people in that state appear be awake.

[krbe 193]

I've always enjoyed maps.

[igotthis 12]

14 hours ago, Delta 88 said:

Maybe not, but it's still a big deal when you consider that California is the most wealthy, influential, populous, agriculturally productive, and culturally diverse of the fifty states (not to humble-brag, but it really is that way). Besides, pretty much every president is pliable as you described. No matter who is currently POTUS, the powerful keep the power.

Not sure if you were trying to, but your statement actually furthers my point. His intensification of the drug war during the 1980s, political scandals involving his administration and their eventual resignation, escalation of the Cold War during his first term, and I'm not sure if you're a fan of his notorious "Reaganomics" policies which skyrocketed national debt and outsourced millions of manufacturing jobs to overseas.

Oh, no. I am no fan of Reagan. All of his policies were horrible and my reference to him being an actor, then governor, then president were meant to show that anyone with the ways and means can get what they want with the stamp of their party's Establishment. Trump has lost that, even though he is their creation. Now they'd rather settle on that oily Cruz, which is funny because it is a known fact that his own peers can't stand him (neither can his children - look for the video).

IGT

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ The G.O.P. has become morally bankrupt.  Too much right wing screaming and not enough rationality.  Mr. Cruz may well be the least of the evils that beset the party right now.  Someone mentioned on one show I watched tonight that he denies climate change.  Has he had his head someplace the sun don't shine?

[Sabretooth78 808]

In many states, particularly in the south (surprise!), it has been made illegal to even mention that phrase in official state business.  So in that sense, it's a whole culture and I really can't blame him for being something he's a product of.  I'm sure the sand around his head will loosen once it's underwater - simple soil mechanics.

Neat maps.  It's funny to look at the delegate totals and see how Cruz & Sanders seem to have been the most consistently successful and then you come across a few states (cough, Arizona, cough) that went full-on retard and put us in the situation we're in.  Beautiful state, just not very good at electing competency.

[krbe 193]

Having had some more time to look at the maps, Texas is definitely the most interesting. Just look at the low numbers in the Panhandle -- Robert and Armstrong counties delivering five votes each in total! On the opposite end of the spectrum and the state, no Republican votes were cast in Zavala county. Also in Colorado; the 1800 sq mi, 1400 people strong Kiowa county had seven people caucusing; 2 less than Cheyenne county with 400 more people.

[madhatter106 3,903]

On 4/6/2016 at 8:36 AM, A Nonny Moose said:

Being governor of a state such as California is certainly a training ground for further political office.  Reagan turned out not too bad, but remember that he had been political for quite a while before he became governor, being president of the Screen Actors Guild where he learned some techniques on herding cats.

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myth_no_one_had_ever_entered_the_white_house_so_grossly_ill_informed/

[Sabretooth78 808]

3 hours ago, madhatter106 said:

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/behind_the_ronald_reagan_myth_no_one_had_ever_entered_the_white_house_so_grossly_ill_informed/

...and yet, I'd still take him over anybody since (excepting perhaps WJC) or any of those who have been selected for us this go-around (of those who actually have a chance of winning).

[Larks2242 251]

On 4/7/2016 at 0:17 AM, A Nonny Moose said:

^ The G.O.P. has become morally bankrupt.  Too much right wing screaming and not enough rationality.  Mr. Cruz may well be the least of the evils that beset the party right now.  Someone mentioned on one show I watched tonight that he denies climate change.  Has he had his head someplace the sun don't shine?

Morally bankrupt? Clinton is the spokesperson of morally bankrupt, It is really hard to see anyone look bad when placed next to her.

The climate might be changing but unless you find a way to clog all the volcanoes, There is  little that can be done about it.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

What has that criminal Clinton got to do with the G.O.P. pray?

[Larks2242 251]

1 hour ago, A Nonny Moose said:

What has that criminal Clinton got to do with the G.O.P. pray?

It has everything to do once we get to the general election.

[Skimbo 304]

From a european perspective:

 

Trump:

Even behaves like the instrument he's named after: Loud, few different tones. Can be compared to our european right-wing-politicans. Over here, theese politicans get lots of attention but reach a peak at (depends on country) 12-30% of voters.

Problem about Populists: They like spreading hot air and change systems in a way to optimize their voter's expections without takeing care about the changed systems and maybe de-stabilizing them. Trum won't be good for USA's reputation in the rest of the world and might cause several bad decisions regarding the american society.

Clinton:

Like a flag in the wind: Turns around her political opinions as soon as she sees ome opportunity to gain voters. I got such politicans in my country too and they constantly loose voters from election to election, mostly to the populists.

Politicians that behave this way in Europ usually won't bring a country forward.... rather slow the progress in favor of their own interrests.

Cruz:

I don't really know how Ishould feel about him. Cruz seems to be a conservative who is way too much influenced by conservative "christian" ideas. Politicans who stand for religion based ideals ain't good for a progressive 21st century state. Maybe he's not as much obsessed with power like our turkish "president" but about as bad for a presidential office.

With Cruz winning I fear for all the (little) progress USA did lateley and politics that favor the old industrial lobbies. Basically loosing pace against Euop, China and Japan in economical terms. I also fear that the next elections of the parlament (or however USA calls this) would make the democrats win and cause a similar lockdown like the last obama era years.

Sanders:

I personally really like him. - Why? He's left of the political middle. That's something US american politics didn't see for a long time before Obama started to finally do some long overdue changes to the system. His problem is that he's a little too far left to be "votable" for the typical american voter. Sanders would be the one to finally bring the american social care system to a 21st century level. I see a really big chanche for USA right there: A fair tax system and a basic social security would help the american society a lot.

Over here, politicans on this course usually gain about 15-50% of voters and are a needed counterpart to conservative powers.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Quote

What I wrote on facebook today is appropriate.
[in response to a meme posted on facebook by the brother of a former classmate]In addition to Bernie preying on stupid, The D'ump also preys on stupid. Bush Jr has always been stupid. Marco Rubio, Gary Johnson, and Rand Paul are too competent to win an election that has become a reality TV show with the votes going through "official means" instead of phone.

Of the likely outcomes, a Bernie presidency with Republican senate and split (between 50-50 and 52-48) House of Representatives would be the lesser of the evils.

I'm a Utilitarian, not a Liberal. A properly functioning nation doesn't need redistribution of wealth if it taxes negative externalities, encourages charity, provides good public services (police, national guard, coast guard, firefighting, education (quality free education through 12th grade, (near) automatic merit based scholarships for citizens), infrastructure, mass transit, healthcare (replace private health insurance with a perfectly competitive free market, which would require the government to directly pay for emergency care and basic preventative medicine while everything else is out of pocket), and parks), and has progressive income tax (starting at no taxes on minimum wage) by hourly wage (or salary equivalent) to incentivize hard workers and hiring of new/unskilled workers.

[in response to a rebuttal on facebook by a friend of a friend]"I agree that virtually every problem in America is caused by our government and solving them would require a major shift in politics instead of maintaining the Status Quo. We have far too greedy corporate executives & corrupt bankruptcy fraudsters and far too many lazy welfare whales/queens leaching our nation dry off the backs of common workers

I'm an intellectual who had the displeasure of being taught by socialists and liberals in the Seattle Public School District. I read "The Wealth of Nations," "Atlas Shrugged," [parts of] "The Fountainhead," and other books in my free time while movies like "Diarios de Motocicleta" were class material. 

I disagree with actual socialists more than actual liberals disagree with them. Stalin and Mao showed the world how bad socialism is. Mussolini and The Empire of Japan showed us how bad fascism and corporatism are. The United States has the worst of liberalism and capitalism and has devolved into a Corporatist Nanny State. We have corporations at least as proportionately powerful as those of FASCIST countries and more people suckling the government teat than most SOCIALIST or Radical Progressive countries.

Propaganda is bad but the majority of Americans I know eat up one type of propaganda and oppose all others. I oppose all propaganda, whether spouted from NBC, News Corp, Huffington Post, schools/colleges, local "news," or the Internet.

Quality public education that fosters creativity and critical thinking, combined with scholarships for bright students aspiring for better education is the key towards success in our once great nation. The worst offenders of oppressive enforcement of Politically Correct communication are private colleges. Removing government grants to them would be doing us a favor. Pell grants shouldn't go to private liberal arts colleges."

In short, American society is declining.

Thanks in part to the culture propagated by the media (making trashy "reality" TV) to appeal to the lowest common denominator,  propaganda spewed by gossipers (soft news) pretending to be factual and relevant (hard news), subsidies to those that squander the resources and inadequate education, our nation won't likely be made great again, ever!