tarricoe

United States 2016 Election

93 posts in this topic

Uh, why are we not talking about this?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably, this wasn’t being discussed because I wasn’t here. I have corrected that, obviously. :P

The real question about the 2016 Presidential election in America should be; Is this the worst election in the United States since 1860?

I’ve been following this stuff very closely for a lot of years and as a hobby, American politics are fascinating. However, more than ever, I’m glad that I don’t live there. In my experience, this cycle is uniquely bad.

Firstly, Donald Trump. Trump is a dreadful human, but he is glaring evidence of the absolute paucity of acceptable candidates in a divided and increasingly extremist Republican party. There are a few candidates who would have been acceptable to a broad coalition of Republicans in previous elections, notably Governors Christie, Bush and Kasich. However, the divide between the base who dominates the primaries and the more centrist voters who vote for Republicans in the general election, there is a fundamental and currently insoluble disagreement.

This disagreement has resulted in a party that must run down a very odd road.

Secondly, the Republicans have been forced to resort to candidates who either enrage the extremist base or are entirely unpalatable to the general electorate. This was a source of considerable disagreement among party elders after the defeat of Mitt Romney as well as John McCain.

In Romney, the GOP had the candidate that they said they always wanted; a moderate, Northern governor with a strong business background. However, the base hated him for being insufficiently conservative and not a “proper” Christian.

The base loves Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee. They flirt with Marco Rubio but think that he might be a closeted liberal. They liked Ben Carson for a while, but now he seems to have vanished.

All of these choices are fairly repellant to the governing wing of the party and their candidates mentioned above can’t get any traction in primary votes and caucuses which overwhelmingly are made up of base voters. There’s routinely talk that the party would split as the establishment republicans are not sufficiently religious, conservative and regressive on civil rights.

If they split between Republican and Tea Party, the Tea Party wing would be the stronger entity of the two.

The schism result is a vacuum where any loud noise attracts attention, and thus, Trump.

Trump is not a flash in the pan, Trump will not go away.

Thirdly, candidates of the vein of Trump disappear in the summer, which political journalists often refer to as the Summer of Fun, when non-serious candidates can get a lot of coverage before the serious business of the primaries actually starts. Trump was leading then as well.

Trump then said a number of horrible things that would have sunk most candidates and his numbers actually improved. He is routinely “winning” the GOP debates and nothing that anyone says seems to have any effect. Despite being factually wrong about almost everything he says, not being a movement conservative and being totally disingenuous about the nature of his “self-funded” campaign, he still rises. Even after skipping a GOP debate, he is still declared the winner.

Fourthly, the voters of the Republican Party may alter this trajectory with actual ballots, but do not think that Trump is somehow excluded from winning the nomination.

On the Democratic side, the race is pretty instructive as well. Bernie Sanders is actually doing pretty well. This tells me two things;

1.       1. The United States still has some Roosevelt Democrats in it and that many of them are young.

2.       2. Hillary Clinton is a tremendous political force and a truly awful candidate.

With no disrespect to Senator Sanders, Secretary Clinton should be killing him and yet he is tied or leading Iowa and leading by a large margin in New Hampshire. Typically, the person who wins those two wins the nomination.

The nomination of the party seems like it is owed to Hillary Clinton despite her merits. She was supposed to be inevitable in 2008 and lost you a younger insurgent. She now faces a social democrat – not even a Democratic Party member – and seems like she will have a real challenge.

This is in spite of the Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee doing everything in its power to reduce the appearance of an active primary.

If you’re a Democrat, the good news is that the conventional wisdom is that now Republican currently in the race will fare well in a general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Primaries guys.

 

Sanders has an “above 99%” (kek) chance of winning New Hampshire according to Nate Silver, Trump still has a considerable poll lead there too, although Rubio is coming up fast in second place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*nods*

 

Barring some event, looks to be Sanders and Trump in NH, yeah.  The only interesting thing there now seems the battle for 2nd and 3rd /4th among the Republicans.

 

Here’s a link to delegate counts and primary/caucus results and dates:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0

 

I tend to think we’ll know the outcome by mid-March. Though it would be nice for more states to have their chance to be significant.  *grumbles about the local June primary*  I’ve thought the parties could divide the states into thirds, and have 1/3 of the states have a primary at a time.  Maybe one month apart ?  Two weeks ?  I don’t know.  Rotate which states are the first primary every election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders is a lock in New Hampshire inasmuch as New Hampshire is ever really locked. It’s an odd place.

 

Trump looks on track to win, and the dynamics of the race for second and third are changing. Cruz is hovering around ten percent and Rubio – after an epic failure of a debate – has dropped behind John Kasich and, depending on where you look, Jeb Bush.

 

The only important question for the Democrats is how much momentum does Sanders get for South Carolina, and does it tighten the race. The calendar is starting to look pretty brutal for Sanders now. Does New Hampshire give him enough fuel to even the odds? Probably not.

 

New Hampshire is the first important race for the Republicans. Iowa tends show us only who the extreme wing of the party favors and that person hasn’t won much else in recent election cycles. The last two winners there were Huckabee and Santorum...

 

The real tension here (West is 100 percent right...) is the standing of the candidates other than Trump, assuming that Trump wins. If Rubio declines he could very well slip into the lower rank and stay there. If Cruz under performs the party will happily let him languish. If Bush or Kasich do really well it’s a nice bump for Kasich, but only Bush has a national infrastructure to carry on to South Carolina and Nevada. If Bush does better than expected and Trump, Cruz and Rubio under perform he could instantly be back in contender territory. The same can’t be said of Kasich, he polls very poorly elsewhere.

 

Unless something dramatic happens, we will not know the nominee anytime soon. A lot of Republicans are predicting an open convention. I think that would be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders looks to have alot of support in the 20’s demographic, you could see that expressed in how well he did in the college communities in Iowa.  In my personally little world, all my step-sons are for Sanders, they range from 24 – 31.  He had them at ‘free college’, and they never looked back.

 

Obama was also able to garner the energy of the younger vote in going up against Clinton before.  That’s two times that she’s been unable to inspire our younger generation.

 

But that kind of energy usually doesn’t translate to votes beyond the caucus or primary. Young voters generally turn out in low numbers. 

 

I remember during the 1972 election, I went to see a speech by Vice President Agnew.  You had to push your way through crowds of protesters to get into the gymnasium where it was held.  Alot of hippies, flower children, anti-Vietnam protestors, pro-McGovern supporters.  It was a mess.  Each wave of a crowd with it’s own message, and trying to force some flier into your hand whether you wanted it or not. It felt threatening, dangerous.  All that anti-Nixon administration energy, and McGovern only won one state. 

 

Kasich seems to have a fair opportunity to capture 2nd in NH.  He’s been doing well there for quite awhile and really concentrated his efforts.  He’s going to have to be dependent upon donors that are ready to put some bets on his chances post NH.  He needs that 2nd place to do that.  But he’s got a long way to parlay that into any hope of anything beyond that till it comes around to Ohio primaries.

 

If Bush picks up 2nd or 3rd he’s should send Rubio a thank you note for screwing up at the debate, and one to Christi for calling him on it.  It’s his best opening so far this election.

 

Cruz had previously been spending alot of time in the south to set himself up for those primaries ahead of time.  Don’t know if that will have paid off, as that’s costing him in NH.  He went from his southern strategy to Iowa, and now it’s too late for NH.

 

As I understand it though, the Republican primaries are designed this time so that it’s possible a candidate can win the nomination with only winning eight state contests.  Consider that Mitt Romney won the nomination by barely maintaining 30% in each primary.  Still, it’s the early proportional primaries that ensure more candidates have a chance to move forward, before the winner-takes-all primaries come around.

 

I still find it remarkable that generally speaking...so few are needed to select a candidate.  Generally, only 30% of the electorate are members of each party, the remainder Independent.  Generally only half of that 1/3 in a party, at best, actually vote.  So you only need to win a plurality of 15% of the electorate to become the nominee.  Thus movement candidates are born with a loud minority.

 

Some months back, I was looking over the electoral map.  It looked to be a more important question for the Republicans than the Democrats as to what states their candidates might be sure to carry.  Electorally, the democrats have an advantage. All they need to do is keep that advantage. To over come that advantage, the Republicans are going to need to target the swing states. The states leanings are fairly predicable, leaving only a handful of states that matter.  At the time, I end up focusing on about 5 states.  It would make sense for the Republicans to try to lock down both Florida and Ohio.  That would be enough to win the game.  So a Bush/Kasich or Rubio/Kasich , or inverse those, would make sense.  I’m just speaking electorally, not to viability. Cruz provides nothing electorally, Texas will go GOP regardless of the candidate.  Trump is a wildcard at this point, so I’m not sure.  Polls show him having an impact in New York, and that would usually be impossible for the GOP.  Polls also showing some willingness for democratic crossover for Trump makes it hard to place his electoral impact, if any.  Christi might help the NE vote for the GOP, but I can’t see how it would be enough. Governor Walker of Wisconsin might make a VP choice to try to swing those electoral votes.  Combined with something smaller like...maybe Colorado, another swing state, would compensate for losing either Ohio or Florida.  One other possible state to try to swing would be Pennsylvania. It could be a replacement for Ohio in a strategy, but likely harder to swing.  It’ll depend on how much they want to invest in it.

 

But then, it could be a sort of wave election, and all prior guidance and pattern are no longer valid until the system resets itself.  I think it would be a good thing to have two very different candidates running for President.  I think the country can use that contrast and choice.  (I also tend to think it might be time for a one term president)

 

And if Bloomberg decides to run as an independent, we’ve got a 1992 situation all over again. Maybe.  Or 1980.  I almost voted for John Anderson in ‘80.

 

Yeah, an open convention would be interesting.  I do have a bit of memory of the ‘68 Convention in Chicago, watching on the black and white TV…..*shudders*  But every election there is talk of a floor fight ahead of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders will have an interesting time of it in South Carolina, but I think that he’s going to have more than enough active voter momentum to make it to the convention, and potentially be the nominee (since i’m a Bernie Sanders supporter, that would be wonderful to see).  You can already tell how desperate that Hillary is getting, what with having Bill try to smear Bernie, and then the whole “there is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women” comment from Albright.

 

There’s already word that Hillary might replace her entire campaign staff, rather than apologize for any mistakes that she has made thus far.  That kind of thinking does not strike me as something that a majority would want in a Presidential candidate.  As for the “free” stuff claim, we’re not dumb, we all know that it will be paid for via various taxes.  But what the younger generation wants is less involvement in foreign wars, coupled with a government that will actually fix the broken things in our own country (education, healthcare, infrastructure, et cetera).  And the only person that they trust to be able to deliver on that is Bernie, especially as economists have said that his job will improve the economy, and lead to more jobs.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2015/7/top-economists-are-backing-sen-bernie-sanders-on-establishing-a-15-an-hour-minimum-wage

http://www.inquisitr.com/2709907/170-top-economists-feel-the-bern-endorse-bernie-sanders-wall-street-reform-plan/

https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Medicare-for-All.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things haven’t been looking too great for Bernie these past few states. I’m hoping with all my might he can win California. California is HUGE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders is the overwhelming favorite in Montana on the democrats side.  Trump on the republicans side.  Not that Montana has enough delegates to make any difference for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d like to see Brian Schweitzer run for president one day.  Perhaps VP for HIllary or Bernie!  I always liked him.

 

*dreams about the old days living in Montana*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pooch said:

I’d like to see Brian Schweitzer run for president one day.  Perhaps VP for HIllary or Bernie!  I always liked him.

 

*dreams about the old days living in Montana*

 

Who’s Brian Schweitzer? I know I could Google it, but I want to read your reaction. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Isaris said:

 

Who’s Brian Schweitzer? I know I could Google it, but I want to read your reaction. :P

Former Montana governor. I always thought that he stood for the people and environment against the various special interests especially in mineral extraction and logging. He always had a common sense approach. Didn't stop mining and logging, but made sure they didn't damage the rivers and countryside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t remember what he said, but Schweitzer said something negative about Hillary in Iowa last year or the year before that pretty much ended his chances. Seems to me it was taken as being sexist. I think he was considering running before that incident (why else would he have been in Iowa ?).  Former Montana Governor Roscoe (republican) is another that was considered a possible presidential candidate a few cycles back, but he wasn’t interested.  Although he was RNC chairman in 2000.

 

An ex-cop/ex-border patrol friend of mine had an encounter with Schweitzer….he was in a local gun store looking at what they had, and the Governor was there as well.  Also looking at guns.  Schweitzer turned to shake his hand, and pointed the gun he was holding towards him in the same movement. “Whoa, please don’t shoot me Governor Sir”  Too interested in glad-handing rather than gun safety in the moment.  A nice guy, but occasionally careless in words and actions.

 

I was a consultant for former Lieutenant Governor Karl Ohs after he left office.  He had a document management company.  Nice guy.  He could have been Governor but choose not to run. Unfortunately, he died a few years later.

 

In ‘04 alot of my clients were suggesting I run for Governor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it’s looking like both Trump and Clinton’s horrible favorability ratings might be catching up with them.  Any thoughts?  I read somewhere that Trump is the most disliked candidate for president in at least the last 3 decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure it means that much this election though.  Nixon was terribly unpopular with lots of protesters in ‘72, yet he won in a landslide vs. McGovern.  (Only to resign due to Watergate later).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump really shot himself in the foot with his statement on abortion…

 

Hillary is under investigation by the FBI…

 

#FeeltheBern!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s starting to get fun now.

Sanders is plainly, entirely and completely done – the math won’t work for him and the Democratic super delegates are not going to turn on Clinton if she wins the count on pledge delegates. Sanders must win New York by a huge margin to have any reason to stay in.

Having said that, the aggregate of polls has Clinton leading by 17 points as I write this. He needs to destroy Clinton in every large contest left and that’s not going to happen

Sanders needs to overcome a deficit of about 210 pledge delegates. If he runs roughly even with her in every state, he can’t overcome this. If he loses anywhere, he can’t overcome this. If he wins everywhere but by less than 10 points, he still can’t overcome it. So, when he loses the primary in New York, he’s done like cooked dirt. There won’t be a contested convention for the Democrats and the super delegates will not move to Bernie unless Clinton gets indicted over the email scandal (note; this will never, ever happen).

As a good, Canadian social Democrat, I think Sanders is great, but if he were elected, it would make the Obama presidency look like the Republican Christmas party... nothing would get through Congress.

As for the Republicans, Trump will win the largest share of the delegates, but probably not get to 1237.

I’m very torn on trying to predict this, but if he finishes at 1100 or 1150 (which is very likely) I’m having trouble seeing the party not giving him the nomination. The idea of having a potential nominee at ninety percent of the delegate target and then not get the nomination is fairly ludicrous; it would shatter the party.

As for the high negatives on both sides, it really doesn’t matter because of the obnoxious, know-nothing glory that is the candidacy of Donald J Trump.

If Trump gets the nomination (and I assume that he will at his point) then the election is pretty much a formality. While a shift is always possible, I would be comfortable in assuming that Trump will be the worst general election candidate since Walter Mondale lost to Ronald Reagan. I think he will lose on a historic scale.

Hillary Clinton is not a good candidate and that topic is not open for debate. If there were any questions about her skills in this arena, you only need to look at her loss to President Obama in 2008 and her inability to shut down and independent socialist from Vermont whom she was previously beating by 70 points.

Having said all of that, the scrutiny of a general election will likely annihilate Trump and the people who like him even more when he calls Mexicans rapists, vacillates on the Klan or complains about Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle are not numerous enough to elect him. He will have less support from the base and less advantage in the key demographic group that Romney had in 2012 or McCain in 2008.

If Ted Cruz wins at the convention, he will only fare marginally better.

On a final note about the Republican convention, it now looks like the party is already limiting things to people who ran in the primaries. Speaker Ryan suggested this when he came as close to ruling out his candidacy as such an avaricious person is constitutionally capable of doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say Speaker Ryan rather unofficially is using his position as Chairman of the Convention to create an implied restriction to the primary candidates.  An unofficial ruling from the Chair.

 

I have a curious interest to see a contest between Sanders and Cruz.  Not out of support for either one, but rather it would be such a great opportunity for a debate between wide-ranging political philosophies. A debate such as the country hasn't had in a very long time.  For too long the candidates have not been much different from each other. But that's the nature of the process such as it is.

 

For the remainder of the primaries, I think you have it right. It's seemed pretty clear for awhile that, barring some event, it is Clinton and Trump as the nominees. 

 

A contested Republican convention remains a possibility of course, but I think that's mostly theater.  News media is anxious for any political stories they can get their hands on, and if they can boost ratings and therefore profit with it, all the better.  And the Republican party is anxious for news coverage, it keeps the Democrats out of the news.  Nice to get all that free publicity from the media over a potential maybe possibility that they might create the circumstances to have a contested convention where anything can happen. *chuckles*  Since that's the only thing to talk about, other than the lastest Trump gaff, it creates the impression that it's more possible than it really is.  I'm sure there are negotiations already underway in the event Trump can't make 1237. Or an already planned, 'unity moment', where all the other candidates commit their delegates to the plurality candidate Trump.  Every convention plays to that unity theme after a long, hard fought primary season.  Maybe there will be a Trump/Kasich ticket, as perhaps Kasich would hold enough delegates to put Trump over the top....or the ambitious Rubio throwing his delegates to Trump in exchange for VP. Plenty of things to speculate on.  But.....*shrugs*  who knows.  Political theater is always a good show, and political sport can get bloody. Besides, it's good for the economy....all that campaign money being spent. ;)

 

Of course, Sanders hanging on beyond all hope is the same for the Democrats, an opportunity for publicity and time in the news cycle.  Although I do think he's mainly angling for planks on the party platform by getting some of his people on party committees, et al.  So he'll keep contesting all the way to the convention to win some policy concessions.  But how many politicians pay that much attention to their party platforms ?  I know if I was a candidate, I couldn't deal with either party's platform. 

 

I don't think I agree with you on the general election though.  There is just as much dirt to throw at Clinton as there is to throw at Trump. I can see the ads....Clinton's 2008 3AM phone call ad juxtaposed against the burning compound in Benghazi followed by her before Congress, "What difference, at this point, does it make?!".....Trump ranting about the Mexican rapists and criminals....Hillary barking like a dog and handing the reset button to Russia.  I agree that Clinton won't be indicted, but the investigation is likely to continue to be a drag on her for some time. Americans already know them both.  It'll be interesting.  The Democrats already have the electoral advantage, and there is nothing in Cruz's potentials that could overcome it.  But Trump throws a wrench into trying to figure the electoral vote, IMO.  A lot of registered democrats switched parties to vote Trump in the primaries.  Is it just to sabotage the republicans ?  Or are they going to stick with that vote in November ? Switch back ?  Stay home ? I don't know.  And turnout is a big factor that both sides desperately need.  Thus far, the Republicans have the turnout factor in their favor through the primaries. Will Trump's supporters be so tired of hearing 'Make America Great' that they can't stand it anymore and stay home?  Will Clinton's supporters, already lethargic and uninspired, turn out to vote or stay home ?  I think Trump's chances are better than may be expected, as has been the case all along.  He's filling something the public wants, that neither party offers.  But can that translate into electoral votes...I don't know.  You might be right, Trump might step on so many toes in a debate meltdown with Clinton that he looks like the Titanic going down.  *shudders at the thought of a Clinton/Trump debate/sideshow*

 

I'm sort of reminded a bit of the '92 election, only it was Ross Perot ("That big suckin' sound from Mexico!"...notice the similar theme as Trump...jobs lost to other countries) running as an independent.  Trump is better known than Ross Perot and I would expect that he might do better than Perot did if he was running as independent as well.  Perot pulled about 20% of the vote, but probably cost Bush his re-election (along with Bush's pathetic campaign) and limited Clinton's win to a plurality of the  popular vote.  Of course he got no electoral votes, but what if he had run as a Republican instead in an open-year (not a re-election). He'd have the party behind him, so you get the base, plus his supporters....and you'd have a closer race.  Bush votes plus Perot would have been 57%.  I doubt a very large percentage of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton. Though more might simply not vote.

 

One other thing...


 

Spoiler

In other news, Russian President Putin was asked what he thinks of a possible Clinton or Trump Presidency....

 

Vladimir-Putin-laugh-gif.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knew Bernie would never make it (super-delegates) It's almost like he was a sham to sweeten the reality for Dem supporters; that they have no choice but Hillary and the party has made it so. 

 

It's a shame really, a dark little part of me wanted to see Bernie vs. Trump. Basically, the worlds most powerful nation having to choose between whether it wanted Reddit or 4chan to lead it for the next 4 years.

 

Also fix your electoral system 'Merkins, you can copy ours.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do disagree on the general election.

 

Against any other candidate, Hillary would be at a great disadvantage, but not here.

 

Firstly, Hillary has almost no people left in the electorate who are undecided about her. She is widely reviled on the right, generally favored on the left but with not a ton of people remaining in the middle. So even a parade of her greatest hits will only reinforce the impression of Hillary that people already have; the general election will not change that as she has already been through it.

 

Secondly, the recent issues with Hillary are not very convincing. Benghazi, if it ever had legs was killed by that disgraceful, 11 hour drum-head trial led by Trey Gowdy last year. They forced a spectacle which they could not manage and Clinton came out comparatively looking like shined sterling. The obvious political machinations of the GOP in regards to Clinton have also largely neutered these attacks in a general election setting regarding her emails. Everyone has already been there and already done that. Again, no minds will be changed unless the FBI hits her with something.

 

Conversely, Trump has never before been forced to suffer the indignity of general election scrutiny. He's amazingly thin-skinned an reacts loudly and very coarsely when attacked. The attacks on him are not political in nature, as they are gaffes and outrages he has clearly made without much poking by the left. He has almost nothing to say on policy and regularly contradicts himself. He needs to reverse all of those trends or the media will smell blood in the water and as you well know, what bleeds, leads.

 

Hillary, for her numerous flaws, can just sit back and ride it out. By analogy, if it weren't for Trump, the narrative of the primary season would be that Clinton can't close down Sanders. However, with all of Trump's gibberish, that gets very little coverage and Hillary's underwhelming performance has gotten a pass.

 

Also, unlike Perot, Trump does not have a coherent economic message - if he has a plan for job creation or anything else, he's keeping it to himself. For me, the thing that will ultimately kill him is the total vacuum in Trump's head where policy is concerned. Look at his answers on abortion - if he had given that topic any thought, he'd have been fine. How can a person running for President not have an articulated stance on abortion - the guy has not platform, he's just a stream on consciousness.

 

He only pulls about a third of the Republican base, and all of this other steam will not get him many voters from elsewhere. Where will he pull voters that Mitt Romney didn't? Most of the groups where Trump would need votes find the guy terrifying.

 

5 hours ago, tarricoe said:

Everyone knew Bernie would never make it (super-delegates) It's almost like he was a sham to sweeten the reality for Dem supporters; that they have no choice but Hillary and the party has made it so. 

 

If Sanders could have won the pledge delegates, the super delegates would have followed. In 2008, the super delegates were supporting Clinton, but reversed when Obama moved into the lead. Sanders accomplished a real victory in that the Democratic platform has now swung decidedly in his direction. He might not be the candidate, but he's writing their policy papers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaucerin!!  It's good to see you!!

I don't actually disagree with anything you've just said and don't have much to add until after the NY election (I need to find the debate and watch it), but I wanted to say how good it was to see you on!

 

HH

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hyper Hippies said:

Chaucerin!!  It's good to see you!!

I don't actually disagree with anything you've just said and don't have much to add until after the NY election (I need to find the debate and watch it), but I wanted to say how good it was to see you on!

 

HH

 

I found a version that's split into several parts on YouTube and I'm trying to get through it right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hyper Hippies said:

I don't actually disagree with anything you've just said and don't have much to add until after the NY election (I need to find the debate and watch it), but I wanted to say how good it was to see you on!

 

That's very kind of you. Thanks.

7 hours ago, Isaris said:

I found a version that's split into several parts on YouTube and I'm trying to get through it right now.

 

I had it on in the home office while I was doing some work. Nothing new - Sanders knows he's running out of time and was drawing a few more distinctions than normal.

 

Looking at the electoral and demographic math, I can't see how Clinton loses this race to any likely GOP candidate. Having said that, the Republican side is so much more interesting. As a politics nerd, the idea of a brokered convention is really quite cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She'll be fine if she goes against Trump, because he scares 2/3 of the GOP, but if it IS a brokered convention and they elect someone else, she might be screwed, whereas Sanders would still do alright.  Most of the states she won handily swing Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a strong argument to be made right now that the two parties have engineered themselves to only win every second election. If it's true, it's very interesting.

 

The theory holds that in Presidential elections, the high turnout favors Democrats; in other words, when the general population hops out to vote, they vote Democrat in slightly higher numbers that they vote for Republicans. As a result, the Democrats hold about 250 electoral votes out of 270 needed if everything else is equal. So naturally, the Democrats have a serious advantage in Presidential years.

 

More voters generates a slightly more liberal voting population and fewer voters will skew more conservative.

 

In the off term years when Americans only vote for Governors, Senate and the House the turnout is generally much lower and this favors Republicans. This happens as the conservative base seems to be much more active and they turn out more often and in higher numbers in these smaller elections. In other words, the right wing turns out first and more often.

 

If it's true, then it's because of demographics. The only voting block that Republicans reliably win is straight, white men over 40. If you're a white, straight male over 50, there about a 77% chance that you will vote Republican. White women of the same age are about a 50/50 split.

 

Every other group is up for grabs, or reliably votes Democratic already. In the case of minorities, they vote heavily for the Democrats and are starting to outgrow the white male voting block.

 

This means that if a GOP candidate does no better than Romney, it's almost impossible for them to win unless the turnout for the Democrats is highly depressed. If this becomes systematic, the Republicans will need to swing very far left to start reclaiming minorities as the angry, old white men die off.

 

As a 40-something Gen-X person, I'm really curious to see how this breaks. It's unprecedented and relatively unpredictable as a result.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now