2016 US Election thread: the begininning

[mormont]

An early start but we feel that it's time to corral the specifically election discussions to one place, leaving more room in the regular US Politics thread for non-election discussion (insofar as these can be separated). Please use this thread for anything that is primarily discussion of the primary campaigns, the upcoming election etc.

The normal board expectations of civility and respect to other users apply. Be civil to each other, or if you feel you can't manage that, go vent somewhere else. Political critique of candidates and parties (and the media) is fine but no racist, sexist, homophobic comments etc. Cheers.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Well, with that, Bloomberg 2016!  (Seriously, I actually could get behind and energized by a Bloomberg campaign).

[Inigima]

Zabz, this makes you the incarnation of the terror of non-crazy people. This is exactly what non-crazy people are afraid of: that a hypothetical Bloomberg campaign will siphon off Democratic votes in much greater quantities than Republican votes and usher in the Trump administration.

I like Sanders, I'm not telling you not to vote your conscience, but it's a very worrying prospect. (I am telling Mike Bloomberg he's a piece of shit for even thinking about it.)

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I am telling you there is no universe in which I would vote for Bernie Sanders.  There is also no universe in which I would vote for Donald Trump.  I also live in New York, so you can more or less ignore my vote.

 

BUT - I think there are plenty of people like me who would view Bloomberg as the only viable candidate.  I also think those people are pretty evenly distributed between Democrats and Republicans.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I wish Bloomberg would put his considerable wealth behind raising some awareness about the dire need for electoral reform. I would never, ever vote for him but I would like to live in a country where a Bloomberg-ian party could exist. It can't in the current system, and maybe he just doesn't believe that or doesn't care so long as he thinks he personally has a shot a the White House. He's wrong either way.

[Inigima]

8 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I am telling you there is no universe in which I would vote for Bernie Sanders.  There is also no universe in which I would vote for Donald Trump.  I also live in New York, so you can more or less ignore my vote.

 

BUT - I think there are plenty of people like me who would view Bloomberg as the only viable candidate.  I also think those people are pretty evenly distributed between Democrats and Republicans.

I disagree. The Republicans are currently being driven by people who think Donald Trump and Ted Cruz would be great presidents. I do not think they will change their minds and vote for a business-friendly technocrat like Mike Bloomberg, at least not in substantial numbers. But I think Democrats will, especially because there's a nontrivial number of them with an antipathy for Bernie Sanders and another nontrivial number of them with an antipathy for Hillary Clinton.

I think a best-case scenario for a Bloomberg independent run is that nothing changes. But I think there's a substantial chance that he peels off Democrats and the Republicans win with whatever psychopath they still like in November. And I think there's a literally zero percent chance of an independent Bloomberg win, and I think it would be irresponsible of him to run. And yet, perfectly in character for him.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Ini, I respect that opinion, but I fundamentally disagree with it.  I think primary voters are being whipped up by people like Cruz and Trump, but there is the rest of the field that is splitting the "Republican" vote among the remaining "establishment" candidates.  I think a lot of those folks would prefer Bloomberg to pretty much anyone other than, perhaps, Rubio, and many of them don't trust Rubio for various reasons and would be attracted by Bloomberg's, well, efficiency and pragmatism.  I'm also pretty certain that Bloomberg wouldn't run if Hillary is the nominee, btw.  I don't like Hillary AT ALL, but could hold my nose and pull the handle if it was Hillary v. Trump or Cruz.  I think there are plenty of people out there like me.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

8 minutes ago, Inigima said:

I disagree. The Republicans are currently being driven by people who think Donald Trump and Ted Cruz would be great presidents. I do not think they will change their minds and vote for a business-friendly technocrat like Mike Bloomberg, at least not in substantial numbers. But I think Democrats will, especially because there's a nontrivial number of them with an antipathy for Bernie Sanders and another nontrivial number of them with an antipathy for Hillary Clinton.

I think a best-case scenario for a Bloomberg independent run is that nothing changes. But I think there's a substantial chance that he peels off Democrats and the Republicans win with whatever psychopath they still like in November. And I think there's a literally zero percent chance of an independent Bloomberg win, and I think it would be irresponsible of him to run. And yet, perfectly in character for him.

Yes, and- Bloomberg will have very little traction in Republican strongholds because of his socially liberal stances. What he will do is turn the race into a clusterfuck in a handful of Democratic strongholds- NY, PA, & NJ immediately come to mind. If he throws any of those states to Trump the Democrat loses, period. If by a miracle he wins one or more, he might keep anyone from getting an Electoral College majority, which throws the race to the House of Representatives.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I am telling you there is no universe in which I would vote for Bernie Sanders.  There is also no universe in which I would vote for Donald Trump.

I get the Trump thing, but why not Sanders? I ask this, BTW, not as a challenge--I'm not a Sanders supporter--but out of genuine curiosity.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

I get the Trump thing, but why not Sanders? I ask this, BTW, not as a challenge--I'm not a Sanders supporter--but out of genuine curiosity.

I disagree with a majority of Sanders' proposed policies, and for most of the ones that I agree with in principle, I believe that his proposed "solution" is deeply naive and/or has not been adequately described beyond platitudes.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Yes, and- Bloomberg will have very little traction in Republican strongholds because of his socially liberal stances. What he will do is turn the race into a clusterfuck in a handful of Democratic strongholds- NY, PA, & NJ immediately come to mind. If he throws any of those states to Trump the Democrat loses, period. If by a miracle he wins one or more, he might keep anyone from getting an Electoral College majority, which throws the race to the House of Representatives.

It would be awesome if we actually managed to get to a situation where nobody gets a majority in the Electoral College, but I don't see that happening. That said, I suspect that Bloomberg might be able to get a non-trivial fraction of Republicans to vote for him. There is a nice article about the split of the Republican party in The Atlantic. Basically, both parties have a natural conflict between the vast majority of the voters (who are relatively poor or at most middle class) and the people who contribute the overwhelming share of campaign funds (who range from multi-millionaires to multi-billionaires). In the past, the parties have been able to sweep this under the rug by various means, but it looks like for the Republicans, this is no longer possible (the Democrats should still be able to do it for the most part).

[TrackerNeil]

53 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I disagree with a majority of Sanders' proposed policies, and for most of the ones that I agree with in principle, I believe that his proposed "solution" is deeply naive and/or has not been adequately described beyond platitudes.

I can see this, yes. Thanks.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

I can see this, yes. Thanks.

This is a really tough electoral cycle for me.  I had a moment when Rubio started looking reasonable.  Then I realized that I just think he's cute and he's reasonable compared to the other realistic alternatives.  The moment ended.  This leaves me with Clinton, whom I've cordially detested for at least 8 years and probably longer, and Sanders, who I just can't get behind at all.  Of all the choices, if I'm honest, Clinton is probably the least objectionable to me, and that's saying something, because from an integrity point of view, she's . . . .not my favorite.  But as someone who's fairly middle of the road, she is probably my best bet for not upsetting the apple cart one way or another.  Ugh.  I feel like I need a shower now.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

26 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It would be awesome if we actually managed to get to a situation where nobody gets a majority in the Electoral College, but I don't see that happening. That said, I suspect that Bloomberg might be able to get a non-trivial fraction of Republicans to vote for him. There is a nice article about the split of the Republican party in The Atlantic. Basically, both parties have a natural conflict between the vast majority of the voters (who are relatively poor or at most middle class) and the people who contribute the overwhelming share of campaign funds (who range from multi-millionaires to multi-billionaires). In the past, the parties have been able to sweep this under the rug by various means, but it looks like for the Republicans, this is no longer possible (the Democrats should still be able to do it for the most part).

I think it would certainly be very interesting to see no candidate get a majority in the Electoral College. It would also be a travesty. The process for choosing a President under that circumstance manages to be less democratic than the already woefully undemocratic EC- each state gets 1 vote, decided by a majority of its House delegation, putting us at the mercy of gerrymandered Congressional districts, and of course, wildly over representing the populations of small states.

That Atlantic article is interesting, and I don't think it really contradicts what I'm saying. Sure, there will probably be many in the Republican donor class who support Bloomberg. I also believe he will peel away some moderate Republicans where they still exist, in a handful of states. But that article is, if anything, pointing out how unacceptable Bloomberg will be to base voters (to the issues the article raises: he supports free trade, tax cuts to business, wants to cut entitlements, and is pro-immigration). In the places where those voters decide general elections, he won't stand a chance.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I disagree with a majority of Sanders' proposed policies, and for most of the ones that I agree with in principle, I believe that his proposed "solution" is deeply naive and/or has not been adequately described beyond platitudes.

I'm in a somewhat similar boat. The more I look at his proposals, the more I realize that if they were ever enacted (doubtful of course, thanks to the GOP House) I'd be quite a bit worse off than I currently am and I think most of the country would be too. I'd never vote for any of the current GOP candidates though, and I also can't stomach the idea of helping any of them win by wasting my vote on a third party (and since I'm in Virginia, my vote actually somewhat matters). So I'd probably bite my tongue and vote for Sanders anyway.

But if Bloomberg ran and if it looked like he could actually win, I'd definitely vote for him instead. And by the way, this is why I wish we used an instant run-off voting system with rank order preference.

Hopefully Clinton is the nominee though so I don't need to worry about it.

[Altherion]

11 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I think it would certainly be very interesting to see no candidate get a majority in the Electoral College. It would also be a travesty. The process for choosing a President under that circumstance manages to be less democratic than the already woefully undemocratic EC- each state gets 1 vote, decided by a majority of its House delegation, putting us at the mercy of gerrymandered Congressional districts, and of course, wildly over representing the populations of small states.

That Atlantic article is interesting, and I don't think it really contradicts what I'm saying. Sure, there will probably be many in the Republican donor class who support Bloomberg. I also believe he will peel away some moderate Republicans where they still exist, in a handful of states. But that article is, if anything, pointing out how unacceptable Bloomberg will be to base voters (to the issues the article raises: he supports free trade, tax cuts to business, wants to cut entitlements, and is pro-immigration). In the places where those voters decide general elections, he won't stand a chance.

Your description of how the House would choose a President is correct, but did you also see the process for selecting a Vice President? The latter is actually selected by the Senate and under a different set of rules so we might actually get a President and a Vice President from different parties. It would be great.

And yes, Bloomberg is anathema to the GOP primary voters -- not only does he have all of the wrong economic positions, but he also has the wrong social ones. However, he could pick up a substantial number of the wealthier Republicans as well as those Democrats who are dissatisfied with Sanders (or even Clinton, though I suspect he will not run if she wins the primary).

[Inigima]

15 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Your description of how the House would choose a President is correct, but did you also see the process for selecting a Vice President? The latter is actually selected by the Senate and under a different set of rules so we might actually get a President and a Vice President from different parties. It would be great.

And yes, Bloomberg is anathema to the GOP primary voters -- not only does he have all of the wrong economic positions, but he also has the wrong social ones. However, he could pick up a substantial number of the wealthier Republicans as well as those Democrats who are dissatisfied with Sanders (or even Clinton, though I suspect he will not run if she wins the primary).

Why would that be great? The Vice President doesn't actually do that much unless the sitting president dies. A veep with a hostile president would do less.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

16 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Your description of how the House would choose a President is correct, but did you also see the process for selecting a Vice President? The latter is actually selected by the Senate and under a different set of rules so we might actually get a President and a Vice President from different parties. It would be great.

What would be great about that? The Vice Presidency is a stupid, almost always inconsequential office. It would be novel but meaningless.

Quote

And yes, Bloomberg is anathema to the GOP primary voters -- not only does he have all of the wrong economic positions, but he also has the wrong social ones. However, he could pick up a

substantial number of the wealthier Republicans as well as those Democrats who are dissatisfied with Sanders

(or even Clinton, though I suspect he will not run if she wins the primary).

 

Right, which is why I think he could create turmoil in Northeastern Democratic states, but not Southern and Western Republican ones.

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

Who would you have take over for the President if the President dies if not the Vice President?

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Why would that be great? The Vice President doesn't actually do that much unless the sitting president dies. A veep with a hostile president would do less.

Well. It would be kind of hilarious if the Senate was at a 50-50 split and the Vice President kept breaking ties in opposition to what the President wanted.