U.S Elections, The Ides of March; Et tu Ohio?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

MC,

Hispanics. You definitely forgot Hispanics. And really anyone who is here illegally. And the U.S. citizens who are children of anyone here illegally. 

[Howdyphillip]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

HP,

Not at all.  Are you cool with the major parties having control over who is entitled to funding to run for office?  That's what happens when you give them power to decide who gets funding to run for office.

[Howdyphillip]

Damn it... Another post is eaten up in the new format...

 

The jist of what I am trying to say is that politics, by its very nature, is going to be corruptible. I would rather that corruption take place under the watchful eye of public funding than how it is handled now where corporations can easily buy elections.

I want to see 100% public funding, and no more than a three month campaign.  

[Veloknight]

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

So, registration deadline approaching for my state primaries.  Should I re-register democrat or republican (primaries are closed; I maintain an independent registration usually)?  It's a real dilemma.  My state will go blue no matter what, so I'm inclined to register repub. to cast a protest vote against Trump, but I also have views on who I would prefer the dem. nomination to go to.

One thing to keep in mind, not just for you: in a proportional system, your vote always matters. For all the attention to Bernie winning this or Hillary wining that, the really important thing is how many people voted for each, because under a proportional system, that's where their delegate share will go. That means that a state could go for Hillary, and yet additional votes for her might still increase her delegate total (and likewise with Bernie). In a fully proportional system of representation, there's really no such thing as a wasted vote. Based on the other commenters, it sound like NY might not be fully proportional, so your mileage may vary.

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I disagree. I don't see why Republicans should be choosing Democratic candidates, and vice versa.

Absolutely.  I also have a problem with "jungle primaries" - just about the worst election reform I can think of. Why should a major party have a standard bearer forced on them in a mixed election with other parties? Beyond that, why go to such lengths in service of single-member first-past-the-post races, when multi-member districts let you have proportional representation and all sorts of other alternatives?

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why the hell are States funding the two major party primaries?  Is that not, by definition, a violation of "equal protection" because only the Democratic and Republicans have this little perk?  If they don't do it for everyone, equal protection is violated.  Further, if only party members are allowed to vote in particular primaries how is that not an equal protection violation?

The state has a vested interest in democracy by nature, though. If the major parties can choose their candidates however they want, they could (in theory) just decide not to bother with primaries, and instead have conventions that decide their candidates, as was done in the past. Depending on how good they were at politics, they might not even suffer any consequences for it if the opposition was sufficiently unpalatable. I certainly think the current system is more preferable to the days of state party power brokers and smoky backrooms.

[Altherion]

36 minutes ago, mormont said:

By 'asking for protesters at his rallies to be removed', I assume you're referring to the multiple occasions on which he's encouraged people to beat them up?

Yes. Perhaps "asking for protesters to be removed roughly" would have been more appropriate, but in any case this is a localized phenomenon directed at people who directly oppose him rather than demonization of entire groups of people (a-la the "welfare queen").

Quote

 

There's not a chance that Trump is worse on those issues. It is a fact that he is worse on every single one.

 

How do you know? All you have seen of him is his stage persona. It is not an entirely pleasant persona, but it's accomplishing its purpose. Do you realize how difficult it is to do what Trump has done? American politics is dominated by money and by incumbency (but mostly money). If you are not the incumbent or a senior politician in the state you are competing (e.g. Senator running for Governor or vice versa), you cannot win without spending, if not the most money, at least an amount comparable to the person who spent the most. For a political novice to win a national race while spending 5-10 times less than his competitors is unheard of, especially given that he didn't even hold half the positions of the party he is running to lead prior to joining the race.

Now, there is a chance that this persona is really how Trump behaves. That is, rather than doing this by design, he simply happened to be a boorish individual uniquely suited to this specific race. If this is so, he will lose to Clinton by 10% or perhaps even more and I will not vote for him. However, based on what I've read of him and based on his actions during the campaign, I doubt this is the case. If he wins the primary, I fully expect him to "evolve" quite a bit more before the general election.

Quote

Again, you're willing to vote for Trump on the basis of a one in million chance it might work out, but won't vote for Clinton because there's a 70% chance it won't. Your opinions on these two candidates aren't in any way rational. Accept that. Embrace it. You just dig Trump and hate Clinton. He appeals to you in ways she doesn't. I strongly suspect many of these relate to the pronouns, but whatever. The point is, you don't have - and have shown you don't have - any rational justification for this preference.

No. Clinton is predictable. I suppose that there is some chance that she will betray Goldman Sachs and the rest of the major corporations who have financed her ascent, but to put that probability at 30% is absurd -- I would put it at significantly less than 1%. Trump is not nearly as predictable: he has detailed a single position to an extent where its implementation would be even semi-realistic and most of them are very nearly fantastical.

[Ormond]

Can I point out that in states where smaller parties have qualified for the ballot, the state governments DO hold primaries for them, too?

On March 15 both Missouri and North Carolina conducted primaries for the Libertarian Party, for instance.

http://amthirdpartyreport.com/2016/03/17/results-of-missouri-and-north-carolina-libertarian-party-presidential-primaries/

I am very sympathetic to the idea that laws in most states make it too hard for smaller parties to qualify for the ballot. But when they do, they certainly can hold paid-for-by-the-state primaries along with the two big parties.

[Veloknight]

2 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Can I point out that in states where smaller parties have qualified for the ballot, the state governments DO hold primaries for them, too?

On March 15 both Missouri and North Carolina conducted primaries for the Libertarian Party, for instance.

http://amthirdpartyreport.com/2016/03/17/results-of-missouri-and-north-carolina-libertarian-party-presidential-primaries/

I am very sympathetic to the idea that laws in most states make it too hard for smaller parties to qualify for the ballot. But when they do, they certainly can hold paid-for-by-the-state primaries along with the two big parties.

I agree that the laws are too tough on 3rd parties, but I also feel like all of this is a nonissue unless we move constitutions away from models where Duverger's Law is relevant. Assuming you can get it by the federal Constitution's Guaranty Clause, I see no reason why we can't have states try out legislatures that are proportionally elected in multi-member districts. I'd also love to see what a parliamentary executive might look like at the state level in the US, but I suspect that would be an inevitable outcome of a proportionally elected legislature, which would now have far more democratic legitimacy.

[TrackerNeil]

15 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You have huge favoritism provided to the two major parties by having the State itself endorse the existing structure and not just hold, but pays for, elections for the two major parties nominees in these primaries.  

If the State offers this benefit to the Democratic and Republican parties why is it not offered to the Libertarian, Green, and American Communist parties as well.

As for the "you can register as X and be allowed to vote" argument how is that different from telling a homosexual they can marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex?  

Maybe because, unlike party registration, you can't switch your sexual orientation by completing a form?

Look, you can legitimately complain about the dominance of the two-party system, but I don't think opening the primaries really changes that. It just provides more opportunity to game the two-party system.

[Shryke]

So this is disgusting to find out about:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/how-donald-trump-bent-television-to-his-will#.onOnbl2mY

Quote

 

Network officials say the ratings have born out commercial incentives to devote their campaign coverage to largely unfiltered streams of Trump talking. Trump’s presence in the race has also been good for local television stations who reap the benefits of increased spending on advertisements. CBS CEO Les Moonves quipped that Trump “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS, that’s all I got to say.”

But many inside the networks are growing increasingly disturbed with what they’ve helped create.

 

Quote

 

Trump fever continued into the fall, even as challenges emerged between the networks and the Trump campaign over press access at the candidate’s rallies. After several incidents of Trump campaign aides threatening to revoke credentials for reporters who left the fenced-in press pen, representatives from ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Fox News, and CNN organized a conference call with Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to negotiate access.

According to two sources familiar with the call, the Trump campaign, citing security concerns from Secret Service, dictated to the networks that their camera crews can only shoot Trump head-on from a fenced-in press pen.

Under the Trump campaign’s conditions, camera crews would not be able to leave the press pen during Trump’s rallies to capture video of audience reactions, known in the industry as “cutaway shots” or “cuts.” Networks would also not be able to use a separate riser set up to get cutaway shots.

The terms, which limit the access journalists have to supporters and protesters while Trump is speaking, are unprecedented, and are more restrictive than those put on the networks by the White House or Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which has had Secret Service protection for its duration.

Facing the risk of losing their credentialed access to Trump’s events, the networks capitulated. They did, however, get one concession: When Trump finishes speaking, one person with a camera is allowed to exit the press pen to capture him shaking hands on the ropeline while he exits. That footage is then shared among the networks.

When Trump complains that the media does not “turn the cameras” to show the size of his crowds, it’s because, unless they turn or zoom out the head on camera, there is no separate angle to show the crowd.

 

Yup, that's right. The reason the media covers Trump rallies the way they do is because he told them to and they obeyed because they are spineless pieces of crap.

The media has been fucking abominable this cycle. Even worse then usual. Just sickening how they've done alot of the heavy lifting in pushing an authoritarian fascist into prominence and likely the nomination of one of the two major parties. And completely uncritically.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

54 minutes ago, Shryke said:

So this is disgusting to find out about:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/how-donald-trump-bent-television-to-his-will#.onOnbl2mY

Yup, that's right. The reason the media covers Trump rallies the way they do is because he told them to and they obeyed because they are spineless pieces of crap.

The media has been fucking abominable this cycle. Even worse then usual. Just sickening how they've done alot of the heavy lifting in pushing an authoritarian fascist into prominence and likely the nomination of one of the two major parties. And completely uncritically.

Fucking lemmings. Walter Cronkite wouldn't bother crossing the street to piss on 'em if they were on fire. 

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Peaceful liberals outside Trump's rally!

[Bonesy]

Oh good. Stan is back.

I kneel at your throne of wisdom and kiss the feet of the voice of reason.

[HexMachina]

9 hours ago, Altherion said:

Yes. Perhaps "asking for protesters to be removed roughly" would have been more appropriate, but in any case this is a localized phenomenon directed at people who directly oppose him rather than demonization of entire groups of people (a-la the "welfare queen").

How do you know? All you have seen of him is his stage persona. It is not an entirely pleasant persona, but it's accomplishing its purpose. Do you realize how difficult it is to do what Trump has done? American politics is dominated by money and by incumbency (but mostly money). If you are not the incumbent or a senior politician in the state you are competing (e.g. Senator running for Governor or vice versa), you cannot win without spending, if not the most money, at least an amount comparable to the person who spent the most. For a political novice to win a national race while spending 5-10 times less than his competitors is unheard of, especially given that he didn't even hold half the positions of the party he is running to lead prior to joining the race.

Now, there is a chance that this persona is really how Trump behaves. That is, rather than doing this by design, he simply happened to be a boorish individual uniquely suited to this specific race. If this is so, he will lose to Clinton by 10% or perhaps even more and I will not vote for him. However, based on what I've read of him and based on his actions during the campaign, I doubt this is the case. If he wins the primary, I fully expect him to "evolve" quite a bit more before the general election.

No. Clinton is predictable. I suppose that there is some chance that she will betray Goldman Sachs and the rest of the major corporations who have financed her ascent, but to put that probability at 30% is absurd -- I would put it at significantly less than 1%. Trump is not nearly as predictable: he has detailed a single position to an extent where its implementation would be even semi-realistic and most of them are very nearly fantastical.

So? That's he only persona he is showing. Any assessments of him are obviously and rightly going to be based on that.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, Bonesy said:

Oh good. Stan is back.

I kneel at your throne of wisdom and kiss the feet of the voice of reason.

You are aware, that "throne of Stan's" is probably porcelain one, and that sound  is not exactly a voice of reason. And no, that'S not scepter.

(sorry, the opportunity to make that childish joke was too good to pass, and I simply could not resist).

[James Arryn]

12 hours ago, Altherion said:

Yes. Perhaps "asking for protesters to be removed roughly" would have been more appropriate, but in any case this is a localized phenomenon directed at people who directly oppose him rather than demonization of entire groups of people (a-la the "welfare queen").

How do you know? All you have seen of him is his stage persona. It is not an entirely pleasant persona, but it's accomplishing its purpose. Do you realize how difficult it is to do what Trump has done? American politics is dominated by money and by incumbency (but mostly money). If you are not the incumbent or a senior politician in the state you are competing (e.g. Senator running for Governor or vice versa), you cannot win without spending, if not the most money, at least an amount comparable to the person who spent the most. For a political novice to win a national race while spending 5-10 times less than his competitors is unheard of, especially given that he didn't even hold half the positions of the party he is running to lead prior to joining the race.

Now, there is a chance that this persona is really how Trump behaves. That is, rather than doing this by design, he simply happened to be a boorish individual uniquely suited to this specific race. If this is so, he will lose to Clinton by 10% or perhaps even more and I will not vote for him. However, based on what I've read of him and based on his actions during the campaign, I doubt this is the case. If he wins the primary, I fully expect him to "evolve" quite a bit more before the general election.

No. Clinton is predictable. I suppose that there is some chance that she will betray Goldman Sachs and the rest of the major corporations who have financed her ascent, but to put that probability at 30% is absurd -- I would put it at significantly less than 1%. Trump is not nearly as predictable: he has detailed a single position to an extent where its implementation would be even semi-realistic and most of them are very nearly fantastical.

So you're supporting a guy for President on the belief that he isn't what he says he is and won't do what he says he'll do? Because you have worked out a way of determining what's really behind the image he's presenting. Do you have any idea how insane that sounds?

What sounds less insane is that you like him because of the things he says/wants to do. I don't think you're insane. I think if we made a list of the things he's said he'll do, you're not so much against most of them. You've already said the wall would be great and you're down for at least temporarily legalizing religious descrimination. How about torturing suspected terrorists and/or their families? How about people of certain ethnicity/origin being on a registry?

Again, not 'does my special insight tell me whether he means it', but how are you with the ideas themselves? I think, like the other two, you're not really opposed and that your attraction to him is not so much in spite of what he says, but because of what he says. 

[Guess who's back]

36 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So you're supporting a guy for President on the belief that he isn't what he says he is and won't do what he says he'll do? Because you have worked out a way of determining what's really behind the image he's presenting. Do you have any idea how insane that sounds?

Reminds me of that one Nobel peace prize winning president. 

[mormont]

17 hours ago, Altherion said:

Yes. Perhaps "asking for protesters to be removed roughly" would have been more appropriate, but in any case this is a localized phenomenon directed at people who directly oppose him rather than demonization of entire groups of people (a-la the "welfare queen").

Are you suggesting that Trump does not demonise entire groups?

17 hours ago, Altherion said:

How do you know?

To be completely fair, I'm basing that only one two sources of information:

- everything Donald Trump has ever said, and

- everything Donald Trump has ever done.

17 hours ago, Altherion said:

Do you realize how difficult it is to do what Trump has done?

For most people? Almost impossible.

For an extremely wealthy individual with a public media profile extending back for over three decades? Not difficult.

17 hours ago, Altherion said:

I suppose that there is some chance that she will betray Goldman Sachs and the rest of the major corporations who have financed her ascent, but to put that probability at 30% is absurd -- I would put it at significantly less than 1%.

Oh, well, in that case your position is totally rational, because 1 in 100 is a lot less than 1 in 1,000,000.

17 hours ago, Altherion said:

Trump is not nearly as predictable: he has detailed a single position to an extent where its implementation would be even semi-realistic and most of them are very nearly fantastical.

Your argument here is literally that you believe he's likely to do something because you have no idea what he's likely to do.

[Altherion]

11 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

So? That's he only persona he is showing. Any assessments of him are obviously and rightly going to be based on that.

8 hours ago, James Arryn said:

So you're supporting a guy for President on the belief that he isn't what he says he is and won't do what he says he'll do? Because you have worked out a way of determining what's really behind the image he's presenting. Do you have any idea how insane that sounds?

2 hours ago, mormont said:

To be completely fair, I'm basing that only one two sources of information:

- everything Donald Trump has ever said, and

- everything Donald Trump has ever done.

I'm going to address all three of these together because at the heart of them is the same fundamental disagreement. All of you are judging Trump by how he is acting -- what he has said, what he has done, his mannerisms and so on. When I was younger, I used to judge politicians this way too, but then I noticed that it doesn't actually correlate too well with how they will behave once they reach office. First, they can outright lie and practically all of them do (though some do it more often than others). Second, they can try to get something they've promised done, but just hard enough to say that they've tried and nowhere near enough for success. For example, they can craft a proposal which somehow manages to command bipartisan opposition and then when 90 Senators vote against it, they say "Well, I tried, but Congress blocked me. Let's move on." Third, the devil is in the details: a good idea can be made a great deal worse due to a bad implementation. For example, they may implement a popular law, but in a divisive way which unambiguously benefits only industry and perhaps a small fraction of the population at the expense of a different fraction of the population. Finally, there is distraction: they can do something big and unanticipated (e.g. start a war) which stops people from thinking about what they had said.

Of course, it does occasionally happen that what they say when campaigning is actually a heartfelt position which they will not compromise on. If history doesn't exaggerate too much, it is also true that there used to be leaders (e.g. the two Roosevelts) who were somewhat more truthful than the current crop of candidates. However, for modern politicians, what they say and do on the campaign trail is at best a tertiary factor. It is much more important to understand which section of the ruling class is supporting them. The obviously important question is who is financing their campaign (here's an overview, there are more detailed articles about each of them elsewhere). Less obvious and less important, but nevertheless still more valuable than whatever it is they say is the reaction of the rest of the ruling class: who endorses them and at which point, what do the various media channels say of them and so on.

By these standards, Trump and Sanders are mysteries: they are not beholden to any big donors and while they do have some endorsements, these are far fewer and far less significant than one would expect for a front-runner and one of the final two competitors (respectively). What they've said is not very helpful either since practically all of it is highly implausible at best and is almost certainly something intended to gather supporters rather than something they plan to pursue should they be elected.

[Myshkin]

So since the March 15th primaries I've seen a lot of optimistic stuff about Bernie's path going forward. Most of this optimism centers on California. Can anyone explain to me why Sanders supporters seem so sure that he'll win, and win big, in CA? I'm a lifelong Californian, and I just don't see it.

[IamMe90]

3 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

So since the March 15th primaries I've seen a lot of optimistic stuff about Bernie's path going forward. Most of this optimism centers on California. Can anyone explain to me why Sanders supporters seem so sure that he'll win, and win big, in CA? I'm a lifelong Californian, and I just don't see it.

It's nothing but delusion, and this is coming from a Sanders supporter. It just ain't happening.