US Elections: Children of the Revolution

[Maithanet]

10 minutes ago, Notone said:

Which in itself is pretty funny (well at least to me). Just try to remember how long and hard she fought him in '08 almost all the way to the Democratic Convention. It must kinda sting that she is now forced to campaign in his shadow.

But Clinton and Obama were never all that different in terms of policy in 2008.  Plus, she served in his cabinet, so it's not like she'd have any hope of distancing herself from Obama.  It isn't surprising that she is choosing to draft behind him instead. 

[Fez]

From reading the 12th and 20th amendments, the big thing I'm not clear on is, which House would get to vote for President? Is it the lame duck or is it the newly elected one?

Because that could potentially make a big difference, even if Democrats don't take a majority of seats in the House. Its not a regular House vote. Each state's delegation gets a single vote and the delegation members vote amongst themselves to determine how that vote would go. Right now Republicans have a 33-14-3 state delegation lead (there's three tied states), but by my count there's 9 states that have at least one winnable district for Democrats where that's all it would take to swing things to a 24-20-6 delegation stalemate. And it takes a majority of state delegations to get elected.

If no one gets that majority of delegations, than whoever the Senate picks in a simple majority vote to be Vice President-Elect gets to be President-Elect instead. But there's still the issue there of whether its the lame duck senate or the new senate.

The electoral college officially votes on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, which I believe is December 19th this year. Obviously the House and Senate couldn't vote before than, so there's not a lot of time for the lame duck to take action. But I'm not clear if they're even supposed to try (which the Democrats could block anyway, since there needs to be 34 state delegations present for there to be quorum) or if they wait until the new House sits.

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

32 minutes ago, Ser_G said:

Note that, per the constitution, the house could pick literally anyone that's otherwise constitutionally qualified to be president (basically, just the age and citizenship requirements).  There's nothing in there that says it actually has to be someone who ran or got any votes from the EC.  They could pick Carrot Top if they wanted.  So there are hypothetical situations where a 3rd-party spoiler prevents either main candidate from hitting 270 and Romney is elected by Congress (spearheaded by his former running mate) without making a single campaign stop.

This is inaccurate. From the 12th amendment:

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and

if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President

, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [/quote]

 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, BloodRider said:

As much as I love hearing that, I really don't think polls about hypothetical pairings in the GE are just not that predictive - at least not at this stage of the race.

Speaking only of the presidential election.

We all know we ought to discount all national level polls because the national popular vote does not predict voting outcomes accurately because electoral votes are apportioned by states, therefore polls of matchups from state to state are desired for predictive ability.

We also know that during the three months before an election polls do not move substantially towards one candidate or another, that minds are more or less made up and therefore poll movement is usually non-existent or just noise, and undecideds are just minor sorting that more cancels each other out, without substantively moving the margins except in outlier events.

We also know that we are always told that anything before three months has utterly no validity and doesn't matter, don't listen to it, stick your head in the sand, throw the data away (ad nauseum), even if in retrospect that early polling corresponds perfectly to the polls within three months of the election (which as we know, don't substantively change).

This is a completely serious question: 

Given that polls don't change much in the period when they are supposedly valid why do we put such high value on those, but discount polls that ultimately show more or less identical results if they come from outside the valid period?

Basically, I think the science of discarding polling data as irrelevant is completely garbage, and only facilitates the horserace clickbait punditry sites that want to make sure you keep clicking on their sites the entire election cycle.

I think there is validity within state level polls and throwing away data points is extremely bad practice and makes polling seem like a clickbait scam rather than a science.

[Kalbear]

8 hours ago, mormont said:

You're giving Trump way, way more credit than he deserves. Look at his record. If Trump really was this master salesman, how is it that so many of his past attempts to sell things and persuade people have so utterly failed?

 

Trump gets a lot of credit for being a good salesman. He isn't a good businessman, but those are different things. This is pretty clear given his track record of failed businesses. He's great at getting a pitch, getting people on board with him, getting people to go along with some of his fairly clearly asinine plans. When the business fails, well, that's because he's not very good at the nuts and bolts of business. 

But he's very good at convincing people to do that business - and that's being a good salesman. 

If you put him next to Obama I'm not sure Obama would win, because all Trump has to do to 'win' with someone like Obama is provoke an emotional response. Get Obama angry enough and he loses. Obama is one of the best statesmen the world has had in the last 50 years, but the problem with going against Trump is that it isn't statescraft that matters. It's performance. Obama is a good performer, but I'm not sure he wins against Trump there simply because Trump doesn't play that game. 

I heard an article this morning about comparing Trump to Kennedy and how that holds up - how the power of glamour is what powers Trump. In that way, his policies and lack of experience are meaningless, because Trump is selling you on a brand and a feeling. He's not a candidate - he's a mascot. This explains a lot of his businesses too - essentially he's a Disney character selling things. His positions are immaterial in that regard, because they're the positions of who has bought him. 

[aceluby]

25 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

YES. I am finding that some of these Sanders supporters are acting like conservatives: believing claims that have zero factual or historical baseless, acting as if impossible policy objectives are right within grasp, blaming Hillary Clinton for scandals that belong to her husband, assuming that those who do not back their candidate are shills and sellouts...it's distressing and disheartening. 

Many saw the entire primary process to be disheartening.  700+ pledged delegates before a single vote was cast.  DNC at the state level openly supporting Clinton.  Debates set at awful times.  I blame what we're seeing now mostly on the DNC.  They could have done more to ensure that whoever became the nominee would gain the votes of the other.  Instead they assumed the votes would just transfer over and we're now seeing a worse backlash than we did when Obama won over Hillary.

I will definitely vote for her, and think this reaction is frankly stupid, but I do understand where it is coming from and see how people can believe that the DNC isn't listening to them and therefore won't cast a vote their way.  I don't agree with it, but I do understand it to some degree.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

51 minutes ago, Ser_G said:

Note that, per the constitution, the house could pick literally anyone that's otherwise constitutionally qualified to be president (basically, just the age and citizenship requirements).  There's nothing in there that says it actually has to be someone who ran or got any votes from the EC.  They could pick Carrot Top if they wanted.  So there are hypothetical situations where a 3rd-party spoiler prevents either main candidate from hitting 270 and Romney is elected by Congress (spearheaded by his former running mate) without making a single campaign stop.

Wrong.

Quote

Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for president if no candidate for president receives a majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes).

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation votes en bloc – each delegation having a single vote; the District of Columbia does not receive a vote. A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (i.e., at present, a minimum of 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect. Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a president.

The House of Representatives has chosen the president only twice: in 1801 under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 and in 1825 under the Twelfth Amendment.

 

[James Arryn]

30 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

YES. I am finding that some of these Sanders supporters are acting like conservatives: believing claims that have zero factual or historical baseless, acting as if impossible policy objectives are right within grasp, blaming Hillary Clinton for scandals that belong to her husband, assuming that those who do not back their candidate are shills and sellouts...it's distressing and disheartening. 

Not a huge he fan, beyond wanting her to win, but I never understand this one. I know that often it's more about how she treated her husband's accusers, but it also often seems to be pretty directly blaming her for his behaviour. I think some of her supporters also go to weird extremes in the other direction to defend how she apparently did treat those women, but the whole assosciation conversation usually strikes me as bizarre. 

[Shryke]

10 hours ago, Maithanet said:

But Clinton and Obama were never all that different in terms of policy in 2008.  Plus, she served in his cabinet, so it's not like she'd have any hope of distancing herself from Obama.  It isn't surprising that she is choosing to draft behind him instead. 

The fact that they were so close in 2008 policy wise is probably a big part of what made it so vicious cause once you are losing, what are you gonna attack each other on if you have practically the same positions?

[Shryke]

Anyway, speaking of 2008, we've now entered the "Desperate Clinton Bullshit" phase of Sanders' campaign:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/sanders-warns-super-delegates-against-flipping-for-clinton-221005#ixzz43Sz7fQOz

Quote

In an interview with CBS’s "Face The Nation," Sanders said that in states he’s won by wide margins, the superdelegates “should listen to the people in their own state.”

“That is common sense and I think superdelegates should do that,” Sanders said.

As for superdelegates in states Clinton won, Sanders argued they should consider nominating him if he’s in a stronger position to defeat Republican Donald Trump in the general election.

“I think you're going to see some superdelegates saying, 'You know what, I like Hillary Clinton, but I want to win this thing. Bernie is our guy.’”

ie - "If I won your state, you should vote for me because I won your state. If Clinton won your state you should vote for me because I want to win this primary"

It's a load of completely undemocratic horseshit from Sanders, but I guess it's all he's got at this point. He's gonna bullshit this to the convention I guess.

[Shryke]

10 hours ago, aceluby said:

Many saw the entire primary process to be disheartening.  700+ pledged delegates before a single vote was cast.  DNC at the state level openly supporting Clinton.  Debates set at awful times.  I blame what we're seeing now mostly on the DNC.  They could have done more to ensure that whoever became the nominee would gain the votes of the other.  Instead they assumed the votes would just transfer over and we're now seeing a worse backlash than we did when Obama won over Hillary.

I will definitely vote for her, and think this reaction is frankly stupid, but I do understand where it is coming from and see how people can believe that the DNC isn't listening to them and therefore won't cast a vote their way.  I don't agree with it, but I do understand it to some degree.

There weren't any pledged delegates before the first vote was cast because pledged delegates are the ones voted on. And this kind of crap would have some sort of actual merit if Clinton was losing on pledged delegates or on votes, but she's not. She's winning the primary by every democratic measure. Sanders has been forced to fall back to begging the very people you are complaining about to throw him the nomination over the will of the people voting in the primary.

People watched the debates in droves. Sanders has gotten plenty of air-time (of what's left for anyone who isn't Trump anyway). And people are voting.

What you are seeing going on with Sanders supporters is because Sanders has been running an openly and extremely hard anti-DNC/anti-establishment ticket since he figured out that's where the big funding came from. Of course his supporters are continuing to push that narrative.

[Shryke]

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Trump gets a lot of credit for being a good salesman. He isn't a good businessman, but those are different things. This is pretty clear given his track record of failed businesses. He's great at getting a pitch, getting people on board with him, getting people to go along with some of his fairly clearly asinine plans. When the business fails, well, that's because he's not very good at the nuts and bolts of business. 

But he's very good at convincing people to do that business - and that's being a good salesman. 

If you put him next to Obama I'm not sure Obama would win, because all Trump has to do to 'win' with someone like Obama is provoke an emotional response. Get Obama angry enough and he loses. Obama is one of the best statesmen the world has had in the last 50 years, but the problem with going against Trump is that it isn't statescraft that matters. It's performance. Obama is a good performer, but I'm not sure he wins against Trump there simply because Trump doesn't play that game. 

Of course he wins against Trump. Because Trump is a thin-skinned insecure bully. He's a good salesman but he's not good at keeping control. He doesn't deal well with being challenged or questioned. He's bad on his feet when challenged on actual details of anything and can't stand people who mock him.

You think you are gonna get an emotional response out of Obama before you get one out of Trump? Man, what?

 

Quote

I heard an article this morning about comparing Trump to Kennedy and how that holds up - how the power of glamour is what powers Trump. In that way, his policies and lack of experience are meaningless, because Trump is selling you on a brand and a feeling. He's not a candidate - he's a mascot. This explains a lot of his businesses too - essentially he's a Disney character selling things. His positions are immaterial in that regard, because they're the positions of who has bought him.

Yes, this is Trump's business strategy. He sells his brand and nothing else but he's good at selling his brand.

The problem for Trump is this only holds up while no one is talking back to you. There's no substance there to fall back on when you push him on details and so you see him stumble.

[Shryke]

26 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Given that the entire Democratic primary has been comprised of undemocratic bullshit in favor of Clinton, I think it's only fair if Bernie gets to participate in the action a bit.

Yeah man, all that undemocratic ... voting.

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

You think you are gonna get an emotional response out of Obama before you get one out of Trump? Man, what?

 

 

The issue isn't that you get an emotional response out of Obama first. The issue is that Trump lives on that level - an emotional response doesn't harm him- whereas Obama built his entire image about being a smooth suave operator and losing his cool could seriously harm his image.

I'm pretty sure that's more or less what Kalbear was saying too. I'm not sure that a fresh Obama would certainly have lost to Trump but I think he'd have been overcoming problems to win.

[Myshkin]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Given that the entire Democratic primary has been comprised of undemocratic bullshit in favor of Clinton, I think it's only fair if Bernie gets to participate in the action a bit.

Yeah, don't let the two and a half million more votes she's gotten than Sanders fool you, this primary is as undemocratic as it gets. If the DNC would just do the right thing and stop black people, Hispanics, and anyone over thirty-five from voting Bernie would win easily. And you know what? Southern states shouldn't get delegates anyway, because fuck 'em, they were part of the Confederacy. 

And let's talk about those superdelegates, even though at the moment THEY DON'T MATTER AT ALL. You know why almost every single one of them has gone to Clinton? It's not some nefarious establishment conspiracy; it's the fact that Clinton has been out there campaigning and fundraising for the party and its candidates. She works her ass off to get Democrats elected. It astounds me that Bernie complains about a lack of support from a party he largely ignores.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

The issue isn't that you get an emotional response out of Obama first. The issue is that Trump lives on that level - an emotional response doesn't harm him- whereas Obama built his entire image about being a smooth suave operator and losing his cool could seriously harm his image.

I'm pretty sure that's more or less what Kalbear was saying too. I'm not sure that a fresh Obama would certainly have lost to Trump but I think he'd have been overcoming problems to win.

Sure it does. You just need to get the right kind. No one in any of the debates or interviews has really been pushing his buttons. Except, say, Megyn Kelly who he is still mad at which kinda gives you an idea of how thin-skinned and easy to rattle the guy is.

A good debater like Obama or Clinton would have him doing something stupid pretty easily and while his base may love it the rest of the public will not.

Y'all keep trying to build Trump up like he's this consummate operator. Have you watched the guy? Listened to the guy? He's an idiot who can't take criticism and can't react on his feet and so just falls back on "I'll have top men on it!" every time and has a fragile ego.

Don't confuse an ability to sell his image to a slice of the american public with skill or poise or good image.

[Shryke]

Like, here's a good example from Elizabeth Warren:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-tweetstorm

Of how easy Trump is to hit.

[mormont]

14 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Trump gets a lot of credit for being a good salesman. He isn't a good businessman, but those are different things. This is pretty clear given his track record of failed businesses. He's great at getting a pitch, getting people on board with him, getting people to go along with some of his fairly clearly asinine plans. When the business fails, well, that's because he's not very good at the nuts and bolts of business. 

If you look at those businesses, they failed for many reasons (poor market research, for example) but a big part of why they all failed was that they largely relied on Trump personally as a salesman and he really wasn't any good at it. The basic business model in all cases was the same: sell product X on the strength of Donald Trump telling people it was great. Each time, customers decided to pass.

Pitching ideas to investors is one thing, a thing not particularly relevant to this election. Winning over the general public is another. This campaign is, in the context of Donald Trump's career, an exception, not the rule.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

Trump's speech at AIPAC was mesmerizing. So many standing ovations. Far more than Hillary got.  And regressive leftists called him Hitler. Sad!

[Guess who's back]

1 hour ago, Stan the Man Baratheon said:

Sad!

I laugh every time I see this.