US Election: To NY and Beyond

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

30 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

I figure Trump is one major Islamic terrorist attack away from the presidency.

Yes absolutely.

Islamic terrorist attack on USA will just prove and validate what Trump is saying is the truth. To be honest a terrorist attack in Canada as well will help Trump.

[DireWolfSpirit]

12 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

There can be a none of the above option. And you could have a rule where if that option was the plurality opinion, that all the candidates get dumped and a new slate is proposed. 

^^^ I still like the idea of it. If the state were making voting mandatory, then they would get little sympathy from me over it being difficult to produce candidates that cannot poll above a default position like (none of the above). Absent that, i'd prefer to not be coerced/mandated  into voting and keep the system that allows citizens to freely choose to vote or not vote.

I'm sceptical a mandatory vote law would survive a constitutional challenge anyways.

[The Marquis de Leech]

13 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

No I consider the problem a candidate with less than a majority of votes cast being the winner, so there would have to be that provision similar to what Tywin described ( If majority is none of the above, then none of the above is the winner, thats what I would favor.)

Um, the objection I was replying to was you complaining about "being forced to vote for someone you don't want" (cue banana republic/totalitarian imagery).

I was pointing out that in the western democracy that most notably does have compulsory voting (Australia), spoiling the ballot remains a perfectly valid option.

[Stan the Man Baratheon]

 

29 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Um, the objection I was replying to was you complaining about "being forced to vote for someone you don't want" (cue banana republic/totalitarian imagery).

I was pointing out that in the western democracy that most notably does have compulsory voting (Australia), spoiling the ballot remains a perfectly valid option.

I think compulsory voting is useless if you follow the FPTP model. Preference model is far superior than the joke most """""democratic""""" countries follow. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

8 minutes ago, Stan the Man Baratheon said:

I think compulsory voting is useless if you follow the FPTP model. Preference model is far superior than the joke most """""democratic""""" countries follow. 

Canada, the US, and UK (at Westminster) have FPP, yes. We don't, you don't, and continental Europe doesn't.

(Also I fail to see the connection between compulsory voting and preference voting). 

[DireWolfSpirit]

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Um, the objection I was replying to was you complaining about "being forced to vote for someone you don't want" (cue banana republic/totalitarian imagery).

I was pointing out that in the western democracy that most notably does have compulsory voting (Australia), spoiling the ballot remains a perfectly valid option.

I know that, but when you added "problem solved" on the end, I wanted to point out it didnt solve my problem with it (compulsary voting). This entire exchange began when I questioned whether mandatory voting was coercize and said i'd prefer to maintain the freedom to not vote if I do not want to. A quick google search, indeed, shows that there is a robust debate whether mandatory voting would even prove constitutional in the U.S.

I remain opposed to mandatory voting, however Tywins post highlights that very interesting idea of having the "none of the above" option and requires a sucessful candidate to poll above that default position of "none of the above."

I merely stated I liked such an option and 50 questions later i'm told liking the idea in Tywins post is tortured logic. Fine if one doesnt like the idea, I do. But if the state isnt mandating voting (compulsary) then it's a mute question and one wouldnt need to bother with the torture of it anyways. Again I doubt it would ever survive getting struck down in the courts, but we dont really know at this point?

I remain against compulsary voting in the U.S. outside any extraordinary provision to it like the following- "There can be a none of the above option. And you could have a rule where if that option was the plurality opinion, that all the candidates get dumped and a new slate is proposed. "

I'm not going to entertain anymore questions on the subject it's beyond redundant at this point.

[Darzin]

For the people pointing out how everyone underestimated Donald Trump's chances to get the nomination I feel this Vox article shows why despite all the failed predictions, he still will not win the general. People were predicting he would fail based on his weaknesses but the Republicans can't attack most of his greates flaws. 

Quote

here are three main problems with Donald Trump as a candidate for national office, none of which can be effectively exploited by the Republican Party but all of which can be exploited by Clinton. The problems are:

• Trump is a racist.
• Trump's business record is unimpressive and ethically dodgy.
• Trump's policy ideas are terrible.

There is simply no reason to believe that this is what the American people are looking for.

The problem Republicans have is that is that these flaws are not flaws a Republican Party politician can effectively articulate to an audience of Republican Party primary voters.

• Republican Party primary voters think that white people being shamed for racism is a bigger problem than white people doing racist stuff.
• Republican Party elites are ideologically committed to the defense of inherited wealth and opposed to the regulation of business in the public interest.
• Republican Party elites essentially share Trump's least popular and most obviously ridiculous policy idea — an enormous tax cut for the rich — so they can't criticize it.

This has left them resorting to a smorgasbord of hypocritical arguments and opportunistic cheap shots that don't have a clear takeaway, occasionally punctuated with the observation that Trump does not rigidly adhere to the GOP donor class's policy preference.

 

Quote

That's why Republicans haven't stopped Trump so far, and it's why they won't be able to stop him in the future. To beat him, Republicans either need to replace their voters or adjust GOP ideological orthodoxy. They can't do the former and won't do the latter, so they will lose.

Clinton is not constrained in these ways, so she — and at this point only she — can stop Trump and keep him out of the White House.

I don't think Clinton will have a problem in the general. Trumps is a weak candidate and he will terrify the Democrats into having high turnout. Not to mention the high chance he makes multiple sexist gaffes when challenged by Clinton. 

[TrackerNeil]

35 minutes ago, Darzin said:

For the people pointing out how everyone underestimated Donald Trump's chances to get the nomination I feel this Vox article shows why despite all the failed predictions, he still will not win the general. People were predicting he would fail based on his weaknesses but the Republicans can't attack most of his greates flaws. 

I don't think Clinton will have a problem in the general. Trumps is a weak candidate and he will terrify the Democrats into having high turnout. Not to mention the high chance he makes multiple sexist gaffes when challenged by Clinton. 

Agreed. Republicans won't go after Trump for being racist because the party relies upon racists, but Clinton is not so limited. Trump's a disastrous nominee, simply disastrous. When the previous nominee is calling the current nominee a dirtbag, your party has a serious problem.

And I think people get too wrapped up in the various "scandals" that surround Clinton, most of which are either unsupported or are more properly laid at the feet of her husband. Come August Democrats (yes, even those who voted for Sanders) will rally around Clinton because 1) that's what parties do with their nominee; and 2) Trump will engender widespread disgust.

[Fez]

22 hours ago, Fez said:

My predictions are:

Pennsylvania: Clinton +12, Trump +25

Maryland: Clinton +30, Trump +20

Delaware: Clinton +20, Trump +20

Connecticut: Clinton +7, Trump +25

Rhode Island: Clinton +1, Trump +20

Actual:

PA: Clinton +12, Trump +35 (over the 2nd place finisher)

MD: Clinton +30, Trump +35

DE: Clinton +21, Trump +41

CT: Clinton +5, Trump +29

RI: Sanders +12, Trump +40

So I was way off-base with just how large the Trump blowouts would be, but I think most people didn't expect him to quite as well as he did. I'm pretty surprised at how well I did predicting 4 of the 5 Democratic races though. I'm still a little surprised by Rhode Island though; really thought it would go as Massachusetts had.

Barring something extraordinary though, I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim the races aren't over now on both sides. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

5 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

 When the previous nominee is calling the current nominee a dirtbag, your party has a serious problem.

I think it's quite clear that the Republican Establishment is going to do to Trump what the Democratic Establishment did to George McGovern. They'll sit on their hands, let him crash and burn, and then focus on 2020.

[Altherion]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

Barring something extraordinary though, I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim the races aren't over now on both sides.

The Democrat race is over (and has been over since NY). The Republican race is definitely not over yet. That is, it is guaranteed that nobody except Trump can get half the delegates and it is practically certain that nobody can catch up to Trump (Cruz is now roughly 400 delegates behind him), but it is not obvious that Trump will be able to get to 1237 which means that the Republican establishment can still try to take the nomination away from him with convention shenanigans. That said, even Nate Silver seems to be coming around to Trump, albeit with the caveat that Trump needs to do well in Indiana.

[Fez]

29 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The Democrat race is over (and has been over since NY). The Republican race is definitely not over yet. That is, it is guaranteed that nobody except Trump can get half the delegates and it is practically certain that nobody can catch up to Trump (Cruz is now roughly 400 delegates behind him), but it is not obvious that Trump will be able to get to 1237 which means that the Republican establishment can still try to take the nomination away from him with convention shenanigans. That said, even Nate Silver seems to be coming around to Trump, albeit with the caveat that Trump needs to do well in Indiana.

Maybe. I'm one of those who believes though that Trump will win on the first ballot even if he's 40-50 delegates short. Enough of the unbound PA delegates and the handful of other unbound delegates would still feel obligated to vote for him at this point. And unless Cruz sweeps Indiana (doubtful), I don't see how Trump doesn't get to at 1190 or so at this point.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Just now, Fez said:

Maybe. I'm one of those who believes though that You-Know-Who will win on the first ballot even if he's 40-50 delegates short. Enough of the unbound PA delegates and the handful of other unbound delegates would still feel obligated to vote for him at this point. And unless Cruz sweeps Indiana (doubtful), I don't see how You-Know-Who doesn't get to at 1190 or so at this point.

Yep. The closer Trump gets to 1237, the more a contested convention would look like theft. Cruz could get away with it if Trump is a fair way short, but if it's a handful? Nah, the delegates will swallow their pride and vote for Trump.

[Balefont]

7 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It's looking like he won't, at all. Typically candidates do so when it's clear that they won't get the funding, but Sanders is getting even more funding despite it looking more and more like he's a huge loser. So there's no reason for him to get out other than it being the right thing to do. 

Which is becoming more and more clear that he is uninterested in doing.

With all due respect, kal, that's your opinion.  I appreciate that he is sticking around to keep the dialogue open for the disenfranchised left. 

[Balefont]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

So I was way off-base with just how large the Trump blowouts would be, but I think most people didn't expect him to quite as well as he did. I'm pretty surprised at how well I did predicting 4 of the 5 Democratic races though. I'm still a little surprised by Rhode Island though; really thought it would go as Massachusetts had.

Barring something extraordinary though, I don't see how anyone can reasonably claim the races aren't over now on both sides. 

The other Republican candidates virtually ignored the northeast. 

 

My state (RI) is one of the most politically corrupt and we are still clawing our way out of the 2008 mess.  We have no industry besides tourism and our governor's disdain for our state is appalling.  We are pissed at the establishment so naturally our state went with the two candidates that best represent anti-establishment positions.   

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Balefont said:

With all due respect, kal, that's your opinion.  I appreciate that he is sticking around to keep the dialogue open for the disenfranchised left. 

I hope more than that is accomplished. Jamelle Bouie has opined--and I agree with him--that since the Sanders candidacy has failed, it's time to work on the Sanders movement. If he can get his people to the polls to support progressive candidates and ballot initiatives, he can make a real impact on the nation. He's got to stomp out that "Bernie or Bust" stuff, though.

[Balefont]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

I hope more than that is accomplished. Jamelle Bouie has opined--and I agree with him--that since the Sanders candidacy has failed, it's time to work on the Sanders movement. If he can get his people to the polls to support progressive candidates and ballot initiatives, he can make a real impact on the nation. He's got to stomp out that "Bernie or Bust" stuff, though.

That will be lovely.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Agreed. Republicans won't go after Trump for being racist because the party relies upon racists, but Clinton is not so limited. Trump's a disastrous nominee, simply disastrous. When the previous nominee is calling the current nominee a dirtbag, your party has a serious problem.

It's possible that he winds up being a disaster. It's also possible that Clinton will be severely damaged during the election to the point that her presidency will suffer greatly. I think it's abundantly clear at this point that Trump is going to try to drag Clinton down into the mud and let the chips fall where they will. 

[TrackerNeil]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's possible that he winds up being a disaster. It's also possible that Clinton will be severely damaged during the election to the point that her presidency will suffer greatly. I think it's abundantly clear at this point that Trump is going to try to drag Clinton down into the mud and let the chips fall where they will. 

People have been slinging mud at the Clintons for twenty-plus years, so I am not concerned to see The Donald reach for another handful. When Clinton is indicted for the email thing, or Benghazi, or any of the hundred other things people think she's done, I'll worry; until then, I'm going to assume it's the same conservative witch-hunting that too many Sanders supporters have unfortunately bought into.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

People have been slinging mud at the Clintons for twenty-plus years, so I am not concerned to see The Donald reach for another handful. When Clinton is indicted for the email thing, or Benghazi, or any of the hundred other things people think she's done, I'll worry; until then, I'm going to assume it's the same conservative witch-hunting that too many Sanders supporters have unfortunately bought into.

Trump is the world's greatest troll and he has no shame. He will hit her harder than anyone ever has and given her perceived issues with trustworthiness, it could harm her presidency.