U.S. Elections: Orange is the New Wack

[OnionAhaiReborn]

18 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

The biggest problem with 3rd Parties are that they only get discussed during the Presidential election years and nearly nothing for the other three years in terms of organizing or anything.  I never quite get how people think that some simple enthusiasm or wanting to just make a pick you agree with will be enough and no need for a organized campaign .  It will always appear for me that sentiments are nice but those involved are not really serious for it may start to puncture their perfect idealism. 

They don't go away, you probably just don't hear about them (because they're not getting the free media that their Presidential candidates get) in midterm election years. For example- Gary Johnson won .99% and Jill Stein won .36% of the vote in 2012. In 2014 midterm House races Libertarians won 1.2% and Greens won .3% nationwide. So they performed about the same in off years, a little better in the case of Libertarians and a little worse in the case of Greens. 

The real biggest problem with 3rd Parties is that we have first-past-the-post single member districts for Congress and a President elected through the electoral college. There are overwhelming structural barriers to a stable multiparty system in the US. 

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Weeping Sore said:

No carbon emissions and plenty of reserves, the problem of spent fuel is really pretty miniscule. In perfect conditions, with no cut corners and appropriate safeguards, I love nuclear. Yet catastrophic events like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima loom large in the public consciousness.  So is it worth making everyone relax and learn to love the split Uranium atom, or should we keep our eyes on the prize of 100% renewable? Why plan two transitions, or a "bridge" transition to nuclear that will require investments in facilities meant to be paid back by 50 years of continued use, when the switch to renewables is the only permanent solution?

Seems to me that a bridging approach with nuclear is the most likely to lead to limiting carbon emissions to something we can manage, and it buys us time using known and reliable technology for energy to further develop new technology for the longer term. 

50 years sounds like a lot for a person, but it's a moment in time for global civilisation. If we plan to be around for another millennium or two then 50 years is not a big deal.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Some bits of hilarity:

- Hillary is now running campaign adverts in Texas. Someone clearly thinks this is over, and wants to pad out the numbers or build for the future.

- Trump's campaign didn't get relevant materials to Alaskan electoral officials in time, so he's not included in the Official Alaska Voter Guide. Given polling, this might be non-trivial.

- Another poll out of Utah has Trump 30%, McMullin 29%, Clinton 28%. If McMullin can pull some local endorsements, he's got an excellent chance

[The Anti-Targ]

Wow so close in Utah. What happens to McMullin's delegates if no candidate gets to 271? Do his electors essentially become king, or queen makers? Though I guess that depends on both candidates getting close enough to 271 for the Utah electors to be able to swing either way.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Wow so close in Utah. What happens to McMullin's delegates if no candidate gets to 271? Do his electors essentially become king, or queen makers? Though I guess that depends on both candidates getting close enough to 271 for the Utah electors to be able to swing either way.

If no candidate gets to 270, the election goes to the House. Each state delegation counts as 1 vote (so California gets equal say with Wyoming), but the House has to choose between the top three... so Trump, Clinton, or McMullin. The question then becomes whether the NeverTrumpers put their money where their mouths are... in which case, President McMullin is actually a non-trivial possibility.

[TheKitttenGuard]

Just now, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

If no candidate gets to 270, the election goes to the House. Each state delegation counts as 1 vote (so California gets equal say with Wyoming), but the House has to choose between the top three... so Trump, Clinton, or McMullin. The question then becomes whether the NeverTrumpers put their money where their mouths are... in which case, President McMullin is actually a non-trivial possibility.

I do not see that in anyway.

There will be too much pressure to give either who has more E.C and/or popular vote.  If Clinton has both I do not think the Republicans will decide to put someone with only a few million votes.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

If no candidate gets to 270, the election goes to the House. Each state delegation counts as 1 vote (so California gets equal say with Wyoming), but the House has to choose between the top three... so Trump, Clinton, or McMullin. The question then becomes whether the NeverTrumpers put their money where their mouths are... in which case, President McMullin is actually a non-trivial possibility.

The House as at election day, or the House elect after election day?

[The Marquis de Leech]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

The House as at election day, or the House elect after election day?

One of the big unanswered constitutional questions (why, hello, 4-4 Supreme Court...).

[TheKitttenGuard]

57 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

They don't go away, you probably just don't hear about them (because they're not getting the free media that their Presidential candidates get) in midterm election years. For example- Gary Johnson won .99% and Jill Stein won .36% of the vote in 2012. In 2014 midterm House races Libertarians won 1.2% and Greens won .3% nationwide. So they performed about the same in off years, a little better in the case of Libertarians and a little worse in the case of Greens. 

The real biggest problem with 3rd Parties is that we have first-past-the-post single member districts for Congress and a President elected through the electoral college. There are overwhelming structural barriers to a stable multiparty system in the US. 

That point to how poor their organizing is during those times.

FPTP have many issues but it does not take away that either Libertarians or Green are very poor in organizing themselves.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

6 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

If no candidate gets to 270, the election goes to the House. Each state delegation counts as 1 vote (so California gets equal say with Wyoming), but the House has to choose between the top three... so Trump, Clinton, or McMullin. The question then becomes whether the NeverTrumpers put their money where their mouths are... in which case, President McMullin is actually a non-trivial possibility.

There's been a lot of speculation about a Republican Party crack up. Choosing McMullin over Trump would do it. We'd probably amend the Constitution, too.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Just now, TheKitttenGuard said:

That point to how poor their organizing is during those times.

FPTP have many issues but it does not take away that either Libertarians or Green are very poor in organizing themselves.

But that's not what you said. You said they only try in Presidential years and then "nearly nothing for the other three years in terms of organizing or anything." But they do about as well in midterms. So they may well be shit at organizing, but that doesn't mean they aren't trying. They are, and they're seeing roughly the same (very poor) results. 

[Castel]

11 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

If no candidate gets to 270, the election goes to the House. Each state delegation counts as 1 vote (so California gets equal say with Wyoming), but the House has to choose between the top three... so Trump, Clinton, or McMullin. The question then becomes whether the NeverTrumpers put their money where their mouths are... in which case, President McMullin is actually a non-trivial possibility.

I can't believe there's any chance of the House picking McMullin.

That said..this would make an interesting premise for a TV show...maybe as a competitor to Designated Survivor, which is kinda eh.

[LongRider]

4 hours ago, Fez said:

And as a last resort, as Rep. Brady alludes to, thanks to geographic sorting any place where Trump election watchers would try to make trouble are places where they're the outsiders and the crowds will not stand for them interfering.

I worry about "Second Amendment solutions" with these folks, I find that possibility not zero and therefore scary.

[LongRider]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

But yes, let's elect a president who can be provoked into doing something incredibly stupid by the host of Access Hollywood. That sounds really good.

Trump was a babe in the woods who had no experiences with mics in the past and wouldn't know to ask if it was on.  Poor fella, the tape was rigged!

[TheKitttenGuard]

28 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

But that's not what you said. You said they only try in Presidential years and then "nearly nothing for the other three years in terms of organizing or anything." But they do about as well in midterms. So they may well be shit at organizing, but that doesn't mean they aren't trying. They are, and they're seeing roughly the same (very poor) results. 

Having a flatline of results in on and off year elections does point to them doing nearly nothing with orgainizing.

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

13 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Having a flatline of results in on and off year elections does point to them doing nearly nothing with orgainizing.

 

So what you meant to say in your first post is that they do nearly nothing in Presidential years or the 3 years in between, they do nearly nothing ever. I find that pretty hard to believe. I don't think they're appearing on ballots and attracting hundreds of thousands of votes by accident. 

[kairparavel]

4 hours ago, Inigima said:

I want more left representation than the Democrats typically offer, but Stein is a know-nothing. Her plans are the stuff of fantasy and she has no policy prescriptions to accomplish them. She's a lightweight, politically and policy-wise.

This is my problem with third/alternate party candidates running for president. I really didn't know shit about Jill Stein until she started popping up as the compromise vote for hardcore Berners months and months ago. But when I see her only government experience is Member of the Lexington Town Meeting from the 2nd district I have to ask what makes her qualified to run the most powerful country in the world? I get that she started life a a doctor who then turned activist who decided to give this politics thing a go, but when I look at her resume, all her lower-aim runs for governmental office didn't pan out. President? This is why alternate parties will never succeed. Are they building bases at the municipal level then growing up from there? Sure the idea of a political outsider sounds romantic but really, no.

I'm sure this has been discussed multiple times over but I'm an interloper and it still just baffles me. 

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

A buddy of mine was in NY a couple of weekends back and was commenting that all but a few floors of Trump Tower were dark and that his hotel in the same area seemed really barren.  

I read a story a few days ago talking about how it seems like no one wants to book a room in his new hotel in DC, they assume because of his toxic brand.

[Altherion]

5 hours ago, Weeping Sore said:

I understand your position but I have read credible claims to the contrary- let me dig into it and I'll add a link to this post soon...

Do you mean something like this PDF? I think Kalbear and you are simply talking about different definitions of feasible. This paper and others like it describe how we could theoretically deal with this problem if all of humanity's resourcefulness was brought to bear upon it. Note that they place a considerable amount of emphasis on the properties of a distributed solution. For example:

Quote

Czisch (2006;2007) similarly calculated that electricity demand for 1.1 billion people in Europe, North Africa, and near Asia could be satisfied reliably and at low cost by interconnecting wind sites dispersed over NorthAfrica, Europe, Russia, and near Asia, and using hydropower from Scandinavia as backup.

I mean, yes, in some utopian science fiction novel, you could wire up the entire world this way and it would work. But can you imagine all of those regions trusting each other for uninterrupted delivery of power?

Similarly, while an individual power (basically, the US, China, the EU and maybe Japan and/or Russia) could, in theory, put their economy on a wartime footing and transition to renewable energy within a decade or two, there's simply no way anybody is going to do that. In fact, the industries based on fossil fuels are currently fighting the transition as hard as they can and since they're much bigger than the renewable crowd and are likely to remain comparable for the next few decades, they're pretty successful at it so most governments (and certainly the US one) are not likely to be of much use.

[TheKitttenGuard]

23 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

So what you meant to say in your first post is that they do nearly nothing in Presidential years or the 3 years in between, they do nearly nothing ever. I find that pretty hard to believe. I don't think they're appearing on ballots and attracting hundreds of thousands of votes by accident. 

They may have or do enough to get on the ballot but clearly not much else if they are getting the same results.