US Elections - The white power-suit vs the white-power suit

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Trebla said:

Trump and his campaign members are basically Breitbart commenters. Like this guy:

That sounds a bit like a threat.

My guess, she gets hired by CNN.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

 

If Hillary fails to get past 270 then Republicans will almost certainly still hold a majority in the House. So it won't really matter whether it's the outgoing House or the incoming House that decides, because the Republicans will decide the next president.

One wonders in this hypothetical if the left would accept this result.

I have a guess..........

[The Anti-Targ]

Just now, Swordfish said:

One wonders in this hypothetical if the left would accept this result.

I have a guess..........

It's a shit system. So whichever way the vote would go down one side would not accept it. Particularly egregious if the person who won the plurality of ECVs also won the NPV and didn't end up as President.

The 270 ECV is a dumb mechanism for an election that isn't a 2 horse race. If you regularly got 4 or 5 candidates all winning at least one state then you would constantly be having congress decide the president. If you are going to continue with a first to 270 ECV system then you need to institute a run-off mechanism where at the EC you have run off votes where the bottom placed candidate drops off the ballot and there is a re-vote and the process continues until you get someone to 270 ECVs

[Mexal]

5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

The RCP national polling average had Clinton's lead peak at +7.1 on October 18.  It is currently at +4.4. 

On 538's adjusted average of national polls had Clinton peak at +6.9 on October 17.  It is currently at Clinton +5.9. 

You may not like the methodologies or polls included in either of those aggregators, but it is simply false to say there is "no indication" that Trump is gaining on Clinton in the past week. 

It's just Republicans going back to Trump. He's 12 points behind where Romney was with Republicans. If he gains a few points, the race will tighten but it won't be enough. There is no indications anywhere that he has gained voters he didn't have before. Not at all worried.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

 

If Hillary fails to get past 270 then Republicans will almost certainly still hold a majority in the House. So it won't really matter whether it's the outgoing House or the incoming House that decides, because the Republicans will decide the next president.

But its a majority of state delegations, not a majority of members. Republicans will probably still have that if Clinton didn't clear 270, but it would only take a few of the at-large delegations plus Utah being NeverTrumpers to make some real trouble. As I've said a few times now, that's how McMullin could end up President instead; assuming he does win Utah.

Alternatively, the House could permanently deadlock, and on March 4 either Pence or Kaine would become President, depending on who the Senate voted on (and Democrats could take the senate even if Clinton didn't clear 270).

There are some other fun wrinkles too. For one, quorum in the House on the Presidential vote is at least one member from at least two-thirds of states, which is easy to clear; but quorum in the Senate on the Vice Presidential vote is two-thirds of all senators. Which means either party could easily deny quorum and prevent the Senate from voting, which means no Vice President. Which means no one to take over on March 4 if the House did deadlock.

Also, its not clear at all what would happen between January 20 and whenever there is a new President. Presumably Obama would execute the office as Acting President, but the 25th amendment doesn't really address this kind of issue. 

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's a shit system. So whichever way the vote would go down one side would not accept it. Particularly egregious if the person who won the plurality of ECVs also won the NPV and didn't end up as President.

The 270 ECV is a dumb mechanism for an election that isn't a 2 horse race. If you regularly got 4 or 5 candidates all winning at least one state then you would constantly be having congress decide the president. If you are going to continue with a first to 270 ECV system then you need to institute a run-off mechanism where at the EC you have run off votes where the bottom placed candidate drops off the ballot and there is a re-vote and the process continues until you get someone to 270 ECVs

But this is basically a two horse race.  So how would a runoff even work here?

[Ariadne23]

14 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If Hillary fails to get past 270 then Republicans will almost certainly still hold a majority in the House. So it won't really matter whether it's the outgoing House or the incoming House that decides, because the Republicans will decide the next president.

It will, because they'll have a third choice of another Republican, Evan McMullin, and some House Republicans will never vote for Trump. 25 listed in this cheat sheet alone, and it's not intended to be an exhaustive list. I'm thinking McMullin is more likely if the Republicans have less of a majority, but I suppose it could be all the pro-Trump people who stay. I haven't parsed out that data.

[Ariadne23]

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

lso, its not clear at all what would happen between January 20 and whenever there is a new President. Presumably Obama would execute the office as Acting President, but the 25th amendment doesn't really address this kind of issue. 

The Speaker, under the rules for succession? On the other hand, the House could toss Ryan as Speaker and deadlock on a new one as well, right?...so, Orrin Hatch?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

18 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

The Speaker, under the rules for succession? On the other hand, the House could toss Ryan as Speaker and deadlock on a new one as well, right?...so, Orrin Hatch?

Rumor has it he's likely to get tossed anyways. If the Republicans lose 20 seats his Speakership is over. 

[The Anti-Targ]

29 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

But this is basically a two horse race.  So how would a runoff even work here?

But the most likely scenario to no one getting 270 here is if McMullin wins Utah, so at the ECV it would be a 3 horse race. Quite possibly in a run-off system enough Republican electors from among the Trump states could become faithless electors and give McMullin enough ECVs to come in second in a first round. Drumpf would get dropped from the second round and it would then be a head to head between McMullin and Clinton.

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But the most likely scenario to no one getting 270 here is if McMullin wins Utah, so at the ECV it would be a 3 horse race. Quite possibly in a run-off system enough Republican electors from among the Trump states could become faithless electors and give McMullin enough ECVs to come in second in a first round. Drumpf would get dropped from the second round and it would then be a head to head between McMullin and Clinton.

Ahhh...  Right.  Sorry.  Brain fart.

[lokisnow]

51 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

 

The 270 ECV is a dumb mechanism for an election that isn't a 2 horse race. If you regularly got 4 or 5 candidates all winning at least one state then you would constantly be having congress decide the president. 

That is actually why the electoral college is constructed as it is. Madison et al figured that after the inevitable first presidency of Washington there would never again exist a politician with a national profile or high level of popularity. They assumed several regional or state favorite sons would run every presidential election and that virtually every election would be decided by the house as they considered a majority in the Ec vote to be the more unlikely scenario.

they thought it was best that elected representatives chose the president (just like they thought with senators) in part because they would know the candidates while most candidates would never be capable of visiting most of the regions of the continent voting for the presidency which meant that "obviously" most candidates would not receive votes outside of their home region.

[Castel]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Rumor has it he's likely to get tossed anyways. If the Republicans lose 20 seats his Speakership is over. 

At that point why would you want to be Speaker?

I thought Ryan was The Guy, the one with the cachet to actually hold his party together. If they drop seats (which is seeming likely) then the hardliners  would have more power, and if they'll boot Ryan...why would you want that job?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Castel said:

At that point why would you want to be Speaker?

I thought Ryan was The Guy, the one with the cachet to actually hold his party together. If they drop seats (which is seeming likely) then the hardliners  would have more power, and if they'll boot Ryan...why would you want that job?

It seems to me that the GOP has kind of had "The Guy" on rotation for awhile now. First it was supposed to be Bobby Jindal. Then it was Marco Rubio. Then it was Chris Christie. None of them have managed to carry the torch.

[Impmk2]

Somewhat topical 538 analysis on Trumps gains in the polls: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-the-presidential-race-tightening/

TLDR: Trump has marginally increased his polling numbers from a week ago - mostly from returning republicans. But Clinton's numbers have slightly increased too. Either way the race may have tightened, but not in a big way, and unless there's a major shift or large polling error there's no reason to panic.

[Castel]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It seems to me that the GOP has kind of had "The Guy" on rotation for awhile now. First it was supposed to be Bobby Jindal. Then it was Marco Rubio. Then it was Chris Christie. None of them have managed to carry the torch.

Yeah but I feel like those are different. Someone like Christie  for example is clearly a presidential thing, which is different from becoming Speaker and holding it together as the opposition (God willing). 

You can run for President while still not having to mollify a few hundred Republicans as a matter of survival. If you lose...eh. If you win, even the primary, Trump has shown that you'll have far less trouble than one might think.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Castel said:

Yeah but I feel like those are different. Someone like Christie  for example is clearly a presidential thing, which is different from becoming Speaker and holding it together as the opposition (God willing). 

You can run for President while still not having to mollify a few hundred Republicans as a matter of survival. If you lose...eh. If you win, even the primary, Trump has shown that you'll have far less trouble than one might think.

I get what you're saying, but I think it's more or less the same thing regardless of what office you're running for. It seems to me they were just trying to push these guys as a figurehead of sorts that every subset of the party could identify and rally around. Of course they have managed to splinter the party so badly at this point that this individual clearly doesn't exist. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

I get what you're saying, but I think it's more or less the same thing regardless of what office you're running for. It seems to me they were just trying to push these guys as a figurehead of sorts that every subset of the party could identify and rally around. Of course they have managed to splinter the party so badly at this point that this individual clearly doesn't exist. 

 

Well, the crazies in the House understand that Ryan loves to cut government benefits. What is most dickish about him is why they like him. Of course if he cuts enough deals to keep government going he'll spend that goodwill and be the whipping boy.

[Martell Spy]

DNC Sues RNC Claiming Trump’s “Ballot Security” Effort Is Illegal Voter Intimidation

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/26/dnc_sues_rnc_claiming_trump_s_ballot_security_is_voter_intimidation.html

[lokisnow]

Ted Cruz said there is plenty of precedent for fewer than 9 Supreme Court justices on the bench. 

Seems all the more reason that if democrats win the senate to get rid of the rest of the filibuster.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/26/cruz-says-theres-precedent-for-keeping-ninth-supreme-court-seat-empty/

 

if Clinton wins, I really hope she does not renominate garland because that just validates the republican strategy. Get rid of the filibuster and give us Nguyen, keep Sri in your back pocket if you need an emergency appointment in 2019 or 2020. 

When Breyer retires at the end of this term, elevate Millet and give us a female majority on the court for the term starting fall 2017.

Then when Ginsberg retires at the end of the 2017/2018 term (which would also mean she'd edge out o'connor as the longest serving female justice), Kruger should be her replacement, which would lock in a female majority for probably another decade.

dont ruin a female majority court with re nominating garland!