Jump to content

US Elections: Super Tuesday Edition, It's Over 9000!


Fez

Recommended Posts

@Kalbear

I agree Romney isn't a great idea, after all Anne Coulter likes him and he was rejected by voters the last time around.  But surely he's a step above the likes of Cruz and Rubio.  Reading about Rubio's plans for the economy, like simultaneously eliminating the tax on investment income and passing a balanced budget act, showed me just how stupid the man is.  No wonder Trump gets more votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

For the General, I still think that Sanders is fools gold.  The reason he polls well against republicans is because the republican attack machine hasn't been aimed at him, they're still clawing at Hilary like they have been since 1992.  I hope the Clinton campaign can find a message that works.  It seems like she was a stronger candidate in 2008, which is really disappointing.  Nonetheless, I'll be voting for her (and quite possibly volunteering too, which is hard to believe considering how unenthusiastic I am about her). 

I agree. The right-wing really hasn't even loaded its ammunition for a shot at Bernie; when it starts firing, we'll all think Hillary Clinton was Wonder Woman.

I'm not as sure about a Trump nomination as some here, but I will say this: the "one-third theory" (that Trump's support has a ceiling of 34%) was disconfirmed by the Nevada caucuses, and that's a big deal. Maybe NV is a fluke, but it seems to me that if any other candidate were at 2-1-1-1. and was polling well in most Super Tuesday states, we'd all be looking at him/her as the presumptive nominee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the U.S. Voted Like Australia, Bernie Sanders Would Have a Better Chance

It’s hard to envision Brooklyn-born Bernie Sanders with an Australian accent. Instead of yelling the Aussie chant that ends with “oi! oi! oi!” he might just say “oy.” But there are reasons he might feel at home in Australia.

College is free at the point of entry. Taxes on the wealthy are higher, and the safety net is stronger.

Australia has something else that would probably benefit Mr. Sanders: compulsory voting, in which you’re expected to show up to vote and may be fined if you don’t.

...

How big is the difference in voting rate among the rich and poor?

It’s stark at the very top. One study found that around 99 percent of the top 1 percent voted in 2008, compared with 49 percent of the people making less than $10,000. And according to 2010 census data and 2012 exit poll numbers:

■ About 50 percent of households made less than $50,000 a year, but that group punched below its weight, representing only 41 percent of the turnout in the election in 2012.

■ About 20 percent made more than $100,000 a year, but that share of the 2012 turnout was 28 percent.

Low participation among the poor contributed to a dismal voting rate of less than 37 percent in the 2014 midterm elections.

Would our policies be different if there were compulsory voting?

Recent research has shown significant differences between voters and nonvoters.

Before the 2012 election, a Pew study found a strong preference for President Obama over Mr. Romney among nonvoters: 59 percent support for Mr. Obama versus 24 percent for Mr. Romney. The study also found that nonvoters expressed a greater appetite for progressive taxation and a bigger role for government. In other words, these are Mr. Sanders’s people, and the playing field would be expected to tilt to the left.

In a study last year titled “Does Compulsory Voting Increase Support for Leftist Policy?” Michael Bechtel, Dominik Hangartner and Lukas Schmid essentially answered their question with “yes.” Explaining their research into federal referendums in Switzerland in the first half of the 20th century for The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage, they wrote, “We find that higher turnout caused stronger support for leftist, redistributive policy, for example, bills that proposed stricter market regulation and expanded welfare programs.”

This article focuses on compulsory voting, but I'd add that if we didn't have such a batshit crazy and undemocratic electoral system (featuring gerrymandering, first past the post , caucuses, the Senate, midterm and off year elections, the Electoral College) which makes it difficult for voters to reliably signal their issue preferences, see results, and feel that their vote matters, I think we'd see higher turnout without compelling anyone to vote. We could learn something from Australia's use of ranked choice voting, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yeah, DG, I don't think having an authoritarian president will shock anyone. There are too many who fetishise Putin and will see this as a good thing. There are others who support Sanders but think that if they can't get Sanders they'll vote for the greater evil to really cause a revolution. Whatever their idiotic justification of their vote for Trump, they'll do it. And when they don't get the results they want, they'll blame it on others just like usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Well, that's good. Bernie Sanders success in Nevada driven partially by...Karl Rove and conservative attack ads.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/23/bernie-sanders-s-conservative-fanboys.html

I guess Karl Rove didn't quite get his fill of lighting rich Republican donor money on fire to absolutely no meaningful effect in the last two Presidential elections. This is certainly a novel way of achieving the same result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump is far less scary to me than Cruz or Rubio as President. 

If Trump were to win the general election it would be because Hillary is a really bad candidate. Honestly, the people running for president (that actually get traction) just get worse and worse every time around. 

Kasich is probably the only candidate even close to moderate on either side of the aisle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, A Prince of Dorne said:

Trump is far less scary to me than Cruz or Rubio as President. 

If Trump were to win the general election it would be because Hillary is a really bad candidate. Honestly, the people running for president (that actually get traction) just get worse and worse every time around. 

Kasich is probably the only candidate even close to moderate on either side of the aisle

Are you saying that Hillary Clinton is deeply liberal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I guess Karl Rove didn't quite get his fill of lighting rich Republican donor money on fire to absolutely no meaningful effect in the last two Presidential elections. This is certainly a novel way of achieving the same result. 

No, not necessarily. My guess is, he now tries to win the General Election for his party in the Democratic primaries. And he does that by damaging the candidate he deems most dangerous. Clinton loses to Sanders: he got rid off the main competition. Clinton narrowly defeats Sanders, she has been under fire for way longer than the general election cycle and has potentially taken damage. 

Apparently putting lip stick worth some hundreds of millions of dollars on a pig wasn't enough to make said barn animal electable enough, so he tries to smear the opposition early on. The thing he was/is kinda good at. His smearing campaign against Kerry worked quite well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton success in Nevada partially driven by Wall Street fat cats.

We cant always choose who chooses to support us.

Clinton at least is fairly open about courting said cats. Is Sanders cool with getting support from Republican superpacs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

I guess Karl Rove didn't quite get his fill of lighting rich Republican donor money on fire to absolutely no meaningful effect in the last two Presidential elections. This is certainly a novel way of achieving the same result.

The Joker from TDK really inspired him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Clinton at least is fairly open about courting said cats. Is Sanders cool with getting support from Republican superpacs?

As you know, the answer to that is no (he was against Democratic superpacs for him). As you also undoubtedly know, he cant co-ordinate with any pac or superpac, so he really doesnt have any options when it comes to such support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OAR, here's one source on name recognition and how in parliamentary democracies it favors those who are better known over those who conform to party unity.

https://books.google.com/books?id=IaCTBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=name+recognition+in+australia+voting&source=bl&ots=7mBTFbz0eP&sig=kCA8FWhUcoMIZrzQfz3VG7l_ldk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia__Xh-pDLAhVW3mMKHUhlBf8Q6AEINzAI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

OAR, here's one source on name recognition and how in parliamentary democracies it favors those who are better known over those who conform to party unity.

https://books.google.com/books?id=IaCTBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=name+recognition+in+australia+voting&source=bl&ots=7mBTFbz0eP&sig=kCA8FWhUcoMIZrzQfz3VG7l_ldk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia__Xh-pDLAhVW3mMKHUhlBf8Q6AEINzAI

That speaks to the effect of single-member districts, not compulsory voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...