US Elections 2016

[Drowsy Emperor]

I don't know, it's easy to blame the political elite for the 2 party system, but in reality there isn't anything stopping independent or 3rd party candidates from competing other than the voters.  A huge percentage of the population wants to vote along party lines, and the elite take advantage of that.

 

There is nothing stopping them on paper but in practice the first-past-the-post system makes it practically impossible for a third (fourth or fifth) party to establish itself because of the prohibitive costs and organizational issues in running so many simultaneous campaigns coupled with the punishing loss of votes in every constituency where someone else sweeps the majority vote. 

 

Its simply not feasible, not just due to the political culture but also to what is essentially an insurmountable technical-financial barrier.

 

Its much cheaper for a smaller party to make a parliamentary list, run one campaign, jump over the minimal percentile barrier (where they exist) and have a presence in the parliament. Which practically guarantees it a long term media presence thus leading to more space and time to "establish" itself in the minds of the voters.

 

A small party in a majority system can easily get a double digit percentage of overall votes and not get a single seat in parliament.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I think Bernie will do much better outside the South, and as most of the South is out of the way I expect the delegate gap to close. I'm hoping so at least.

The South is a gigantic number of delegates, though, and while he's projected to do better outside of it, he's not projected to do so well he can make up for being absolutely crushed in the South, which is why he's currently projected to lose. He's also currently losing in Florida and Michigan, the latter of which he needs to be winning, and the former of which he needs to be at least sort of close...

Oh I'm not expecting Berne to win, or even hoping for it tbh. I'm expecting/hoping Bernie to draw in enough support to drag on the primary long enough to publicly expose the Democratic party for the undemocratic institution it is and to show how liberals for are spineless corporate lapdogs instead of the defenders of the working class they larp as. At the very least I'd like to see the primary process challenged, as it is pretty stupid. Edited March 6, 2016 by KaineParker

[BruceVC]

 

 

I think Bernie will do much better outside the South, and as most of the South is out of the way I expect the delegate gap to close. I'm hoping so at least.

The South is a gigantic number of delegates, though, and while he's projected to do better outside of it, he's not projected to do so well he can make up for being absolutely crushed in the South, which is why he's currently projected to lose. He's also currently losing in Florida and Michigan, the latter of which he needs to be winning, and the former of which he needs to be at least sort of close...

Oh I'm not expecting Berne to win, or even hoping for it tbh. I'm expecting/hoping Bernie to draw in enough support to drag on the primary long enough to publicly expose the Democratic party for the undemocratic institution it is and to show how liberals for are spineless corporate lapdogs instead of the defenders of the working class they larp as. At the very least I'd like to see the primary process challenged, as it is pretty stupid.

 

As I mentioned I liked Sanders...he genuinely seemed to care about a more fair society...you just cant tear down whats working to achieve this

[Malcador]

http://qz.com/629959/a-neurologist-thinks-ted-cruzs-face-makes-it-impossible-to-vote-for-him/

 

Hah.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Geppetto failed

Edited March 6, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[HoonDing]

"As I mentioned I liked Sanders...he genuinely seemed to care about a more fair society...you just cant tear down whats working to achieve this"

 

to make an omelette you need to break eggs

[Meshugger]

That was a very tedious video to sit through....that women is anti-Obama, anti- Democrats and anti-Hilary...she represents a sector of Trump supporters. I reject basically everything she says. The Republican party has been fractured by Trump, of course Romney will oppose him as he represents the Republican establishment ...I support the establishment but they left it too late 

 

 

One of the many spurious points she makes is dismissing the GOP security leaders criticism of Trump..read this. Its not unfounded 

 

http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

 

Anyway  her view  doesn't represent the views of the Democrats or Republican establishment and its her own biased view..so I'm not sure why you think this is fact and proof of the end of Western establishments ?

 

 

The reality of the matter is that Bernie on the democrat side and Trump on the republican side are winning votes is the natural result of the establishment ignoring the needs of its constituents, often thanks to the media pushing to what electability is or should be. It's a top down movement, and in a country based on revolutionary principles, they better start to listen now, or the day of the rope dawns nearer. That's not unique to any state, society, empire or civilization, historically speaking, and she is highlighting the forces that are at bay.

 

So lets take your link for example:

 

 

 

His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence.

 

Of course no example given. Opinion tossed into the trash.

 

 

 

His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world.

 

Implying that raising tariffs is a trade war and implying that removing a nation's control over its own economy is a good thing for it's citizens, effectively putting the power into the hands of the global banking system. Opinion tossed into the trash.

 

 

 

His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable.

 

So says the experts behind project MKULTRA, Monarch and other dubious methods. While i personally disagree with Trump on torture, they are the last to have any authority on the opinion on matters such as these or should be taken seriously in any way. Opinion tossed into the trash.

 

 

 

His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims.

 

The reason why there are attacks on american soil by muslims is the result of the policy of these idiots (unapologetic support to Israel and Saudi, all while bombing the rest) + adding insult to injury, they are basing it on the false illusion that Trump will somehow forbid muslims from practicing their religion freely. They have absolutely no authority on the matter. Opinion tossed into the trash.

 

 

 

Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor.

 

No solution, just a shrug. Not even an opinion to toss into the trash. Besides, Mexico has absolutely nothing to say about the matter as the permission to control one's border does not lie in the permission of the other.

 

 

 

Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II.

 

No example on what exactly this means. But just trust us, our current solution which includes cozy deals with the military-industrial complex is the right one to ensure stability. Why should anyone listen to those that caused the current situation to what it is today? Opinion tossed into the trash.

 

 

 

His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy.

 

...instead antagonizing the Russians is beneficial to world peace, yup, sure. This is only unacceptable to neoconservative hawks who want nothing more to more than to assert dominance through bombing into submission. Opinion tossed into the trash.

 

 

 

He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation.

 

What? Where? and we should trust you guys after all the lies before you? lol, opinion tossed into the trash.

 

 

 

His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs.

 

Oh, you mean your kind of diplomacy has made the world a better place? For the last time, you have no authority on this matter, opinion tossed into the trash.

 

No wonder that the bridges are burning between the establishment and the constiuents are burning when these is the only argument that they have. What a bunch of tossers.

[Hurlshort]

Why would you bother to dissect a Bruce post?

[BruceVC]

 

That was a very tedious video to sit through....that women is anti-Obama, anti- Democrats and anti-Hilary...she represents a sector of Trump supporters. I reject basically everything she says. The Republican party has been fractured by Trump, of course Romney will oppose him as he represents the Republican establishment ...I support the establishment but they left it too late 

 

 

One of the many spurious points she makes is dismissing the GOP security leaders criticism of Trump..read this. Its not unfounded 

 

http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

 

Anyway  her view  doesn't represent the views of the Democrats or Republican establishment and its her own biased view..so I'm not sure why you think this is fact and proof of the end of Western establishments ?

 

 

The reality of the matter is that Bernie on the democrat side and Trump on the republican side are winning votes is the natural result of the establishment ignoring the needs of its constituents, often thanks to the media pushing to what electability is or should be. It's a top down movement, and in a country based on revolutionary principles, they better start to listen now, or the day of the rope dawns nearer. That's not unique to any state, society, empire or civilization, historically speaking, and she is highlighting the forces that are at bay.

 

 

 

Not really, Hilary Clinton will be the  nominee so that fight agaisnt establishment is over and who can say if Trump will become the Republican candidate. But thats something the Republicans need to resolve 

 

I'm not sure what fundamental changes Trump will make that his supporters think will reshape American society....but lets see 

Edited March 6, 2016 by BruceVC

[Drowsy Emperor]

I saw Elerond doing the same thing earlier, its like I awoke in a parallel universe where no one knows Bruce.

 

If I dared to go outside I'd probably find that the Axis powers won WW2.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Malcador]

Why would you bother to dissect a Bruce post?

You forget who you're asking.

[BruceVC]

Why would you bother to dissect a Bruce post?

Hurlshot if you disagree with what I say maybe you raise the points you find incomprehensible 

 

Everything I said about that video I can support ....in fact I could have been much more dismissive 

[BruceVC]

 

Why would you bother to dissect a Bruce post?

You forget who you're asking.

 

Nah....Meshugger is normal to me, remember when Zora compared him to me    

[Meshugger]

Why would you bother to dissect a Bruce post?

Like catching a game of golf on the tv, it just happens sometimes.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Meshugger

[Calax]

... Just out of question, are we actually thinking/imply that the current electoral climate is one in which the State of California will actually have an impact?

 

For all peoples complaints about how the party "runs everything" and doesn't pay attention to the voters, it's surprising that nobody considers the fact that the most populous and influential state (who has an economic presence larger than many nations) is basically an afterthought in most elections.

[Elerond]

... Just out of question, are we actually thinking/imply that the current electoral climate is one in which the State of California will actually have an impact?

 

For all peoples complaints about how the party "runs everything" and doesn't pay attention to the voters, it's surprising that nobody considers the fact that the most populous and influential state (who has an economic presence larger than many nations) is basically an afterthought in most elections.

 

California has big impact in elections, especially in presidential elections, where they count 10% of electoral votes. Press has habit to dismiss California because it is consistent blue state as last time California give its votes to republican was in 1988 when they supported Bush. Texas is also big state that gets only little attention as they consistent red state.

 

So in it is just assumed that California backs democratic candidate and Texas republican candidate, and other party candidates don't often really put effort in trying to fight against windmills, but if that would not be the case then those states would have quite significant impact on predicted results. 

 

In short California don't seem to have impact in election because republicans go in election with mindset that they lost already in California.

[Guard Dog]

Elerond is correct. California is not competitive. If it were ever to be put in play it would get a whole lot of attention. It's a red state through and through once you get beyond I-5 corridor (except Sacramento). But all the people are in the I-5 corridor. 

[Hurlshort]

California could be competitive.  It was a red state for 20 years before Clinton.  They were unhappy enough with democrat Gray Davis to boot him out of office, and they put a Republican in his place.  It doesn't help that it was a disaster, of course.  Current Governor Jerry Brown is also nothing like a typical democrat, he's a complete fiscal conservative.

 

Really, all California needs is the right candidate to flip.  I don't think Trump is that guy though.     

[Calax]

 

... Just out of question, are we actually thinking/imply that the current electoral climate is one in which the State of California will actually have an impact?

 

For all peoples complaints about how the party "runs everything" and doesn't pay attention to the voters, it's surprising that nobody considers the fact that the most populous and influential state (who has an economic presence larger than many nations) is basically an afterthought in most elections.

 

California has big impact in elections, especially in presidential elections, where they count 10% of electoral votes. Press has habit to dismiss California because it is consistent blue state as last time California give its votes to republican was in 1988 when they supported Bush. Texas is also big state that gets only little attention as they consistent red state.

 

So in it is just assumed that California backs democratic candidate and Texas republican candidate, and other party candidates don't often really put effort in trying to fight against windmills, but if that would not be the case then those states would have quite significant impact on predicted results. 

 

In short California don't seem to have impact in election because republicans go in election with mindset that they lost already in California.

 

 

I realize that for General elections it's like this. But for Primaries it still doesn't count because the dust has been settled by the time California votes for a candidate. Part of that is because the state's primary is (at least this year) 6/2, but if I remember right, in the past they've tried to move it foreward to become more important, but they still didn't matter.

[Guard Dog]

Every campaign must make a cost/benefit analysis if where it spends it's money. The Democrats don't bother campaigning in Wyoming or Kansas because their BS won't sell there. The same is true for the Repubs in California. Hurlshot is right in that the right candidate could make it interesting but it would take the Dems running the "wrong" candidate to make it a reality.

[ShadySands]

Bernie takes Maine and Rubio takes Puerto Rico

 

Note - I used HuffPo because they allow me easily remove superdelegates from the count

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

I'd rather build a wall on the Kanadan border to keep the Americans in.

Misstated every possible fact. That's some kind of achievement. Anyway, I know who needs to be deported first.

[Hurlshort]

The crazy thing is I'm pretty convinced Hillary Clinton is the 'wrong' candidate.  She's got a ton of baggage with her.  I could see a Rand Paul or John Kasich beating her in CA.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The crazy thing is I'm pretty convinced Hillary Clinton is the 'wrong' candidate.  She's got a ton of baggage with her.  I could see a Rand Paul or John Kasich beating her in CA.

Neither of those guys are gonna be the nominee in this cycle and I don't see Rand making it past the primary in 2020. I agree about Hillary being the wrong candidate though, and could see someone like Kasich or Romney 2.0 beating her.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Trump the anti-nuclear activist: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_spectator/2016/03/trump_s_nuclear_experience_advice_for_reagan_in_1987.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top Interesting but very long, didn't finish. Scary eyebrows.