2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Her]

The US is a scary place.

Sometimes I wonder why my boyfriend wants me to move there with him. Being in the Land of Cruz, regardless of election outcome, is not something I love the idea of.

 

[Kanzler]

The US is a scary place.

What. What is the context in which the words Trump, rat, and copulate exist in the same sentence?

 

[Ivysaur]

What. What is the context in which the words Trump, rat, and copulate exist in the same sentence?

Click on the pic, I linked to the video. He's talking about the allegation of him -Cruz- having five mistresses.

Incidentally, I still find amazingly hilarious that a Canadian-born guy called Rafael Eduardo Cruz is the Republican's second choice for president.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

If it's grandstanding to try resolve an issue without entirely submitting to the pathetic tactics of a party who will only accept a Scalia clone, then you've lost me there.

He should have went with a moderate Republican (think a Justice Kennedy type). Garld is a moderate Democrat who was appointed to his current position by Bill Clinton.

To being the topic back to the election itself, what is notable here is the both parties have a long nomination fights on their hands. Bernie Sanders, while the underdog, has put up enough of a fight against Hillary that she cannot afford to alienate his supporters come general election time. While they wouldn't vote for Trump, many might stay home or vote for a liberal third party like the Greens.

Trump will be the nominee, though Cruz may drag it out alll the way until June. If Cruz's strategy is to win enough delegates to cause a brokered convention, his problem is pretty much all the states going forward as winner-take-all either outright or by congressional district. We're done with the proportional states. That means a good 2nd place margin doesn't matter anymore. He has to actually win and win a lot.

I think the general election will be close. The flaws that are keeping Hillary from running away with the primaries won't go away come general election time. Trade was the issue that caused Sanders an upset win in Michigan and has been keeping Midwest primaries close. Him and Trump are similar on trade issues, so he could tap into those frustrations in key states like Ohio.

 

[Kanzler]

Trump was absolutely right when he said that the nuclear option should not be off the table. That town hall was the wonkiest exposure that nuclear strategy would ever get on TV, tbqh.

 

[Kanzler]

Hate to double post, but this is important.

Watch the video in this link:
https://www.salon.com/2016/03/31/th...lection_fraud_occurred_in_the_states_primary/

Coming from the most senior official in charge of election records in Arizona: Election fraud happened. People's voter registrations were changed. It's legit. The video cuts, but I've seen the full version and the cuts do not change the central message in any way.

 

[Her]

Hate to double post, but this is important.

Watch the video in this link:
https://www.salon.com/2016/03/31/th...lection_fraud_occurred_in_the_states_primary/

Coming from the most senior official in charge of election records in Arizona: Election fraud happened. People's voter registrations were changed. It's legit. The video cuts, but I've seen the full version and the cuts do not change the central message in any way.

What's the most likely scenario now that this is confirmed?

 

[Klippy]

What's the most likely scenario now that this is confirmed?

I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) they will be doing a complete re-vote OR allow people who had serious problems (denied access, waited for 1+ hours, forced to use provisional ballots) a chance to vote again.

The narrative of this election would change to corruption at its finest were it to turn out Bernie won AZ. There's a rumor over 200,000 people were denied the right to vote in Maricopa County alone.

 

[Ivysaur]

Wow! I did not expect that to be honest. True, I guess Trump could beat Hillary, but it really depends if the Republicans unite. And I have heard the Democrats are pretty split as well though.

According to exit polls in the primary, 79% of Democrats like Clinton and 62% like Sanders. By contrast, only 51% of Republicans like Cruz and a dismal 49% like Trump.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-kind-of-hate-all-their-choices/

That's even before looking at the net favourability ratings: Sanders's +6 beats Clinton's -14... and they both trounce Cruz's -19 and Trump's eye-watering -32.

In other words, if it depends on "republicans uniting" to overcome their net ratings with the overall public being deeply underwater, then you have a problem when republicans are split 50/50 in hating each of their candidates.

 

[Kanzler]

According to exit polls in the primary, 79% of Democrats like Clinton and 62% like Sanders. By contrast, only 51% of Republicans like Cruz and a dismal 49% like Trump.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republican-voters-kind-of-hate-all-their-choices/

That's even before looking at the net favourability ratings: Sanders's +6 beats Clinton's -14... and they both trounce Cruz's -19 and Trump's eye-watering -32.

In other words, if it depends on "republicans uniting" to overcome their net ratings with the overall public being deeply underwater, then you have a problem when republicans are split 50/50 in hating each of their candidates.

How could so many Republicans dislike Romney? He was probably the most electable out of Santorum, Gingrich, and Ron Paul. It's like right-wing Republicans don't want the White House.

Speaking of Republican candidates to the White House, does anybody have an opinion on Jon Huntsman?

 

[Ivysaur]

How could so many Republicans dislike Romney? He was probably the most electable out of Santorum, Gingrich, and Ron Paul. It's like right-wing Republicans don't want the White House.

Speaking of Republican candidates to the White House, does anybody have an opinion on Jon Huntsman?

I'm just going to drop this here.

Poll: Romney's favorability lower than Trump's

 

[Somewhere_]

Did anyone watch the Libertarian Party debate on the John Stossel show on Fox Business?

I have some criticisms of each of the three candidates (in order of popularity before the debate):

1. Gary Johnson: Is the most popular and viable candidate in my opinion. He has polled 11% compared to Clinton and Trump, as well as having experience as the former governor of New Mexico. As governor, he vetoed the most legislature out of any other governor, as well as created a balanced budget. However, Johnson is also the least Libertarian out of the 3 candidates with a lot of statements going against free markets.

1. John Mcafee: He is a founder of an anti-virus software company, as well as the founder of the Cyber Party. Basically a stoner, but was the most philosophical libertarian out of the three. In my opinion, he was the best speaker there with great answers. He had some issues with the Guatemalan and Belize governments, and was arrested for a DUI and accused of begin connected to a murder. Apparently he is clear of any wrongdoings, but he says he owns up to his DUI "mistake."

3. Austin Peterson: Founder of something Libertarian- I forget lol. I think he runs a business, but he and Mcafee are the least qualified for office out of the three. Peterson is also only 35, making him the youngest candidate to run for president, so he lacks experience. In addition, he only has a degree in drama, which further discredits him. However, he spoke well and delivered some great points. He is a likable guy to non-Libertarians (Mcafee is a turn off and Johnson appeals to some Democrats), but among Libertarians, Peterson is very controversial. He has rejected the Non-Aggression Principle, which is a foundation of Libertarian philosophy, as well as denouncing and making fun of "pure" Libertarians, or Anarcho-Capitalists (Voluntaryists). He appears to appeal more to Minarchists while Johnson appeals to Paleo-conservatives because he is the most moderate.

4. Darryl W. Perry: I just took the isidewith test and got 98% on this guy. He did not participate in the debate, but is in fourth place and catching up to Peterson, who is dropping. I do not know much about Perry at all.

Any other opinions about the Libertarian Party debate or candidates? Who is the most viable? The most consistently Libertarian?

 

[Kanzler]

It turns out that Bernie Sanders may well "win" Nevada. How is this possible when he won only 47% of the popular vote?

It appears that the vote at the caucus decides delegates at the precinct level, who "vote" again at a later date to decide delegates at the county level, who "vote" yet again at a later date to decide who/how many delegates will represent each candidate at the state level.

It turns out that when it came to decide the county-level delegates, a lot of Clinton delegates didn't show up, resulting in Sanders gaining more delegates than Clinton in the county level. It's possible for these Sanders delegates to fail to show up when deciding the state level delegates, but usually the delegates that are still in the game at this point are motivated and they'll likely show up.

tl;dr Bernie Sanders might end up winning Nevada by having a majority of the final delegate count, even though he lost the popular vote.

Personally I'm a bit conflicted at whether this procedure is appropriate or not. On one hand, Clinton won the popular vote fair and square and in this sense deserves to have her share of the popular vote represented. On the other hand, I believe that delegate interest and enthusiasm should be a legitimate factor in deciding whether or not a candidate ultimately "deserves" the delegates they get. If Clinton got the most amount of delegates, but they're not exactly enthused about her such that they wouldn't show up when they had to show up, shouldn't that count against her? The fact that people aren't all that into her and wouldn't back her up when it really counted, in my opinion, should matter. What do you think?

@BadSheep I only know and really care about Gary Johnson, and I think that's how it is for most people. He's got the greatest name recognition, because I guess he's put himself out there, which counts. Libertarianism isn't the most compatible ideology with the current American system and I think the Libertarian candidate should acknowledge the system through which he could get elected. Plato's ideal ruler was a philosopher king, but that means you've got to be both philosopher and king and I don't think the other libertarian candidates have much of the latter.

 

[Netto Azure]

Yeah, heard about the craziness in the Nevada convention. I hope this leads to reforms and straightforward open primaries.

I'm not sure they publish popular votes in caucuses though.

 

[Kanzler]

Yeah, heard about the craziness in the Nevada convention. I hope this leads to reforms and straightforward open primaries.

I'm not sure they publish popular votes in caucuses though.

Oh, they do, which is why Clinton was cited to have won the Nevada caucus - she had won the popular vote 52.6% to 47.3%. And there was a lot of news coverage expressing surprise that Clinton had "won" the caucus when a lot of people were expecting it to go to Sanders. I try to be informed, and since I wasn't aware of the multi-step delegate process, based on the news I had available, I had the understanding that Clinton indeed "won" the caucus in the same sense that Sanders won the NH primary - got the most votes, end of story.

 

[Esper]

Yeah, this was confusing to me as well. Personally, I like the idea of ranked voting (or whatever it's called) so that a person can express their preference for a candidate who doesn't seem to have a chance to win, but can still get a say if no one gets an outright 50% +1 win. Not that it really comes into play when there are only two candidates, but I'm getting off topic.

Really, this only highlights the need for a simple vote count. No more delegates or any of that nonsense. Just tally the votes of all the voters in all the states and see who wins.

 

[Kanzler]

Yeah, this was confusing to me as well. Personally, I like the idea of ranked voting (or whatever it's called) so that a person can express their preference for a candidate who doesn't seem to have a chance to win, but can still get a say if no one gets an outright 50% +1 win. Not that it really comes into play when there are only two candidates, but I'm getting off topic.

Really, this only highlights the need for a simple vote count. No more delegates or any of that nonsense. Just tally the votes of all the voters in all the states and see who wins.

Perhaps I'm too deep in the Bern, but I am sceptical about the value of a simple primary vote. Ideally, everybody would make an informed decision about the candidates, and cast a ballot in accordance to those views. Any other factor that contributes to voting would dilute the vote as an expression of political belief.

I think that Clinton had the benefit of political organization in the caucus vote, but dropped the ball as the next level of delegates was picked. She might've been able to get all those casino workers to the polls, but she wasn't able to get her delegates from that first vote to show up later. I think it's indicative of an enthusiasm gap. I think it's significant because you can get people vote for you because you can herd them to the polls, or you can get people to vote for you because you're genuinely excited and will show up of your own accord.

Clinton's delegates are not the "average" citizen any longer. As a delegate, you're expected to show up. You "officially" represent one of the candidates now. The standard of behaviour is higher. Clinton's delegates appeared to fail that standard. And their failure signifies that Clinton's caucus victory owed more to factors other than the expression of individual political belief and reflects that democracy is never as pure as we would like it to be.

I think Sanders' upset in the Nevada delegates holds true to the spirit of democracy, where every person has an equal voice in the system to express their political beliefs.

 

[Esper]

I think that Clinton had the benefit of political organization in the caucus vote, but dropped the ball as the next level of delegates was picked. She might've been able to get all those casino workers to the polls, but she wasn't able to get her delegates from that first vote to show up later. I think it's indicative of an enthusiasm gap. I think it's significant because you can get people vote for you because you can herd them to the polls, or you can get people to vote for you because you're genuinely excited and will show up of your own accord.

I take your point. I've heard that there was some question as to whether the casino workers had been in some way pressured to vote for Clinton and if that were true then what's happening is what I'd expect to see as a consequence.

But to my previous post, I think that it would be fine to have a simple vote if we could get rid of all the impediments to voting that exist.

 

[Her]

BBC says that Cruz & Sanders have taken Wisconsin.

 

[Netto Azure]

Yep. That's quite the momentum coming into New York.

It's going to be a open convention for Repubs at this rate with probably a draft Ryan insider campaign ongoing. I still can't believe the stop Trump campaign really wants Cruz lol

Sanders is eating into Clinton's lead, but the numbers are still against him due to Superdelegates and the proportional distribution of delegates left. But at this rate it's guaranteed that if Clinton gets the nomination she'll have to get someone to the left of her as VP pick. Maybe Warren? Julian Castro? or Cory Booker?

I highly doubt a Sanders VP pick though due to age concerns.