2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Legacy]

Ballot access for major and minor party candidates

Ballot access for presidential candidates

I

n order to get on the ballot, a candidate for president of the United States must meet a variety of complex, state-specific filing requirements and deadlines. These regulations, known as ballot access laws, determine whether a candidate or party will appear on an election ballot. These laws are set at the state level. A presidential candidate must prepare to meet ballot access requirements well in advance of primaries, caucuses and the general election.
There are three basic methods by which an individual may become a candidate for president of the United States.

An individual can seek the nomination of a political party. Presidential nominees are selected by delegates at national nominating conventions. Individual states conduct caucuses or primary elections to determine which delegates will be sent to the national convention.[1]

An individual can run as an independent. Independent presidential candidates typically must petition each state to have their names printed on the general election ballot. For the 2016 presidential contest, it was estimated that an independent candidate would need to collect in excess of 900,000 signatures in order to appear on the general election ballot in every state.[1]

An individual can run as a write-in candidate. In 35 states, a write-in candidate must file some paperwork in advance of the election. In seven states, write-in voting for presidential candidates is not permitted. The remaining states do not require write-in candidates to file paperwork in advance of the election.[1]

The information presented here applies only to presidential candidates. For additional information about ballot access requirements for state and congressional candidates, see this article.

State lawmakers have developed presidential ballot access procedures in an effort to prevent non-serious candidates from appearing on the ballot. Critics of these complex procedures contend that stringent ballot access requirements discourage candidate and voter participation in the electoral process.

 

[connor_in]

Former presidential contenders Martin O'Malley and Mike Huckabee might start a band - WTOP

 

[connor_in]

 

[connor_in]

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Oh good lord the media are $@$%@%^%$@....

He said..."we gonna bring THAT back". It is clear from the jump he meant the damned statue...

Rather you agree with THAT sentiment or not...he didn't ask for Joe Paterno personally...

I hate Trump, but JFC I'm tired of stupid shit easily proven false...it makes the real issues less credible...

Relax. I know what he meant. He probably should've just stayed away from the entire subject. He hasn't said a meaningful thing about real issues since the campaign started.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Relax. I know what he meant. He probably should've just stayed away from the entire subject. He hasn't said a meaningful thing about real issues since the campaign started.

^This

Not one actual policy position.

 

[phgreek]

Relax. I know what he meant. He probably should've just stayed away from the entire subject. He hasn't said a meaningful thing about real issues since the campaign started.

...my comment wasn't aimed at you...I presume anyone who posts here has an IQ somewhere north of 120...unfortunately, more than half the country does not, and the BS that the media pulls is infuriating...

 

[kmoose]

^This

Not one actual policy position.

you are just lazy.............

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

 

[NDinL.A.]

you are just lazy.............

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

I don't think it's any secret that Donald's policy knowledge is extremely weak and limited, other than some business rules. It bears itself out time and time again. In his stump speeches he hits on the same tired issues, without going into hardly any detail (I'll bring jobs back! I'll make deals! ISIS bad, China Bad!).

What he does often is skirt issues and/or change subjects. Here is a classic example, which shows how inept he is and how I'll-prepared he is to answer policy questions (and in essence, I'll-prepared to be president):

Post publisher Fred Ryan asked Trump if he would consider using a tactical nuclear strike against the forces of the Islamic State, were he president. Trump responded that he didn't want to "start the process of nuclear," then reminding the editors that he was "a counter-puncher."

"Remember, one thing that everybody has said, I’m a counter-puncher," Trump said. "Rubio hit me. Bush hit me. When I said low energy, he’s a low-energy individual, he hit me first. He spent, by the way -- he spent 18 million dollars’ worth of negative ads on me. That’s putting..."

Ryan jumped in. "This is about ISIS," he reminded Trump. "You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS?"

"I’ll tell you one thing," Trump replied. "This is a very good looking group of people here. Could I just go around so I know who the hell I’m talking to?"

It's at 56:10 in the audio above. Listen to it. It's remarkable. The editors introduced themselves, and the topic was dropped. (For good measure, on his way out of the meeting, Trump called digital editor Karen Attiah "beautiful.")

 

[kmoose]

I don't think it's any secret that Donald's policy knowledge is extremely weak and limited, other than some business rules. It bears itself out time and time again. In his stump speeches he hits on the same tired issues, without going into hardly any detail (I'll bring jobs back! I'll make deals! ISIS bad, China Bad!).

What he does often is skirt issues and/or change subjects. Here is a classic example, which shows how inept he is and how I'll-prepared he is to answer policy questions (and in essence, I'll-prepared to be president):

Post publisher Fred Ryan asked Trump if he would consider using a tactical nuclear strike against the forces of the Islamic State, were he president. Trump responded that he didn't want to "start the process of nuclear," then reminding the editors that he was "a counter-puncher."

"Remember, one thing that everybody has said, I’m a counter-puncher," Trump said. "Rubio hit me. Bush hit me. When I said low energy, he’s a low-energy individual, he hit me first. He spent, by the way -- he spent 18 million dollars’ worth of negative ads on me. That’s putting..."

Ryan jumped in. "This is about ISIS," he reminded Trump. "You would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against ISIS?"

"I’ll tell you one thing," Trump replied. "This is a very good looking group of people here. Could I just go around so I know who the hell I’m talking to?"

It's at 56:10 in the audio above. Listen to it. It's remarkable. The editors introduced themselves, and the topic was dropped. (For good measure, on his way out of the meeting, Trump called digital editor Karen Attiah "beautiful.")

I was simply responding to the notion that Trump has laid out "not one actual policy position." There are not one but seven policy positions at that link, for anyone who cares to read it. If someone ignores them and doesn't bother to read them, then they don't have a leg to stand on when complaining that Trump isn't outlining any policy positions.

 

[GATTACA!]

...my comment wasn't aimed at you...I presume anyone who posts here has an IQ somewhere north of 120...unfortunately, more than half the country does not, and the BS that the media pulls is infuriating...

That's very generous.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I was simply responding to the notion that Trump has laid out "not one actual policy position." There are not one but seven policy positions at that link, for anyone who cares to read it. If someone ignores them and doesn't bother to read them, then they don't have a leg to stand on when complaining that Trump isn't outlining any policy positions.

My bad for speaking in absolutes. Let me rephrase...

His policy chops are highly questionable.

 

[irishfan]

Trump has no policy specifics (apart from how he would try to recoup 12 billion from Mexico for The Wall which IMO he is correct there)

--stopping illegal immigration to promote more legal legal immigration
--bringing back jobs somehow/creating incentives to keep companies here
--conducting proper deals with countries (vague but trade deficits, foreign aid, blah blah blah)
--lowering taxes on lower and middle classes
--limiting US involvement in the Middle East
--Cares about Americans over the rest of the world
--0 clue on health care but he pledges to keep everyone covered and improve Obamacare

He pretty much says the same few things over and over just like Bernie does too. Bernie hits on a few things and rides his nice-old-man-fixing-a-corrupt-country persona to win people over. Trump hits on a few things and rides his Im-a-nonPC-winner persona to win people over. It's not that complicated to see why they're doing well with a weak pool of candidates.

 

[kmoose]

Trump has no policy specifics (apart from how he would try to recoup 12 billion from Mexico for The Wall which IMO he is correct there)

What about this is not specific enough for you?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

 

[IrishJayhawk]

What about this is not specific enough for you?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

Honest question...do you think Trump knows that those are his positions?

I don't care for Cruz, but I think he can lay out his actual policies pretty clearly. I think Sanders and Clinton can, too. That's not to say that their staff doesn't basically write these web pages as well. But they can give some specifics when pressed. Trump has real trouble outlining actual policy positions in speeches, debates, or town hall meetings.

 

[kmoose]

Trump has real trouble outlining actual policy positions in speeches, debates, or town hall meetings.

I think Trump knows exactly what his positions are. You don't get to be as wealthy as him without knowing what is going on in your organization. Plus, he gives every appearance of a control enthusiast. I don't think he has trouble at all. I think he is acting like a very successful businessman; he's holding his cards close to the vest, not letting out too much information, so that none of his competitors can take his ideas and "steal the sale" from him. I'm still not voting for him, but not because I don't know what his positions are.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Trump has policy positions. He's horrible at breaking them down and discussing them (which is probably why none of his supporters can articulate why they support said policies.)

I've read through his positions and some of them hold weight, while some are batshit crazy and indefensible. Take his tax reform for example. There are aspects of it that are good (taxing the offshore accounts, lowering the corporate tax rate and enforcing it, removing the carried interest loophole among others, etc), but there are some aspects that are ludicrous - top tax rate is 25% over $300,000? Really? Rates haven't been that low since the 1920s - a time when American income and wealth inequality was as high as it is now. That's a huge problem in this country. It's a major populist issue. Further, it's been proven that regardless of the party in control, our government leaders are big spenders (in their respective sectors). Trump's tax plan has been destroyed by analysts because it massively decreases the revenue and would severely increase the deficit. Trump talks about making budget cuts, but whenever he mentions what he'll cut, he says something stupid and ignorant in expected Trumpian fashion and it's immediately proven inaccurate.

There are plenty of things to nitpick within each candidates' policies. That's not earth-shattering news. I tend to cut them a little slack too when it comes to knowing the actual detailed specifics of how to carry out each plan (that's why they anoint cabinet members who are capable of handling that stuff). But they should at least know the premise of what they're supporting and Trump just can't seem to get around not sound like a babbling idiot. Throw in his hateful rhetoric and you have a total package, grade A buffoon running for the most powerful position in the world.

 

[dales5050]

He says something stupid and ignorant in expected Trumpian fashion and it's immediately proven inaccurate.

This line got me thinking. I think how we go about electing people is the reason why we get such poor results. We want people to break down tax policy, immigration, healthcare or breaking up banks in stump speeches or interviews on their own when the process of actually moving the dial on those things takes 1000s of people and hundreds of thousands of hours.

The only thing that works in campaigns under those conditions is rhetoric and yet we continue to be outraged when results don't match the pitch or we rush to be hypercritical on each and every word said during a campaign. This is for both sides by the way.

With all of the advancements in technology today we can have co-workers collaborating on different sides of the globe at the same time, we can have computers do the work of 10,000 humans and we can write code that is more precise than the collective whole of the best and the brightest.

Yet we still elect people essentially the same way as when transportation was done with a horse and a wagon. Just does not make sense to me.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

This line got me thinking. I think how we go about electing people is the reason why we get such poor results. We want people to break down tax policy, immigration, healthcare or breaking up banks in stump speeches or interviews on their own when the process of actually moving the dial on those things takes 1000s of people and hundreds of thousands of hours.

The only thing that works in campaigns under those conditions is rhetoric and yet we continue to be outraged when results don't match the pitch or we rush to be hypercritical on each and every word said during a campaign. This is for both sides by the way.

With all of the advancements in technology today we can have co-workers collaborating on different sides of the globe at the same time, we can have computers do the work of 10,000 humans and we can write code that is more precise than the collective whole of the best and the brightest.

Yet we still elect people essentially the same way as when transportation was done with a horse and a wagon. Just does not make sense to me.

I agree.

Two things:

1) My last paragraph explained that I cut candidates slack in this regard. I, too, think its asking a bit much for a candidate to elaborate in extreme detail when discussing policy. Take Bernie on the banks as a recent example. He got put on the spot during an interview to go into specifics and when he didn't give them this long, perfect answer, he got slayed for it. I've cut Trump a lot of slack in this regard. (Especially early on. Not as much now.) They should however be able to articulate the main talking points though, which is something Trump regularly struggles with.

2) Our election process is an absolute joke. There are so many things to criticize.

 

[ND NYC]

anyone else think/feel Americans have lost interest in this entire primary process?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I think Trump knows exactly what his positions are. You don't get to be as wealthy as him without knowing what is going on in your organization. Plus, he gives every appearance of a control enthusiast. I don't think he has trouble at all. I think he is acting like a very successful businessman; he's holding his cards close to the vest, not letting out too much information, so that none of his competitors can take his ideas and "steal the sale" from him. I'm still not voting for him, but not because I don't know what his positions are.

Fair enough. I don't see it the same way. I think he's a control freak about other things. I think his run for president is sort of a game for him. It's a power play. I think he's completely uninterested in policy.

Either way, we can both agree not to vote for him.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

anyone else think/feel Americans have lost interest in this entire primary process?

No. Primary voter turnout is rivaling the record turnout set in 2008.

Turnout in 2016 primaries so far rivals 2008 record | Pew Research Center

 

[dales5050]

Our election process is an absolute joke. There are so many things to criticize.

I would go farther to say that our political process is a joke.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I would go farther to say that our political process is a joke.

No qualms with that statement.

 

[irishfan]

What about this is not specific enough for you?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

I guess the viability of it more than anything. So I didn't phrase it well. I did mention that he wants to lower taxes for lower/middle class and also create incentives to keep companies in the U.S.. It just seems more like the ideal scenario more than a unique policy.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

New York City GOP Gala Crowd Ignores Ted Cruz During His Speech

Ted Cruz does not like New York. New York does not like Ted Cruz.

 

[irishfan]

New York City GOP Gala Crowd Ignores Ted Cruz During His Speech

Ted Cruz does not like New York. New York does not like Ted Cruz.

Trump might get every delegate there Tuesday. Good momentum for the next states. He should be favored in every state that votes 4/19 and 4/26:

4/19: NY
4/26: CT, DE, MD, PA, RI

 

[irishfan]

Let Me Ask America a Question - WSJ

If he could speak as reasonably as he writes, Trump would actually have a chance.

 

[GATTACA!]

Let Me Ask America a Question - WSJ

If he could speak as reasonably as his staffers write, Trump would actually have a chance.

FTFY

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Robert Reich had this to say today:

A study released yesterday by Oxfam shows the astonishing political power of big corporations. For every $1 the nation’s 50 largest corporations have paid in federal taxes since 2008, they’ve received back $27 in corporate welfare – bailouts, federal loans, loan guarantees, and subsidies. How is this possible? Because of their campaign contributions and lobbying clout. For every $1 they’ve paid in lobbying, they’ve received $130 in special tax breaks, and more than $4,000 in federal bailouts, loans, loan guarantees, and subsidies.

All this corporate welfare means less money for education, infrastructure, and the poor. Meanwhile, corporations are contributing less and less: Back in the 1950s, corporate taxes accounted for almost a third of all federal revenues. Now they account for only 11 percent. You and I make up for the shortfall. Happy tax day.

http://www.oxfamamerica.org/static/media/files/Broken_at_the_Top_FINAL_EMBARGOED_4.12.2016.pdf

https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/ib-wealth-having-all-wanting-more-190115-en.pdf