2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Irish YJ]

It's my opinion that the words oligarchy and plutocracy define our current government. This started decades ago and has progressively gotten worse with each POTUS who is "unwilling to flip over the apple cart" and disturb the status quo.

ol·i·gar·chy
ˈäləˌɡärkē/
noun

• a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.

plu·toc·ra·cy
plo͞oˈtäkrəsē/Submit
noun

• government by the wealthy.
• a country or society governed by the wealthy.

plural noun: plutocracies

• an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.

But but but Obama and Clintons are for the working man and poor.....

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Can't say I'm a big fan of Trump, but sad when a clear cut popular vote winner is really not the winner. Just another example of why people are so frustrated with politics in general regardless of party affiliation or core beliefs. I think all of this crap just fuels additional support for Trump's anti institution platform.

If there's one thing I'd like a President Trump to nuke, it's the election process. Blow that thing up and start fresh. This is a Federal election, yet the states decide how to set up the voting. They all do it differently and it's insanity. I mean how are "closed primaries" a democracy? Why do you have to be affiliated with either of the top two parties to have your vote count?

 

[kmoose]

Oh, I want one of those. This election cycle is the biggest clown show I've witnessed yet and I've seen my share.

You shut your American Pie hole!!

 

[BleedBlueGold]

But but but Obama and Clintons are for the working man and poor.....

 

[Irish YJ]

You shut your American Pie hole!!

I'm absolutely ordering one. Can't wait to plant that SOB in my front yard with pride...

If there's one thing I'd like a President Trump to nuke, it's the election process. Blow that thing up and start fresh. This is a Federal election, yet the states decide how to set up the voting. They all do it differently and it's insanity. I mean how are "closed primaries" a democracy? Why do you have to be affiliated with either of the top two parties to have your vote count?

It's all a sham. The whole party system needs to be nuked as well. I'd love to see internet voting after a mandatory on-line education course that contains fact and data on the current state of things, followed by a course on the candidates platform.

Also, let the voters vote on the issues and laws themselves after similar educational courses. And please, no-one tell me that the average American is not capable of making a vote on policy or issues. Hell, most politicians are not capable of making fair and honest votes based on the fact and data around the issue without party pressure of outside lobbiest and special interests....

Blow it all up.

 

[kmoose]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/u...er=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Bernie is done. Short of a massive scandal breaking, it seems completely unrealistic that he hits the remaining numbers he needs... and that's not even counting Supers.

Now just need to find a way to get rid of Trump and Cruz and we could have a reasonable election with reasonable choices that aren't a dire threat to the future of this country.

Did you really just refer to Hillary Clinton as a "reasonable choice"?

 

[Irish YJ]

yes we are... too funny and sad to actually cry lol

 

[Ndaccountant]

History repeating?

Until that year, presidential nominees were selected at conventions with delegates who were picked by party activists, office holders and leaders in proverbial smoke-filled backrooms. Even in states where the public could participate in some fashion, there was no way for voters to tell delegates which candidate to support.

At first Roosevelt did not support presidential primaries. In December, 1911, his supporters helped prevent the Republican National Committee from calling on states to adopt them. But once it became clear that Taft could control a convention where delegates were picked under the old rules, Roosevelt championed the new concept of presidential primaries. His campaign theme was “Let the People Rule.” He advocated controversial ideas and used inflammatory language to attack Taft, exciting crowds but throwing fear into the hearts of the leaders and business interests who still dominated the Republican Party.

The reform-minded Nation magazine said that Roosevelt's “violence of language, recklessness of assertion, and apparent inability to reason coherently make of him a spectacle disturbing to his friends and mortifying to the country.”

Many doubted the value of the new system. The New York Times called it “Party Suicide by Primary” and said it was “a first rate device for splitting a party wide open and inviting defeat on Election Day.” The old system may have been open to objection, it argued, “but for any electorate save one confined within the walls of an insane asylum, its advantages over this plan are obvious.”

Nevertheless, the primaries energized the public. TR won nine of the 13 newly created state contests and 70% of the popularly elected delegates. It wasn't enough to overcome the ability of the Republican Party leaders to manipulate the levers of power. Some recognized that Taft could not be reelected president, but they detested Roosevelt, and winning the White House mattered less to them than maintaining control of the party machinery

In a bitter convention, the Republicans nominated Taft who proceeded to come in third in the general election, trailing both Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate, and TR who ran as the standard bearer of the Bull Moose Party, which he had created after being denied the Republican nomination.

How Theodore Roosevelt helped prove that a knock-down, drag-out primary is a good way to choose a candidate - LA Times

 

[connor_in]

I'm absolutely ordering one. Can't wait to plant that SOB in my front yard with pride...



It's all a sham. The whole party system needs to be nuked as well. I'd love to see internet voting after a mandatory on-line education course that contains fact and data on the current state of things, followed by a course on the candidates platform.

Also, let the voters vote on the issues and laws themselves after similar educational courses. And please, no-one tell me that the average American is not capable of making a vote on policy or issues. Hell, most politicians are not capable of making fair and honest votes based on the fact and data around the issue without party pressure of outside lobbiest and special interests....

Blow it all up.

Decision '16

 

[dales5050]

Did you really just refer to Hillary Clinton as a "reasonable choice"?

That has been the game plan all along.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

It's all a sham. The whole party system needs to be nuked as well. I'd love to see internet voting after a mandatory on-line education course that contains fact and data on the current state of things, followed by a course on the candidates platform.

Also, let the voters vote on the issues and laws themselves after similar educational courses. And please, no-one tell me that the average American is not capable of making a vote on policy or issues. Hell, most politicians are not capable of making fair and honest votes based on the fact and data around the issue without party pressure of outside lobbiest and special interests....

Blow it all up.

I'd love to see this too, but the problems that I can name off the top of my head are:

• People don't always base their beliefs on facts.
• Said facts can have slant and bias depending on how it's presented.
• Ethnic and religious diversity provides differences of opinion regardless of facts.
• It would be nearly impossible to break down extremely complicated political topics into a simple form that the typical voter can comprehend. For every Keynesian argument, there's a counter. For every pro-choice argument, there's a counter. Etc. Different sides can provide arguments that are based on facts and the amount of knowledge it requires to fully grasp the details of these topics goes well beyond what a typical voter can obtain via an online course.

I'm sure their are others issues I can't think of right now. I firmly believe that this method would be far better than getting your information from mainstream media. But the logistics are mind-boggling to me. (Maybe I just need another cup of coffee.)

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Can't say I'm a big fan of Trump, but sad when a clear cut popular vote winner is really not the winner. Just another example of why people are so frustrated with politics in general regardless of party affiliation or core beliefs. I think all of this crap just fuels additional support for Trump's anti institution platform.

2000 Presidential Election - Popular Vote

 

[IrishJayhawk]

If there's one thing I'd like a President Trump to nuke, it's the election process. Blow that thing up and start fresh. This is a Federal election, yet the states decide how to set up the voting. They all do it differently and it's insanity. I mean how are "closed primaries" a democracy? Why do you have to be affiliated with either of the top two parties to have your vote count?

Because we're not actually to the Democracy part yet. The political parties are voting for their candidates. They get to make the rules.

 

[gkIrish]

I wonder if Hillary's people are secretly helping Trump get nominated so that she can actually win a general election.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

History repeating?



How Theodore Roosevelt helped prove that a knock-down, drag-out primary is a good way to choose a candidate - LA Times

Great article.

The current political process sickens me.

The rules, which differ from party to party, election to election and state to state, are dizzyingly confusing. Moreover, in a country where roughly 40% of the electorate is not affiliated with either party, does it really make sense for some states to have “closed primaries” where only party members can vote?

It's not a democracy when rules are created (by either main party) to suppress votes. Republicans take a lot of heat for this, but the Dems to it too. In almost every state, there's been an issue brought up by the public pointing out that the Clinton Machine is somehow involved in manipulating the vote. Factually correct or incorrect doesn't really matter because the perception is there and it's been overwhelming in some states.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Because we're not actually to the Democracy part yet. The political parties are voting for their candidates. They get to make the rules.

See ndaccountant's post regarding TR's stance on letting the people decide. 40% of this country is unaffiliated with Repubs and Dems, yet we're forced to vote solely on one or the other because it's what the parties in power decide. That, to me, is unacceptable.

Yes, the opportunity to vote for someone not affiliated with R/D is available. But because of the current system, it's unrealistic for anyone to believe that a non-Dem or a non-Repub will actually get elected.

I wonder if Hillary's people are secretly helping Trump get nominated so that she can actually win a general election.

Some of have speculated based on the reversal of that statement, ie. Trump is trolling the Repubs in order to help HRC get into the WH.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Great article.

The current political process sickens me.



It's not a democracy when rules are created (by either main party) to suppress votes. Republicans take a lot of heat for this, but the Dems to it too. In almost every state, there's been an issue brought up by the public pointing out that the Clinton Machine is somehow involved in manipulating the vote. Factually correct or incorrect doesn't really matter because the perception is there and it's been overwhelming in some states.

How would you deal with independents who aren't affiliated with a party? Should they be able to choose which primary to vote in? Why not allow anyone to vote in both primaries? Isn't that the most democratic? As a registered Democrat, why can't I vote for my favorite Democrat and the Republican I find the most agreeable? They are separate votes altogether at this point.

The primary process is a way for political parties to narrow the field so that they only have one candidate. It creates a compromise, consensus candidate (dang...alliteration there). A big tent, rather than splitting the vote on the "purest" candidate. Why shouldn't those parties get to determine how they choose that candidate?

Honest questions. I think a lot of this is a mess.

 

[irishfan]

Northeast Primary: April 26, 2016 (109 bound)

Connecticut Primary (28/25) — Winner take all above 50%, otherwise proportional with 20% threshold statewide and winner take all by congressional district
Delaware Primary (16) — Winner take all
Maryland Primary (38) — Winner take all
Pennsylvania Primary (71/14) — Winner take all statewide, remaining delegates elected on ballot and unbound
Rhode Island Primary (19/16) — Proportional with 10% threshold


CT Poll 4/12
Connecticut Republican Presidential Primary Emerson Trump 50, Kasich 26, Cruz 17 Trump +24


MD Poll 4/19
Maryland Republican Presidential Primary PPP (D) Trump 43, Kasich 29, Cruz 24 Trump +14

4/13 Maryland Republican Presidential Primary Monmouth Trump 47, Kasich 27, Cruz 19 Trump +20


PA 4/18
Pennsylvania Republican Presidential Primary Morning Call Trump 41, Cruz 23, Kasich 26 Trump +15

4/17 Pennsylvania Republican Presidential Primary CBS News/YouGov Trump 46, Cruz 26, Kasich 23 Trump +20

4/14 Pennsylvania Republican Presidential Primary Monmouth Trump 44, Cruz 28, Kasich 23 Trump +16

Trump will sweep next Tuesday. Kasich just isn't gaining ground and Cruz doesn't relate to anyone in the Northeast. The NY Values statement (which got taken out of context since he phrased it more maliciously than it was intended) hurt him everywhere in this region, not just NY. He alienated a lot of people in NJ, CT with that statement as well. Seems like it's just a matter of how many delegates Trump gets (50%+ in CT, margin of victory in RI, whatever PA does), but it sets him up to get to 1237 since a win in Indiana the following week will just about lock that up heading into the final states. Betting sides are putting Indiana as a toss-up with Trump/Cruz.

Also, does anyone understand exactly how PA distributes its delegates on the GOP side? I've read about it, and it just seems so confusing. I know Cruz is expected to finish in 3rd but supposedly they're confident he will still end up with half of the delegates. I'm not gonna blame anyone for taking advantage of the weird delegate rules, but the rules in many states seem like complete BS.

 

[dales5050]

It's not a democracy when rules are created (by either main party) to suppress votes. Republicans take a lot of heat for this, but the Dems to it too. In almost every state, there's been an issue brought up by the public pointing out that the Clinton Machine is somehow involved in manipulating the vote. Factually correct or incorrect doesn't really matter because the perception is there and it's been overwhelming in some states.

They are party rules. I see no issue with a party having it's own rules to determine who they put up. The process is defined by the Republicans and Democrats and it should be.

The issue is that we really only have two parties. Since I don't like any of the candidates, my hope is that both Sanders and Trump get screwed over in some epic way and in turn keep the effort going after the general.

I think if you could find a way to trim the extreme factions of both the Sanders and Trump groups you would have a group of people who agree on more than they realize.

For example, a lot of people I know agree with Sanders on breaking things up but dislike what he wants to give away. I also know a lot of people that agree in principle with some of the Trump positions but cringe with his delivery. Everyone I have spoke with hates the currently political system.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

How would you deal with independents who aren't affiliated with a party? Should they be able to choose which primary to vote in? Why not allow anyone to vote in both primaries? Isn't that the most democratic? As a registered Democrat, why can't I vote for my favorite Democrat and the Republican I find the most agreeable? They are separate votes altogether at this point.

The primary process is a way for political parties to narrow the field so that they only have one candidate. It creates a compromise, consensus candidate (dang...alliteration there). A big tent, rather than splitting the vote on the "purest" candidate. Why shouldn't those parties get to determine how they choose that candidate?

Honest questions. I think a lot of this is a mess.

Independent voters should be allowed to cast a vote for whomever they choose. I honestly think closed primaries are a joke, along with forcing someone to register under a certain party.

I don't have a problem with how a particular party goes about picking their own candidate. (However, I can nitpick the current system and rules). My main problem is that there are two main political parties and they control everything. What's so democratic about having two power parties narrow down the field to their eventual candidate, when said candidate will be one of two in the real race for POTUS while all others get left behind? Can you still vote Ind? Green? etc? Sure. But what's the point when, overwhelmingly, the R or D will win the election.

Individual America beliefs are so diverse and convoluted that no one particular party can fully meet their ideals, so why force people into choosing between just two parties? Why have parties at all? I think if you eliminated the labels, you'd get a more diverse casting of votes.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

They are party rules. I see no issue with a party having it's own rules to determine who they put up. The process is defined by the Republicans and Democrats and it should be.

The issue is that we really only have two parties. Since I don't like any of the candidates, my hope is that both Sanders and Trump get screwed over in some epic way and in turn keep the effort going after the general.

I think if you could find a way to trim the extreme factions of both the Sanders and Trump groups you would have a group of people who agree on more than they realize.

For example, a lot of people I know agree with Sanders on breaking things up but dislike what he wants to give away. I also know a lot of people that agree in principle with some of the Trump positions but cringe with his delivery. Everyone I have spoke with hates the currently political system.

This is my entire gripe.

Why do we have "only two" parties when almost half of this country doesn't attach themselves to either one? That's the definition of being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils and I hate that about our system.

I agree with you that each party can set their own rules in narrowing down the field. But don't you think it should be a little more fairly? It seems like a disadvantage to me to not have open primaries in every state.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I would love to see a four-person race in the general.

If so many people in this country are fed up with the status quo, then prove it by voting for either an Ind Trump or an Ind Sanders. That's my opinion anyways.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Did you really just refer to Hillary Clinton as a "reasonable choice"?

In context, in comparison to the others he was talking about, absolutely. I wouldn't have said that before, but in researching the candidates that have/had an actual chance to win, and all of their policies and how I believe the candidate would run the country and be able to get things done, she came out smelling like roses in comparison.

 

[Wingman Ray]

In context, in comparison to the others he was talking about, absolutely. I wouldn't have said that before, but in researching the candidates that have/had an actual chance to win, and all of their policies and how I believe the candidate would run the country and be able to get things done, she came out smelling like roses in comparison.

Im not a fan of Clinton at all. I feel she is a egotistical, homosexual, man hater and would only continue to weaken America much like Obama has the last two terms.

Trump on the other hand could very well be the anti-Christ. He will strengthen America financially and military wise but could very well begin the end for Western Civilization. Trump in office equals a lot of the world pissed off at America and weakening ties with allies more than ever.

It is lose/lose this time.

 

[pkt77242]

The answer is to get rid of parties. Politicians should not be beholden to their parties. Politicians should be running on ideas not being a D or R.

Then you could have 1 primary where all Presidential candidates are in it and the top 2 or 3 (maybe put a threshold of 25% to advance?) would go on to the election.

 

[IrishLax]

The answer is to get rid of parties. Politicians should not be beholden to their parties. Politicians should be running on ideas not being a D or R.

Then you could have 1 primary where all Presidential candidates are in it and the top 2 or 3 (maybe put a threshold of 25% to advance?) would go on to the election.

What you're describing is more or less a modified plurality runoff. Kind of off topic, but a lot of the issues we have in our current system is it is HORRIBLY designed to actually give people true choice and encourage diversity of political platforms.

 

[BGIF]

To borrow a word from Wooly (I think he used it).....: oligarchy

If I recall correctly the wooled was the one who pointed out that Hillary was NOT an Oligarch. Either the most naive or most disingenuous statement in the history of this board.

She Who Must Be Obeyed.

When the State Department said no unsecured blackberries; secure communications only. SHE had her minions whine and continue to do it HER way. Using unsecured equipment and hiring her own IT guy from outside the State Department to State Department IT to install and rubber stamp a rogue system.

When she couldn't get HER HUSBAND's former foreign policy wonk hired by State, SHE had him hired by HER FOUNDATION for $10 million a year. AND then SHE communicated with him on her rogue communications system about secured matters of State in an unauthorized advisory capacity and call those communications personal.

She interfaced with leaders of the world and others in the global financial community while serving as a Director of the Bill, Hill, and Chels Foundation. Schmoozing, wheeling, and dealing and accepting megabucks donations from lobbyists (excuse astute business people. Conflicts of interest don't pertain to Oligarchs. They didn't with the Boyars,the Medici, The Friends of Bill, or The Friends of Putin.

The Senate for centuries had been described as the most exclusive country club in the nation.

SHE legislated as First Lady as an unelected official.

SHE and her family are American Oligarchs with solid global connections.

 

[phgreek]

If I recall correctly the wooled was the one who pointed out that Hillary was NOT an Oligarch. Either the most naive or most disingenuous statement in the history of this board.

She Who Must Be Obeyed.

When the State Department said no unsecured blackberries; secure communications only. SHE had her minions whine and continue to do it HER way. Using unsecured equipment and hiring her own IT guy from outside the State Department to State Department IT to install and rubber stamp a rogue system.

When she couldn't get HER HUSBAND's former foreign policy wonk hired by State, SHE had him hired by HER FOUNDATION for $10 million a year. AND then SHE communicated with him on her rogue communications system about secured matters of State in an unauthorized advisory capacity and call those communications personal.

She interfaced with leaders of the world and others in the global financial community while serving as a Director of the Bill, Hill, and Chels Foundation. Schmoozing, wheeling, and dealing and accepting megabucks donations from lobbyists (excuse astute business people. Conflicts of interest don't pertain to Oligarchs. They didn't with the Boyars,the Medici, The Friends of Bill, or The Friends of Putin.

The Senate for centuries had been described as the most exclusive country club in the nation.

SHE legislated as First Lady as an unelected official.

SHE and her family are American Oligarchs with solid global connections.

...and there are indications she had actual transgressions related directly to positions of trust...when merely appearance of COI gets you in hot water at any level of government. She is a criminal having more in common with Lucky Luciano than she ever did with Richard Nixon.

 

[Irish YJ]

Decision '16

I was thinking more like the below. Don't they remind you of the Kennedys!

Beebs 2020

 

[Irish YJ]

If I recall correctly the wooled was the one who pointed out that Hillary was NOT an Oligarch. Either the most naive or most disingenuous statement in the history of this board.

She Who Must Be Obeyed.

When the State Department said no unsecured blackberries; secure communications only. SHE had her minions whine and continue to do it HER way. Using unsecured equipment and hiring her own IT guy from outside the State Department to State Department IT to install and rubber stamp a rogue system.

When she couldn't get HER HUSBAND's former foreign policy wonk hired by State, SHE had him hired by HER FOUNDATION for $10 million a year. AND then SHE communicated with him on her rogue communications system about secured matters of State in an unauthorized advisory capacity and call those communications personal.

She interfaced with leaders of the world and others in the global financial community while serving as a Director of the Bill, Hill, and Chels Foundation. Schmoozing, wheeling, and dealing and accepting megabucks donations from lobbyists (excuse astute business people. Conflicts of interest don't pertain to Oligarchs. They didn't with the Boyars,the Medici, The Friends of Bill, or The Friends of Putin.

The Senate for centuries had been described as the most exclusive country club in the nation.

SHE legislated as First Lady as an unelected official.

SHE and her family are American Oligarchs with solid global connections.

Yes he was, and that's exactly why I posted .