2016 Presidential Horse Race

[irishfan]

Can't wait for the Trump/Clinton IE poll soon.

 

[Irish YJ]

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.)

So really no different than existing process. Our chosen reps don't necessarily understand, or are not voting their constituent's minds, or slanted by lobbiest and special interests, or...
doesn't sound like much of a risk.

How about simple questions...

Do you want us to spend more of your tax dollars on social security, or special interests?

Would you like us to spend your tax dollars on foreign economic relief, or domestic education....

 

[Irish YJ]

Can't wait for the Trump/Clinton IE poll soon.

Merica's couple!!
And I love how CNN used/and uses a flattering pic of Hilldog (I know, flattering is a loaded word when describing Hilldog) next to a scowling Trump on the front page yesterday.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Can't wait for the Trump/Clinton IE poll soon.

#SMOD2016

 

[BGIF]

Unless that Pennsylvania number shifts quickly Trump has it wrapped up.

John King of CNN does a nice job each primary night going through the tally and projecting the future events. Last night he broke down those Super Tuesday III events and stated Trump should due well but not necessarily as well as in NY.

Six months ago those states were considered the spot where moderates would gain ground over the conservatives. Kasich won't win but should have a good showing and could eat into Trump's count when Trump needs them all.

 

[GATTACA!]

Not really. To reach the magic number Trump is going to have to win Indiana and probably one other state that Cruz is expected to win from what I saw last night. Even if he wins Indiana he may fall one short of the magic number.

This would be true if there weren't going to be 200 unbound delegates for Trump to throw his money at.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

So really no different than existing process. Our chosen reps don't necessarily understand, or are not voting their constituent's minds, or slanted by lobbiest and special interests, or...
doesn't sound like much of a risk.

How about simple questions...

Do you want us to spend more of your tax dollars on social security, or special interests?

Would you like us to spend your tax dollars on foreign economic relief, or domestic education....

Our existing process consists of a huge demographic still getting their news from mainstream media and then voting based on the hogwash that's fed to them. A simple fact-check on what most of the media tells viewers can be proven half-true at best and pants-on-fire at worst. Very rarely do they give an unbiased, fully-factual news broadcast. And people can't seem to sift through the bullshit.

To your questions:

I'd vote for increase in Soc. Sec. before I voted for more corporate tax relief, more war, etc.

I'd vote for increase in funding for domestic education.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

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.

It wouldn't last long. They would start to form coalitions in order to get more of a share of the vote. That's what the parties are.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It wouldn't last long. They would start to form coalitions in order to get more of a share of the vote. That's what the parties are.

The American Founders hated political parties (see Madison's warning against "factions" in Federalist #10). But we ended up with them anyway. They're sadly unavoidable.

 

[Legacy]

We each have our different opinions, reflective of the voting populace. The electoral process we have is outmoded, too subject to manipulation by special interests, and does not adequately address issues rather than candidates and personalities.

Scrap it. Let the people decide. Popular vote wins the nomination and the Presidency. Cap the money. Government is formed by coalition, if necessary. If they can't get the job done, have another election. They have to work together. Grand Obstructionists would effectively be minimized with the negative response. Costs are not a problem with capping then. No electoral college. No winner take all. No gerrymandering. No backroom rules decisions. All primaries for the nominations - no caucuses or superdelegates. But voters can vote for any candidate in a primary. Everyone else who meets a threshold on the same stage for the Presidential election.

We'd have four on that stage. We'd have each representing a voting public's views. The power shifts to the people.

 

[ND NYC]

so, the "2016 Presidential Horse Race" will be Trump vs Clinton?

or am I missing something

 

[woolybug25]

We each have our different opinions, reflective of the voting populace. The electoral process we have is outmoded, too subject to manipulation by special interests, and does not adequately address issues rather than candidates and personalities.

Scrap it. Let the people decide. Popular vote wins the nomination and the Presidency. Cap the money. Government is formed by coalition, if necessary. If they can't get the job done, have another election. Grand Obstructionists would effectively be minimized with the negative response. Capped cost is not a problem then. No electoral college. No winner take all. All primaries for the nominations - no caucuses or superdelegates. But voters can vote for any candidate in a primary. Everyone else who meets a threshold on the same stage for the Presidential election.

We'd have four on that stage. We'd have each representing a voting public's views.

We would also essentially be letting LA, NYC and Chicago decide the election every cycle.

 

[gkIrish]

I heard a couple interesting, but unrelated things last night:

1) There was a district in NY where 60,000+ people voted, but less delegates were awarded for that district than one in which less than 1,000 people voted.

2) Republicans have been breaking turnout records in I think every state. If not all, most. The same cannot be said for Democrats. This could be a big factor in the general.

 

[Legacy]

We would also essentially be letting LA, NYC and Chicago decide the election every cycle.

Doubt it. You're still thinking two nominees. With four, you'd split those. Everyone has their say. If their population has more weight, what's the difficulty? Majority decides and few candidates would get 50% anyway and would have to form a coalition. Better voter turnout.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I heard a couple interesting, but unrelated things last night:

1) There was a district in NY where 60,000+ people voted, but less delegates were awarded for that district than one in which less than 1,000 people voted.

2) Republicans have been breaking turnout records in I think every state. If not all, most. The same cannot be said for Democrats. This could be a big factor in the general.

It would be a factor if Trump or Cruz were polling better among women. Turns out you can't be competitive in a general election when you alienate half of the electorate.

 

[GATTACA!]

It would be a factor if Trump or Cruz were polling better among women. Turns out you can't be competitive in a general election when you alienate half of the electorate.

But Trump cherishes women, no one is going to be better for women than Trump, just ask Melania.

 

[Irish YJ]

It wouldn't last long. They would start to form coalitions in order to get more of a share of the vote. That's what the parties are.

Outlaw coalitions, lobbyist, etc.
Everyone on his own merit, with restricted budget, and restricted means as to which to attain budget.

Our existing process consists of a huge demographic still getting their news from mainstream media and then voting based on the hogwash that's fed to them. A simple fact-check on what most of the media tells viewers can be proven half-true at best and pants-on-fire at worst. Very rarely do they give an unbiased, fully-factual news broadcast. And people can't seem to sift through the bullshit.

To your questions:

I'd vote for increase in Soc. Sec. before I voted for more corporate tax relief, more war, etc.

I'd vote for increase in funding for domestic education.

Glad you answered, but I was suggesting the public vote on simple questions like that (since they can not understand all the "policy" stuff...

The American Founders hated political parties (see Madison's warning against "factions" in Federalist #10). But we ended up with them anyway. They're sadly unavoidable.

Doesn't have to be. It's simply allowed and accepted.

We each have our different opinions, reflective of the voting populace. The electoral process we have is outmoded, too subject to manipulation by special interests, and does not adequately address issues rather than candidates and personalities.

Scrap it. Let the people decide. Popular vote wins the nomination and the Presidency. Cap the money. Government is formed by coalition, if necessary. If they can't get the job done, have another election. They have to work together. Grand Obstructionists would effectively be minimized with the negative response. Costs are not a problem with capping then. No electoral college. No winner take all. No gerrymandering. No backroom rules decisions. All primaries for the nominations - no caucuses or superdelegates. But voters can vote for any candidate in a primary. Everyone else who meets a threshold on the same stage for the Presidential election.

We'd have four on that stage. We'd have each representing a voting public's views. The power shifts to the people.

It would be nice if Americans, prior to the primary, could vote on 4-6 simple issues or key areas. For instance, budget, national security, education, foreign relations, etc.. Make it big animal picture like. Have the general population vote on, or prioritize simple things. For instance, from a budget perspective, have the voters prioritize the tax spend. Whatever the majority prioritizes, the candidates and ultimate elected official is bound to upholding. I bet social security would be a lot different. I bet foreign aide would be a lot different, and on and on..

We would also essentially be letting LA, NYC and Chicago decide the election every cycle.

All I want to know, does that include East LA?

I heard a couple interesting, but unrelated things last night:

1) There was a district in NY where 60,000+ people voted, but less delegates were awarded for that district than one in which less than 1,000 people voted.

2) Republicans have been breaking turnout records in I think every state. If not all, most. The same cannot be said for Democrats. This could be a big factor in the general.

on 1), that's just one more of the glaring holes in the process. hysterical.

on 2), did they think that was Trump, Cruz, or both?

 

[Irish YJ]

It would be a factor if Trump or Cruz were polling better among women. Turns out you can't be competitive in a general election when you alienate half of the electorate.

I mean, besides Wooly, doesn't Hilldog alienate the other half. Pretty scwary

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Doesn't have to be. It's simply allowed and accepted.

How would you go about abolishing political parties? I'd argue that whatever you did, they'd immediately pop up again under a different guise. Factionalism is part of the human condition.

I mean, besides Wooly, doesn't Hilldog alienate the other half. Pretty scwary

I wasn't making a moral judgment about Trump or Cruz. Just pointing out that the further right you go on the American political spectrum, the harder it is to attract female voters. The libertarian movement is a sausage fest, and the Alt Right is even moreso. That's why both Trump and Cruz are facing such large gender gaps in their support, and it's also why the GOP has historically done everything in its power to avoid nominating "true believers" like Barry Goldwater and Pat Buchanan. You just can't win a general with such candidates. Unfortunately for the GOP, that's all they've got right now.

 

[Legacy]

Outlaw coalitions, lobbyist, etc.

It would be nice if Americans, prior to the primary, could vote on 4-6 simple issues or key areas. For instance, budget, national security, education, foreign relations, etc.. Make it big animal picture like. Have the general population vote on, or prioritize simple things. For instance, from a budget perspective, have the voters prioritize the tax spend. Whatever the majority prioritizes, the candidates and ultimate elected official is bound to upholding. I bet social security would be a lot different. I bet foreign aide would be a lot different, and on and on..

Comparing voter turnout for the primaries for both parties in Dallas and in NYC.

Dallas
13% of registered Democrats voted
14% of registered Republicans voted

NYC Voter Turnout
32% of registered Democrats voted
31% of registered Republicans voted

Those don't include Independents or Libertarians since they are disallowed from voting for party nominees. If you don't turnout for voting, your candidate may not reach the threshold for the general election I discussed above. With higher turnout, issue/referendum voting would be more reflective of people's views.

Popular vote wins. This year candidates may/may not pay some attention to smaller states in the primaries. But with every vote counting, they would have to.

There are few drawbacks to moving this towards a democracy. Right now, Cruz and Sanders voters would be excluded from the influence of their appeal to the public on their issues.

 

[woolybug25]

Doubt it. You're still thinking two nominees. With four, you'd split those. Everyone has their say. If their population has more weight, what's the difficulty? Majority decides and few candidates would get 50% anyway and would have to form a coalition. Better voter turnout.

Every candidate, regardless of how many there are, will focus on trying to win one of those cities. That's simply a fact. If you can win all three, it wouldn't matter what the rest of the country thought. In fact, if you could simply win the majority of the 38M Californians, then you could win that way. Win California in a popular voting system, then the more candidates the better. It only thins out the rest of the votes between the rest of the candidates. It is far less representative than an electoral, in that sense.

There is a reason we have an electorate. We have a massive country with a wide array of views. It's completely unrealistic to allow a handful of metropolitan cities choose our leaders.

 

[Legacy]

Every candidate, regardless of how many there are, will focus on trying to win one of those cities. That's simply a fact. If you can win all three, it wouldn't matter what the rest of the country thought. In fact, if you could simply win the majority of the 38M Californians, then you could win that way. Win California in a popular voting system, then the more candidates the better. It only thins out the rest of the votes between the rest of the candidates. It is far less representative than an electoral, in that sense.

There is a reason we have an electorate. We have a massive country with a wide array of views. It's completely unrealistic to allow a handful of metropolitan cities choose our leaders.

So? What's the matter with the popular vote winning regardless? My way would be more democratic and minimize special interests. Winning candidates would find it hard to inflict a minority view on the rest of us.

You could have a modified California-type electoral system if you want. Top two candidates run in the general election regardless of party. Clinton and Sanders are the top two. Fine. Trump and Cruz. Fine. They still have to govern and form a coalition. And risk being thrown out if a majority of the electorate do not like their policy ideas.

 

[woolybug25]

So? What's the matter with the popular vote winning regardless? My way would be more democratic and minimize special interests. Winning candidates would find it hard to inflict a minority view on the rest of us.

You could have a modified California-type electoral system if you want. Top two candidates run in the general election regardless of party. Clinton and Sanders are the top two. Fine. They still have to govern and form a coalition. And risk being thrown out if a majority of the electorate do not like their policy ideas.

Democracy by its very nature is supposed to be representative. What about letting say... The state of California by itself... say about representative leadership? It's not more democratic, it's completely the opposite of that in fact.

 

[Legacy]

Democracy by its very nature is supposed to be representative. What about letting say... The state of California by itself... say about representative leadership? It's not more democratic, it's completely the opposite of that in fact.

We don't have a democracy. I totally agree we need one. A candidate in fifty state voting could be denied if he gets 49% of the delegates and millions more votes? A 30% turnout called "heavy voting"? Another candidate who represents 45% of the party's registered voters having little impact on the party platform or issues to be discussed? An Electoral College that decides a President because one candidate lost by less than a thousand votes in a winner take all state?

 

[phgreek]

Every candidate, regardless of how many there are, will focus on trying to win one of those cities. That's simply a fact. If you can win all three, it wouldn't matter what the rest of the country thought. In fact, if you could simply win the majority of the 38M Californians, then you could win that way. Win California in a popular voting system, then the more candidates the better. It only thins out the rest of the votes between the rest of the candidates. It is far less representative than an electoral, in that sense.

There is a reason we have an electorate. We have a massive country with a wide array of views. It's completely unrealistic to allow a handful of metropolitan cities choose our leaders.

This is on the money.

Sure we could improve what we have in various states (NY)...but from a national perspective, it is a bad idea to go total popular vote count.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'd be in favor of campaign finance reform, no gerrymandering, every state has open primaries, fix the voter registration problems, update the archaic voting procedure, delegates based on state population, popular voting percentages reflect delegates awarded, National Election Day a holiday for everyone.

Other areas for improvement: Figure out a way to focus on the issues, facts, and candidate policies. Let the majority vote represent what American citizens want Congress and the POTUS to accomplish. Accountability/Recall voting.

 

[woolybug25]

We don't have a democracy. I totally agree we need one. A candidate who gets far more popular votes in fifty state voting could be denied if he gets 49% of the delegates and millions more votes? A 30% turnout called "heavy voting"? Another candidate who represents 45% of the party's registered voters having little impact on the party platform or issues to be discussed? An Electoral College that decides a President because one candidate lost by less than a thousand votes in a winner take all state?

You keep answering your own questions. If voter turnout is continuously low, then electorate is the only option that representative voting to the populus. It makes it fair in the sense that all areas of the country, all views, are represented regardless of small fluctuations in voting. For instance, a candidate cannot simply go into LA, drive up voter turnout to 90% promising no taxes for LA, and win the vote despite not getting a majority in any single state.

This is all pretty basic civics, man.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'd be in favor of campaign finance reform, no gerrymandering, every state has open primaries, fix the voter registration problems, update the archaic voting procedure, delegates based on state population, popular voting percentages reflect delegates awarded, National Election Day a holiday for everyone.

Sounds like a promising start for a "If I could rewrite the Constitution..." Civics 101 paper. Or were you thinking of calling for an Article V convention? Because we've got this little thing called "federalism" that prevents these sorts of top-down "fixes".

Other areas for improvement: Figure out a way to focus on the issues, facts, and candidate policies.

That's not hard to do when your electorate is broadly unified. Now, with American society being more polarized and atomized than ever? Good luck.

Let the majority vote represent what American citizens want Congress and the POTUS to accomplish. Accountability/Recall voting.

Ah yes, let's allow the citizens of California and New York to force their views upon the rest of the country. They probably know better than all those rubes in fly-over country anyway.

 

[woolybug25]

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.

Just saw this. So I'm either an idiot or a liar, eh? lolz

Your comments could be allocated to any politician and I already explained why Trump represents an oligarchy. It's been talked about multiple occasions and I'm not going to give someone like you a detailed response.

Your blind hatred for Hillary as a person has made you completely blind to the real world. Your constant updates on all things Hilldog only make you look silly, as none of your opinions have ever held water. I don't like her as a person either, but I don't make it my life mission to post every worn out Bengahzi article or try convince everyone that she is about to be arrested. Stick to html code stat sheets and we will all be better off for it.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Sounds like a promising start for a "If I could rewrite the Constitution..." Civics 101 paper. Or were you thinking of calling for an Article V convention? Because we've got this little thing called "federalism" that prevents these sorts of top-down "fixes".



That's not hard to do when your electorate is broadly unified. Now, with American society being more polarized and atomized than ever? Good luck.



Ah yes, let's allow the citizens of California and New York to force their views upon the rest of the country. They probably know better than all those rubes in fly-over country anyway.

Understood. I just have a problem with the entire system and think it should be addressed somehow. Maybe my ideas were crap. I'm sure there are better ideas out there.