US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2831

On February 02 2016 21:05 Simberto wrote:
The reasonable way to do things would be to do them simultaneously at all the places, so results from one can't influence another. But there does not seem to be anything reasonable at all about the US election system.

The bar was low for Jeb Bush's finish in Monday's Iowa caucus. He failed to clear it anyway.

After a blowout defeat that landed him in sixth place with just 2.8 percent of the vote, Bush's campaign is now directing top aides and surrogates to highlight the lack of emphasis the one-time front-runner placed on the state – and to make the case that he has far higher expectations in New Hampshire.

“The real race for the nomination begins on February 9th in New Hampshire,” the campaign wrote in a “talking points” memo sent to advisers and high-profile supporters. “It will set the race going forward and today, Jeb Bush is in a very strong position in the state.”

It goes on to add: “The Jeb 2016 campaign has never made Iowa a centerpiece to winning the nomination. We have long viewed Iowa as just one of 56 contests, electing 30 delegates out of 2,472 going to the Convention to select our nominee.”

Surrogates are then reminded that in November a “strategic decision” was made to “shift resources away from Iowa.” Bush’s time in Iowa, it notes, was “significantly scaled back.” In December and January, it says, Bush “went 40 days without visiting Iowa.”

Bush rival Marco Rubio, meanwhile, “invested far more significantly in” the state.

The memo identifies New Hampshire as “better terrain” for the former governor, and it provides extensive historical detail for why it’s a far better barometer of who goes on to win the nomination than Iowa.

Bush has more than 40 paid campaign staff across five offices in New Hampshire. The memo points to a series of recent favorable polls and high profile endorsements, and notes that “we have the largest voter contact effort in the state.”

“With a field unprecedented in its depth and size, we don’t expect Iowa to be a factor in winnowing the field,” the memo concludes. “By contrast, New Hampshire has a much stronger record of indicating the eventual Republican nominee. The Republican Party’s previous two nominees lost Iowa and won New Hampshire.”

Bush came in behind Sen. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Sen. Marco Rubio, Ben Carson and even Sen. Rand Paul. He inched past John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie and Rick Santorum.

On February 02 2016 21:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Can someone please explain why each precinct/ voting area is independently decided by a coin flip, instead of waiting for all counts (in case of multiple ties), and then splitting the ties right down the middle (i.e., 6 tied voting totals could be 3 wins for each candidate)? And what's wrong with each candidate getting half a delegate (or 1 delegate or 0 delegates) because it was a true tie? I feel like a coinflip to choose which half of the voters should be represented is a very bad idea.

On February 02 2016 21:58 zlefin wrote:

Because stupid.

There's a lot of rules that should be changed/updated but simply aren't; imho there's too much inertia and a lack of correcting such issues in institutions. Nor is there a system to force all rules to hold up to scrutiny.
It's not uncommon to find luck-based tie-breaker rules in general in american election law.

at first I was thinking it might be because the rules were set before modern communication, but then I realized that didn't make sense, as it would still have worked fine to just take a few days to let the notes assemble at the state house (or wherever) and do the splitting of ties there.

on Trump: I just wanna reiterate my stance on him that I stated months ago: he doesn't need to win to win, he just needs there to be no majority winner by the end of the primaries, then when it gets to the convention he can make a deal (which he loves doing) for who his delegates will support.

On February 02 2016 21:05 Simberto wrote:
The reasonable way to do things would be to do them simultaneously at all the places, so results from one can't influence another. But there does not seem to be anything reasonable at all about the US election system.

On February 03 2016 00:04 Kipsate wrote:
haven't paid too much attention but Ted Cruz doesn't neccesarily strike me as a moderate either.

On February 03 2016 00:07 Toadesstern wrote:
is there even that much point in actually winning a certain state?
I mean obviously it's good if you win (duh), but if the delegates are splitting up among the people isn't it more about wether people performed good enough or not given the state rather than about wether they won the whole thing?

Like Cruz got his win now, but from what people said that seems like one of the easier states for him right? So he would have needed a much better win to be relevant since he'll have a harder time in most other states?

If I understand this correctly (on the Republican side), this is a loss for Trump, a huge win for Rubio and despite being a win for Cruz just not a big enough one?
And for Democrats, Sanders is probably in the same shoes as Cruz, it's a win for him but he needed way more.

On February 03 2016 00:07 Toadesstern wrote:


If I understand this correctly (on the Republican side), this is a loss for Trump, a huge win for Rubio and despite being a win for Cruz just not a big enough one?
And for Democrats, Sanders is probably in the same shoes as Cruz, it's a win for him but he needed way more.