EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2979
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2617 Posts
On the Republican side, we now seem to have a three-way race between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz. A brokered convention would seem to be a real possibility here. If it does occur, I can't see Trump coming out victorious. It would probably be Rubio or less likely Cruz. Is it possible for the Democratic race to go all the way to the convention, or does a simple majority win out here? Even if we can get a brokered convention, though, I feel like Clinton would come out the winner due to her massive lead in superdelegates. (Source: 538 front page) What are your guys' thoughts? EDIT: On February 10 2016 12:32 jcarlsoniv wrote: Hmmmmm sure I'll take that. Worst case, a 1 month break from posting. I could probably do with that anyway ^.^ I look forward to seeing if ticklish wins the banbet. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On February 21 2016 13:08 oBlade wrote: What's wrong with that? There's supposed to be a pool of candidates for the people to choose from, not just 2 (looking at Democrats right now), with no consideration given to people conducting unofficial surveys. And yet "the people" inevitably get to vote for exactly 2 people in the end, with their choices decided by two democratic minorities. Or, if they're lucky, get a third choice in rich billionaires who can afford to run a presidential race on their own steam. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23211 Posts
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9d37546092ff44539f9b0fe73230f9e9/police-multiple-people-dead-michigan-shootings | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Dems, the campaign trail looks like it's favoring Hillary. I think that most of her supporters, a slight majority of the Dem voting base and 90% of organizations, have already made up their minds about her. Unless she goes to prison for emailgate, I think she's going to win the nomination. And she has the superdelegates to back her up. I really don't see that changing - Sanders is more likely to force the Dem party to make Citizens United a key part of its campaign than to actually win. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:10 Nyxisto wrote: It actually surprises me that this nationalist stuff is working in the US. I think especially Trumps "we are losing" rhetoric is pretty interesting because I thought an important feature of American conservatism is that America never really can't lose because the American people can never go really wrong, which usually automatically disempowers political authorities. Trump seems to stress that there's a need to 'make' America great and that he's the right guy for the job which sounds pretty authoritarian for the American right. I also don't think that he sounds a lot like he wants limited government at all, especially in regards to civil rights. "American Exceptionalism" is a defense of things that are objectively bad but the conservative establishment likes anyway. It's not "We do this, so we're great." It's "We're great, so it must be good for us to be doing this thing." But of course when the people who use American Exceptionalism the most want to criticize something, it's fine for them to say that it will ruin America. See for reference the constant attacks on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as ACA or Obamacare). Saying something is destroying America combines really well with calling something un-American. It's like Corsairs with Reavers (and Shuttles), Medics with Marines, or Dark Swarm over Lurkers. Of course, like a lot of the great base-rousing lines that the Republican establishment and the most conservative sections of the media (Fox news, conservative talk radio) has been trotting out over Obama's Presidency, Trump is throwing it back at them and making it work. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2617 Posts
On February 21 2016 13:09 The_Templar wrote: God damn it... the 7 of diamonds is my nemesis in cards and this is just making it worse. I didn't know about the card draws. That's pretty funny. Wasn't it 6 or so coin tosses all for Clinton in Iowa and now these card draws as well? | ||
|
oBlade
United States5576 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:10 Nyxisto wrote: It actually surprises me that this nationalist stuff is working in the US. I think especially Trumps "we are losing" rhetoric is pretty interesting because I thought an important feature of American conservatism is that America never really can't lose because the American people can never go really wrong, which usually automatically disempowers political authorities. Trump seems to stress that there's a need to 'make' America great and that he's the right guy for the job which sounds pretty authoritarian for the American right. I also don't think that he sounds a lot like he wants limited government at all, especially in regards to civil rights. There's really no authoritarian sense to the make in "make America great again." You are reaching on that. On February 21 2016 14:34 WolfintheSheep wrote: And yet "the people" inevitably get to vote for exactly 2 people in the end, with their choices decided by two democratic minorities. Or, if they're lucky, get a third choice in rich billionaires who can afford to run a presidential race on their own steam. If you don't like the two-party (two-candidate) system, we can have that discussion, but I don't see that it makes sense to at the same time malign the primary system - which is where we actually get to choose from many candidates. In the pipe-dream 5 candidate general election on the last page, a minority would also be picking the winner because that's the nature of pluralism. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
On February 21 2016 13:21 cLutZ wrote: Updated 2nd choice stats: NBC From the 3 primarys we should assume "Don't know" means "Not Trump" But its not nearly as bad for Trump as it was in the poll I saw earlier, but disappeared into twitter. Edit: Which is why we should use automatic runoff for general elections. And probably the 2nd half of primary states. Those numbers should actually scare the Republican establishment. + Show Spoiler [boring, flawed math] + The results in SC were:
Jeb is out, so if we split his voters between the other five according to your source we get this:
Now let's assume Kasich drops out and follow the same procedure, splitting the 21% that would have got to Jeb proportionally.
And let's do the same for Carson.
The problem facing Rubio and Cruz is that no matter how many other candidates drop out, none of the support is unified enough to significantly close the gap with Trump. So what happens if we kick out one of the remaining three?
Now to be fair my methodology here isn't great, that's based heavily on SC's numbers, there's a large chunk of "Don't know"s unaccounted for and no accounting for Trump's potential ceiling or impacts from favorability ratings, but you can see how unless a lot of these voters break far harder for Rubio or Cruz than polls suggest Trump is in a pretty good position, especially if the race boils down to Trump vs Rubio vs Cruz. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote: I didn't know about the card draws. That's pretty funny. Wasn't it 6 or so coin tosses all for Clinton in Iowa and now these card draws as well? I heard somewhere that they split the coin tosses somewhat evenly. Also, I know Sanders got at least 1 card in his favor. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2617 Posts
On February 21 2016 13:49 KwarK wrote: One could equally conclude that because your posts are bad nobody should post. What makes this post a bad post? | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote: I didn't know about the card draws. That's pretty funny. Wasn't it 6 or so coin tosses all for Clinton in Iowa and now these card draws as well? yeah I think I read something about it being 8 loses in a row for Sanders somewhere? On the other hand I'm fairly sure Kwark said in the "simple question simple question thread" at some point that Bernie won at least some of them, so might not be 8 in a row after all. | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:47 Toadesstern wrote: yeah I think I read something about it being 8 loses in a row for Sanders somewhere? On the other hand I'm fairly sure Kwark said in the "simple question simple question thread" at some point that Bernie won at least some of them, so might not be 8 in a row after all. IIRC I've heard that Sanders got 0/6, 4/10, 2/8, and 4/6 of the coin tosses. | ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2617 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:47 Toadesstern wrote: yeah I think I read something about it being 8 loses in a row for Sanders somewhere? On the other hand I'm fairly sure Kwark said in the "simple question simple question thread" at some point that Bernie won at least some of them, so might not be 8 in a row after all. Oh ok. I was under the impression that Clinton had won every single coin toss / card draw in the elections so far. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:44 Seuss wrote: Those numbers should actually scare the Republican establishment. + Show Spoiler [boring, flawed math] + The results in SC were:
Jeb is out, so if we split his voters between the other five according to your source we get this:
Now let's assume Kasich drops out and follow the same procedure, splitting the 21% that would have got to Jeb proportionally.
And let's do the same for Carson.
The problem facing Rubio and Cruz is that no matter how many other candidates drop out, none of the support is unified enough to significantly close the gap with Trump. So what happens if we kick out one of the remaining three?
Now to be fair my methodology here isn't great, that's based heavily on SC's numbers, there's a large chunk of "Don't know"s unaccounted for and no accounting for Trump's potential ceiling or impacts from favorability ratings, but you can see how unless a lot of these voters break far harder for Rubio or Cruz than polls suggest Trump is in a pretty good position, especially if the race boils down to Trump vs Rubio vs Cruz. I've heard this "as candidates drop Trump will collapse" line quite a few times, and first it was Cruz that everyone would flock to, now it's Rubio. I don't see either of them consolidating the voter pool because I have yet to see anything that indicates weakness in the Trump campaign map. At this rate he's going to go far. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
TheLordofAwesome
Korea (South)2617 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:48 The_Templar wrote: IIRC I've heard that Sanders got 0/6, 4/10, 2/8, and 4/6 of the coin tosses. You have 4 numbers there but as far as I'm aware the only states to have voted so far are Iowa, NH, and Nevada. Can I just take a moment to deride the idiocy of Nevada of all states using a caucus? Due to the huge casino/hospitality/service industries in Nevada, there are tons of workers with really late or really early hours in addition to regular workday hours, meaning that there is literally no good time to hold a caucus. Even sillier, this caucus system was only implemented in 2008 or 2012, don't remember which. See Nate Silver's post on this page: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/nevada-caucus-south-carolina-primary-presidential-election-2016/. Ctrl F for "Nevada’s The Worst Place To Hold A Caucus" | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:32 TheLordofAwesome wrote: How likely do you all think it is that we end up with brokered Republican or Democratic conventions? Who wins on either side given such a scenario? On the Republican side, we now seem to have a three-way race between Trump, Rubio, and Cruz. A brokered convention would seem to be a real possibility here. If it does occur, I can't see Trump coming out victorious. It would probably be Rubio or less likely Cruz. Is it possible for the Democratic race to go all the way to the convention, or does a simple majority win out here? Even if we can get a brokered convention, though, I feel like Clinton would come out the winner due to her massive lead in superdelegates. (Source: 538 front page) What are your guys' thoughts? On the Democratic side, I'm pretty sure that Clinton's massive lead in superdelegates is going to win it for her, either at the convention or by making her look more popular than she actually is. Worst case for Democrats is that Sanders wins about 200 more normal delegates than Clinton spread out among enough states he wins the popular vote in at least 35 to 40 states, but Clinton gets at least 400 superdelegates and gets the nomination in what ends up looking like the establishment running roughshod over the will of the people. On the Republican side, I'm not exactly sure how their final national convention works without a clear winner. I'm pretty confident right now that Trump will have the most votes and delegates. This could win him the nomination if the establishment decides to just roll with it. Worst case for Republicans is that the 60 to 70 percent of delegates not for Trump all decide to rally around a single candidate who gets the nomination in what ends up looking like the establishment running roughshod over the will of the people If that happens in both primaries, I wouldn't be surprised to see some rioting going on. Absolute worst case scenario for America as a whole is if Bloomberg runs, too, there's a 3-way split with no clear winner, the Republican nominee gets the least votes and least electoral college votes (maybe around 25 to 30 percent), but is elected president by the Republican Congress in what ends up looking like the establishment running roughshod over the will of the people. You may notice a running theme in those paragraphs. The primaries have kind of been shaping up into outsider vs establishment races, and there's potential for the establishment organizations (basically, the social networks of career politicians) to get the candidates they want, but at the cost of destroying trust in the democratic process by looking like they ignored the will of the people - or even just revealing that the nature of the US's democratic process doesn't give as much weight to the will of the people as the people would like. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:52 xDaunt wrote: We'll see how things progress, but democrats should be worried by the record turnouts on the republican side versus the mediocre turnouts on the democratic side. The democrats should be worried about the low turnout they are inducing with all the sleaze they are pulling on behalf of Hillary. | ||
|
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote: You have 4 numbers there but as far as I'm aware the only states to have voted so far are Iowa, NH, and Nevada. Can I just take a moment to deride the idiocy of Nevada of all states using a caucus? Due to the huge casino/hospitality/service industries in Nevada, there are tons of workers with really late or really early hours in addition to regular workday hours, meaning that there is literally no good time to hold a caucus. Even sillier, this caucus system was only implemented in 2008 or 2012, don't remember which. Yes, I'm only referring to what I've heard about Iowa (they're the only people to use coin tosses). I don't actually know (or really care) which one it actually was. | ||
| ||
