EPTNo just I don't see a two term Trump or a two term Clinton or even Sanders.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3055
| 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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
No just I don't see a two term Trump or a two term Clinton or even Sanders. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6105 Posts
On February 27 2016 12:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No just I don't see a two term Trump or a two term Clinton or even Sanders. What if one of them were to be a success? If it were about age, I could sort of see the point, that for whatever reason those candidates wouldn't have a 2nd term "in them." But are you saying it's remote that any of them would be really successful, or just that you're pretty sure in 4 years the wind will shift the other way? The reason I'm asking is I find there's a strong sentiment in the American people for giving presidents the full 8 years lately. Is it that Obama's second term has made people more cynical? On February 27 2016 12:15 LegalLord wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_time_in_office Incumbent advantage. Most presidents who were elected president (rather than getting there through the VP backdoor) were reelected. ...I'm asking why StealthBlue believes the next president will likely be a one-term president. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On February 27 2016 12:09 oBlade wrote: The reason I'm asking is I find there's a strong sentiment in the American people for giving presidents the full 8 years lately. Is it that Obama's second term has made people more cynical? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_time_in_office Incumbent advantage. Most presidents who were elected president (rather than getting there through the VP backdoor) were reelected. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 27 2016 09:49 Gorsameth wrote: Poe's law in action. Prepare to be eternally lost when it comes to Republican intraparty politics if you actually believe the left's BS.How is Trump not cowing to the republican base of racist misogynists? Are you actually serious? Speaking of the post quoted a few back, Trump's got a brand of inclusiveness I never thought would happen. He has the Ron Paul anti-free trader protectionists and also the single-issue immigration voters (second group overlapping a LOT with the mainstream given the open contempt). He's got guys that aren't invested in small-government aims, that are fine with big government and the right people running it. Make America Work again because big or small govt it's acting contrary to the best interests of the people. It's actually pretty remarkable. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On February 27 2016 08:39 OtherWorld wrote: A question to you Americans : from what we can see so far in these primaries we can assume that a lot of people in the US are starting to get bored of the two traditional parties' view of the world. Thus, do you think it is possible that the election system will change - through whatever means - to make it less bipartisan? Our system of government leads to a two party system. The current polarization between the two parties is a bit unique for our history, but being led by two parties isn't. The reason is fundamentally because we have county-level winner-take-all elections. It's possible to have a third party for a single year, but the next year that third party will be enveloped into one of the other two, so they can actually win. There's just too much incentive for local groups to co-opt any third party. Unless we abandon that and the electoral college for a proportional system, a third party won't be a regular thing in presidential elections. Say Michael Bloomberg runs as an independent. At the local level, the electoral votes are still going to a Democrat or a Republican in 95% of counties and in the 5% of counties that go to the independent, the next year their local Dem or Rep parties will work to include them. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
Just too much distance between what the parties have been and what they will be after the election. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On February 27 2016 15:34 GreenHorizons wrote: I think one thing is clear, after this election there will need to be some new ordering of what describes the factions of the two parties. Just too much distance between what the parties have been and what they will be after the election. It's an election with a lot of empty promises like all elections. I can see the Republicans doing some soul searching if they lose 3 in a row, but I think Hillary/Bernie will let people down like Obama and Bush and Clinton and every other president lets their voters down. I think that disconnect between stated goals and actions has existed for a while. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
Trump has discovered a portion of the country that considers itself Republican but wants to keep entitlements and doesn't care about trickle down economics or anything else the super wealthy republican donor class thinks is important, and apparently they make up an entire third of the party. Sanders has proven that there's a significant portion of the Democratic party, close to half, that doesn't give a damn about the cold war shadows that hang over "socialism" and is more than ready to push for programs and expansions that would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago. What we have in this election are challenges to what we consider the norms for "Republican" and "Democrat", and there's a good chance that we'll see a realignment of one or both parties as a result. If it's Trump vs Clinton in the general and Clinton loses it's almost certain that things are going to get shaken up significantly on both ends. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On February 27 2016 15:37 Jibba wrote: It's an election with a lot of empty promises like all elections. I can see the Republicans doing some soul searching if they lose 3 in a row, but I think Hillary/Bernie will let people down like Obama and Bush and Clinton and every other president lets their voters down. I think that disconnect between stated goals and actions has existed for a while. See the thing is I think an unprecedented number of Bernie supporters (as opposed to Obama supporters) actually get what were up against as seeing what happened to Obama. It's not a comprehensive understanding or anything, but they understand that if we don't get it done it won't be Bernie's fault.Unless he totally bails in which case we're all fucked anyway. If we end up disappointed it will be because we let ourselves down. Bernie has been working his ass off so far. The guy is running for president and was still flying coach sitting middle seat right up until Iowa was over (think he still does when he can). Not that it's a huge accomplishment, but that's a level of dedication not a single other candidate would demonstrate in this race. They all talk a big game on saving money, meanwhile using campaign dollars for fancy ass shit they don't need, and got their supporters fooled into thinking they would be any different with their tax money. Bernie is far from perfect but it's not about that or him so much when you get into it. It's about him practicing what he preaches and not just when it's convenient. Anyone that watches him beat his head against the brick wall that was DC only to be right, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, again, each time the numbers worse than before, is honestly impressed he hasn't given up. So that he's made mistakes and tries to own them isn't seen as a weakness but a strength. Bernie's job is to get us going, then sign the stuff we send him. Not lobby against our interests or stall the stuff we push. When you look at the numbers, whatever happens with Sanders, like Trump those supporters aren't just falling in line with anything. New generation is changing at a pace the older generations aren't ready for. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On February 27 2016 08:39 OtherWorld wrote: A question to you Americans : from what we can see so far in these primaries we can assume that a lot of people in the US are starting to get bored of the two traditional parties' view of the world. Thus, do you think it is possible that the election system will change - through whatever means - to make it less bipartisan? If Trump wins, yes, the two party system will change. It will eventually stabilize, but there would be a serious risk of the GOP actually fragmenting. The party cannot be Christie/Kasich/Bush's, Rubio's and Trump's without shattering. If Trump loses, then this is probably a momentary blip before things go back to normal-ish. | ||
|
Frudgey
Canada3367 Posts
I think Bernie supporters are burning for a change, but how much America changes or fails to change during his hypothetical presidential term could have interesting consequences I think. This is purely groundless speculation, but if Bernie can't deliver on his promises (whether it be because they're not feasible, obstructions from other parties, what have you) then I wonder if people will become disillusioned with the political system. I know that some are already disillusioned with the political system, but I wonder just how much more disillusioned they could become. On the flip side, what if he does bring forth significant change, what would we expect to see? Would we see more Social Democrats? Would there be fiercer resistance to left wing policies, or would there be some desire to push farther left wing? Again I want to say this is just mere speculation on my part, I don't know nearly enough about politics or economics to make any truly insightful comments on Bernie's chance on winning the election let alone what would happen if he did get in. Bernie's proposals do sound ambitious and I do think he's riding with a lot of people's hope. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On February 27 2016 14:44 Danglars wrote: Speaking of the post quoted a few back, Trump's got a brand of inclusiveness I never thought would happen. He has the Ron Paul anti-free trader protectionists and also the single-issue immigration voters (second group overlapping a LOT with the mainstream given the open contempt). He's got guys that aren't invested in small-government aims, that are fine with big government and the right people running it. Make America Work again because big or small govt it's acting contrary to the best interests of the people. It's actually pretty remarkable. I'm fairly certain that the Libertarian Ron Paul supported free trade, as did the vast majority of his base. In fact, I remember him giving a very well-spoken Econ 101 lecture on the negative effects of tariffs on markets four years ago during the Republican primary. Aside from that, all of the above groups sound like the exact same group; the Republican base. In fact, given the exclusion of free markets, it's even smaller than the standard Republican base, as it notably lacks libertarians. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
For all this talk about running the country like a business (which can't and should not be done because the two are fundamentally different), the business people we get to choose from are pretty shitty at business. The majority of us, if we had Trump's starting point in 1980, would be richer than he is today. Fiorina is universally despised at HP and hasn't had professional success since Lucent. Snyder did not do well with Gateway. The smart business people stay in business because it's a better gig. The majority of those entering politics are the dummies. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
In most countries, 90 per cent of online search is conducted on Google, which gives the company even more power to flip elections than it has in the US and, with internet penetration increasing rapidly worldwide, this power is growing. In our PNAS article, Robertson and I calculated that Google now has the power to flip upwards of 25 per cent of the national elections in the world with no one knowing this is occurring. In fact, we estimate that, with or without deliberate planning on the part of company executives, Google’s search rankings have been impacting elections for years, with growing impact each year. And because search rankings are ephemeral, they leave no paper trail, which gives the company complete deniability. [. . .] Looking ahead to the November 2016 US presidential election, I see clear signs that Google is backing Hillary Clinton. In April 2015, Clinton hired Stephanie Hannon away from Google to be her chief technology officer and, a few months ago, Eric Schmidt, chairman of the holding company that controls Google, set up a semi-secret company – The Groundwork – for the specific purpose of putting Clinton in office. The formation of The Groundwork prompted Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, to dub Google Clinton’s ‘secret weapon’ in her quest for the US presidency. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23930 Posts
On February 27 2016 16:42 ticklishmusic wrote: Based on complex statistical gut analysis I predict Hillary to take South Carolina by s margin of 25, though I wouldn't be shocked or displeased to see a 30 point margin. Seems conservative. Expectations are pretty high so we'll see if that plays in Bernie's favor since even 25 would be better than he was supposed to do this whole time. The smart business people stay in business because it's a better gig. The majority of those entering politics are the dummies. They are micromanagers and egomaniacs. Being a politician is like cutting out a middleman for them. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 27 2016 17:30 acker wrote: I'm fairly certain that the Libertarian Ron Paul supported free trade, as did the vast majority of his base. In fact, I remember him giving a very well-spoken Econ 101 lecture on the negative effects of tariffs on markets four years ago during the Republican primary. Aside from that, all of the above groups sound like the exact same group; the Republican base. In fact, given the exclusion of free markets, it's even smaller than the standard Republican base, as it notably lacks libertarians. He made campaigning against NAFTA his core issue. It was this whacked out 'they're taking American jobs, larry' tripe on the news shows day in day out. It was quite a twisting libertarian argument, but then again Ron Paul kinda defined something very new on the presidential scene up till then. | ||
| ||
