|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i thought up a scenario where id support bernie. check it out
bernie chooses jim 'captain maerica' webb as his vp, demolish hillary who is resigned to study youth internet culture. after the sanders webb ticket demolish trump, and win a good sized house majority, bernie picks the easiest thing from his agenda to pass, the infrastructure direct investment plan.
two days later bernie dies, rest of his agenda does not proceed. webb picks hillary as vp (idk if this is possible btw). webb does his life long dream of building three battleships in the state of west virginia but passes away from hand to hand combat with 100 russian special agents.
hillary becomes president
|
On March 04 2016 07:15 Mohdoo wrote:
So is the gop essentially deciding between Hilary and Trump? I can't imagine a world where trump doesn't run as either 3rd party or as the nominee. He will be a part of the general election, no matter what. Especially after Romney's attempt to bring him down.
It's not clear he would be part of debates if he didn't have the nomination. It would certainly be something the establishment of both sides would probably fight, in any case. General election debates, the system for them is fucked up to begin with, but they're a lot different than primary debates. It's not like the time Alan Alda said "let's just have a good old-fashioned debate" on The West Wing.
On March 04 2016 07:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 07:09 oneofthem wrote:
uh a trump 3rd party run will just give u hillary.
Yeah, there's not much to argue with here.
If Sanders were the blue nominee, it would be much more up in the air, but even Hillary would also hemorrhage voters if there were 2 alternatives to her, or 3 if you include abstaining... no? Especially if a legal mess develops around her. Depends who the GOP came up with, too.
On March 04 2016 07:21 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 07:13 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 07:09 oneofthem wrote:
uh a trump 3rd party run will just give u hillary.
Yeah, there's not much to argue with here. Not if, as discussed here, he makes it so the electoral college fails to get Hillary to 270 or higher. I could see a 3rd party run by him or Bloomberg, or both, possibly resulting in that.
A Bloomberg run would just siphon a little of the popular vote everywhere. It'd be like Perot in 96. He wouldn't be able to win states, which is what you need to do to bring the leader's electoral vote down - particularly blue states, in such a hypothetical. Where could Bloomberg win besides NY? Admittedly, it's 29 votes, but really. Bernie, on the other hand, could win states if he ran against Hillary, er, against everybody, but adding 4th and 5th candidates is quite speculative. There's no reason as of yet to think Bernie would do that, although it's not impossible because of how grassroots he is.
The GOP will have to actually come up with a great candidate if their goal is to stop an electoral college majority. And the GOP putting a great candidate forward would be good for everyone. Hard to see that as a group they're thinking that lucidly, though, it's more like "try and sabotage the party metamorphosis Trump's causing."
|
On March 04 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
If Sanders were the blue nominee, it would be much more up in the air, but even Hillary would also hemorrhage voters if there were 2 alternatives to her, or 3 if you include abstaining... no? Especially if a legal mess develops around her. Depends who the GOP came up with, too.
We'd get 1992 redux in all likelihood.
|
On March 04 2016 07:15 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 07:13 kwizach wrote:On March 04 2016 07:08 frazzle wrote:On March 04 2016 06:42 frazzle wrote:On March 04 2016 06:37 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2016 06:26 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that. The source is the Constitution, but the senate picks VP. My bad. But the point remains. If trump is prevented from being the gop nominee, he will run 3rd party after how the establishment has treated him. If he ran 3rd party and no one got the delegates, I think the house would choose him over Marco Adderall Just a note, for a 3 candidate situation I personally think it's more likely that the Republicans will be the ones to put up someone else under an independent flag (I don't see how Trump doesn't win the nomination). And the kind of fracturing that would let that situation happen would only be worsened if 1) no candidate got an electoral majority and 2) the House chose anyone other than the person who got a plurality of the electoral (or for that matter popular) vote. That's not to say I'm predicting what will happen. I can't dismiss the possibility that the House would commit a major political fuckup if it came to that. Interesting. My memory was that it went to the House in the event of a tie, but that is wrong. One candidate needs a majority of the electoral college. Based on their party discipline during the Obama years I have no doubt Republicans would unite behind Rubio. The question is, since in this scenario each state's delegates get 1 vote, it isn't a simple case of a Republican majority house putting in a Republican. Depends instead on the state by state party majority breakdown. I haven't crunched the numbers yet, but I assume this still goes to the Republicans. Well, my quick tally is that the Republicans have a whopping 19 state advantage. 33 States have a Republican house majority, 14 have a Democratic majority, and 3 are tied. I guess the only other question is whether it is the newly elected House that votes or the current. Pretty sure it is the current. From what I understand, it's not state legislatures that play a role but the House at the federal level, right? And each state delegation gets one vote. I was tallying up the House Reps, so yes. But each state gets one vote, so the reps from each state would caucus and come to a decision as to how their state would vote. Also, it is the incoming congress that would elect the President
Ah, it has been a lot time since I brushed up on the internal workings of the electoral college.
|
On March 04 2016 07:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
If Sanders were the blue nominee, it would be much more up in the air, but even Hillary would also hemorrhage voters if there were 2 alternatives to her, or 3 if you include abstaining... no? Especially if a legal mess develops around her. Depends who the GOP came up with, too. We'd get 1992 redux in all likelihood.
bill clinton round 3?
|
On March 04 2016 07:22 oneofthem wrote:
i thought up a scenario where id support bernie. check it out
bernie chooses jim 'captain maerica' webb as his vp, demolish hillary who is resigned to study youth internet culture. after the sanders webb ticket demolish trump, and win a good sized house majority, bernie picks the easiest thing from his agenda to pass, the infrastructure direct investment plan.
two days later bernie dies, rest of his agenda does not proceed. webb picks hillary as vp (idk if this is possible btw). webb does his life long dream of building three battleships in the state of west virginia but passes away from hand to hand comvat with 100 russian special agents.
hillary becomes president
And Hillary nominates Obama to the Supreme Court in Scalia's place.
On March 04 2016 06:22 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:
After speaking with a few co-workers, a crazy situation came up:
Apparently if no candidate in a general election is able to secure the magic number of delegates, the election ends up being decided by the house? So if Trump ran as independent, we could conceivably see the president and vice president both determined by the house? Yeah we are going to need to see some source on that.
It's in the Constitution. It's only happened once in history (1824 election).
|
On March 04 2016 07:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
If Sanders were the blue nominee, it would be much more up in the air, but even Hillary would also hemorrhage voters if there were 2 alternatives to her, or 3 if you include abstaining... no? Especially if a legal mess develops around her. Depends who the GOP came up with, too. We'd get 1992 redux in all likelihood.
Dissatisfaction has been something common in the GOP process so far - what about people who voted for Obama in 2008/2012 (Obama's popular vote went down from about 70 to 65 million in those 4 years) - isn't there a similar sentiment among those voters? We don't even know who the options are yet, but have you seen any polling on Democratic voters swinging? Is primary turnout not an indicator of this?
|
On March 04 2016 07:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 07:28 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
If Sanders were the blue nominee, it would be much more up in the air, but even Hillary would also hemorrhage voters if there were 2 alternatives to her, or 3 if you include abstaining... no? Especially if a legal mess develops around her. Depends who the GOP came up with, too. We'd get 1992 redux in all likelihood. Dissatisfaction has been something common in the GOP process so far - what about people who voted for Obama in 2008/2012 (Obama's popular vote went down from about 70 to 65 million in those 4 years) - isn't there a similar sentiment among those voters? We don't even know who the options are yet, but have you seen any polling on Democratic voters swinging? Is primary turnout not an indicator of this?
I don't see a scenario where Hillary gets less than 45% of the vote. The Democrat base is no where near as fractured as the Republican base. As just a reminder, Bill Clinton carried 370 electoral votes with just 43% of the popular vote.
|
On March 04 2016 07:48 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 07:28 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
If Sanders were the blue nominee, it would be much more up in the air, but even Hillary would also hemorrhage voters if there were 2 alternatives to her, or 3 if you include abstaining... no? Especially if a legal mess develops around her. Depends who the GOP came up with, too. We'd get 1992 redux in all likelihood. Dissatisfaction has been something common in the GOP process so far - what about people who voted for Obama in 2008/2012 (Obama's popular vote went down from about 70 to 65 million in those 4 years) - isn't there a similar sentiment among those voters? We don't even know who the options are yet, but have you seen any polling on Democratic voters swinging? Is primary turnout not an indicator of this?
If Trump is anywhere near the election, I think his presence will spur a great deal of democrat turnout.
|
Marco Rubio’s path to the Republican nomination short of a contested convention has narrowed to nearly nothing as his campaign and allies reboot their strategy to prepare for months of guerrilla warfare to deny Donald Trump a clean, pre-convention victory.
The math for Rubio is daunting. After getting thoroughly routed on Super Tuesday, Rubio is in so deep a delegate hole that he would now need to win roughly two-thirds of all the remaining delegates to guarantee his nomination ahead of Cleveland, according to a POLITICO analysis.
That is an enormously difficult, if not impossible, climb for a candidate who has so far won only a single state, Minnesota, and especially one who is not predicting victory in any of the next dozen states and territories that cast ballots, until his home state of Florida votes on March 15.
“It's fair to say that Rubio’s path to 1,237 is shot,” Dave Wasserman, an analyst with the Cook Political Report who closely tracks the delegate race, said of the threshold to secure the nomination.
“There’s virtually no chance for Marco Rubio to get to a majority prior to the convention,” said John Yob, who served as a top delegate strategist for Rick Santorum in 2012 and John McCain in 2008.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
since you don't need to pass 50% to win a state's electoral votes, no third party guy can win the electoral votes to contest 270 for hillary, even if bloomberg runs. and he's endorsing hillary if she wins.
|
On March 04 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Marco Rubio’s path to the Republican nomination short of a contested convention has narrowed to nearly nothing as his campaign and allies reboot their strategy to prepare for months of guerrilla warfare to deny Donald Trump a clean, pre-convention victory.
The math for Rubio is daunting. After getting thoroughly routed on Super Tuesday, Rubio is in so deep a delegate hole that he would now need to win roughly two-thirds of all the remaining delegates to guarantee his nomination ahead of Cleveland, according to a POLITICO analysis.
That is an enormously difficult, if not impossible, climb for a candidate who has so far won only a single state, Minnesota, and especially one who is not predicting victory in any of the next dozen states and territories that cast ballots, until his home state of Florida votes on March 15.
“It's fair to say that Rubio’s path to 1,237 is shot,” Dave Wasserman, an analyst with the Cook Political Report who closely tracks the delegate race, said of the threshold to secure the nomination.
“There’s virtually no chance for Marco Rubio to get to a majority prior to the convention,” said John Yob, who served as a top delegate strategist for Rick Santorum in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. Source
Rubio should back out. He doesn't have a prayer. But here's why he won't: the Republican leadership arguably hates Ted Cruz more than they hate Trump. I'm not sure that they'd ever tolerate the idea of uniting behind Cruz in one last ditch effort to take down Trump.
|
|
|
And this is what is echoing in the minds of all conservatives right now: why the fuck does the Republican establishment fight its base harder than it fights the Democrats?
|
United States43219 Posts
On March 04 2016 08:11 xDaunt wrote:And this is what is echoing in the minds of all conservatives right now: why the fuck does the Republican establishment fight its base harder than it fights the Democrats?
If this was UK politics that'd be easy to answer. They have nothing but contempt for proles.
|
On March 04 2016 07:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 07:48 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 07:28 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
If Sanders were the blue nominee, it would be much more up in the air, but even Hillary would also hemorrhage voters if there were 2 alternatives to her, or 3 if you include abstaining... no? Especially if a legal mess develops around her. Depends who the GOP came up with, too. We'd get 1992 redux in all likelihood. Dissatisfaction has been something common in the GOP process so far - what about people who voted for Obama in 2008/2012 (Obama's popular vote went down from about 70 to 65 million in those 4 years) - isn't there a similar sentiment among those voters? We don't even know who the options are yet, but have you seen any polling on Democratic voters swinging? Is primary turnout not an indicator of this? I don't see a scenario where Hillary gets less than 45% of the vote. The Democrat base is no where near as fractured as the Republican base. As just a reminder, Bill Clinton carried 370 electoral votes with just 43% of the popular vote.
Well, it's how the popular's distributed, what if they can all win states?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 04 2016 08:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 07:48 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 07:28 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
If Sanders were the blue nominee, it would be much more up in the air, but even Hillary would also hemorrhage voters if there were 2 alternatives to her, or 3 if you include abstaining... no? Especially if a legal mess develops around her. Depends who the GOP came up with, too. We'd get 1992 redux in all likelihood. Dissatisfaction has been something common in the GOP process so far - what about people who voted for Obama in 2008/2012 (Obama's popular vote went down from about 70 to 65 million in those 4 years) - isn't there a similar sentiment among those voters? We don't even know who the options are yet, but have you seen any polling on Democratic voters swinging? Is primary turnout not an indicator of this? I don't see a scenario where Hillary gets less than 45% of the vote. The Democrat base is no where near as fractured as the Republican base. As just a reminder, Bill Clinton carried 370 electoral votes with just 43% of the popular vote. Well, it's how the popular's distributed, what if they can all win states?
there's just no way this threatens hillary. hillary could win texas lol
|
On March 04 2016 08:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:11 xDaunt wrote:And this is what is echoing in the minds of all conservatives right now: why the fuck does the Republican establishment fight its base harder than it fights the Democrats? If this was UK politics that'd be easy to answer. They have nothing but contempt for proles.
I'm pretty sure it's the same answer here.
|
On March 04 2016 08:11 xDaunt wrote:And this is what is echoing in the minds of all conservatives right now: why the fuck does the Republican establishment fight its base harder than it fights the Democrats?
Because there is no future for the Republican Party on a national level if it accepted its new Tea Party base.
Yes it is their own fault they are in this position but their options are to fight their own base in an attempt to be nationally relevant, submit and support Cruz/Trump and lose any shot at a national victory or thirdly split the party and never win a national victory again.
Fighting their own base is their last resort.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the republican business segment is pretty scared of trump.
they were basically using the social conservative/nativist/southerner segment to fight democrats. now the zombie apocalypse is unleashed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
