|
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. |
And in a halfhearted endorsement of Mr. Sanders’s qualifications to be president, Mrs. Clinton added that he was better than the Republicans who are running.
“I don’t know why he’s saying that but I will take Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump or Ted Cruz any time,” she said.
Source
|
On April 08 2016 03:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2016 02:21 cLutZ wrote:On April 08 2016 01:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 08 2016 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:On April 08 2016 01:13 LegalLord wrote:On April 08 2016 00:36 Sent. wrote:
If Bernie and/or Trump run 3rd party, what happens when none of the candidates reaches 50+% of votes? Second round? If no one reaches 270 electoral votes then the House chooses the president. Hold the fuck up. So Trump is able to ensure a Kasich presidency by running 3rd party? Well, since most states are winner-take-all for electoral votes, it would have to involve him pulling from Clinton more than Kasich (which seems unlikely) or actually winning some blue states outright by beating Clinton without the support of the anti-Trumps (which also seems unlikely). Yes. Trump running 3rd ensures a Hillary 350+ EV majority because she wins almost every state even if she only gets 40% (ironically, the Trump primary plan). Hillary + Cruz + Trump + Bernie all running in the general ensures...madness. Its possible that one will end up with 270 EVs because the plurality winner (Probably Hillary or Cruz) could win a lot of states at 30-35% vote totals. Or Trump/Bernie support could end up being more malleable, meaning that party's nominee would likely win (Hillary seems most likely) or it goes to the House if states (note votes mind you, Lincoln won a ton of electoral votes at 40%) split up enough. That would mean probably a Paul Ryan or Cruz presidency. But the reason that is unlikely is also because most states have sore loser laws (like Ohio) so if you participate in a primary, but don't get that party's nomination you cannot get on the ballot. People often forget about the sore loser rules to prevent election disruption. Its why I find the talks of the Trump 3rd party turn amusing. Wouldn't it be lucky if there were antidemocratic laws on the books if they could stop presidential candidates we don't like?
All Trump had to do was run as an independent to avoid this. But he ran as a Republican in their primary and he has to play by the rules. Of course, he didn’t read the rules and neither did his staff.
Its almost like he did this to himself.
|
On April 08 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:15 oBlade wrote:On April 08 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2016 02:21 cLutZ wrote:On April 08 2016 01:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 08 2016 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:On April 08 2016 01:13 LegalLord wrote:On April 08 2016 00:36 Sent. wrote:
If Bernie and/or Trump run 3rd party, what happens when none of the candidates reaches 50+% of votes? Second round? If no one reaches 270 electoral votes then the House chooses the president. Hold the fuck up. So Trump is able to ensure a Kasich presidency by running 3rd party? Well, since most states are winner-take-all for electoral votes, it would have to involve him pulling from Clinton more than Kasich (which seems unlikely) or actually winning some blue states outright by beating Clinton without the support of the anti-Trumps (which also seems unlikely). Yes. Trump running 3rd ensures a Hillary 350+ EV majority because she wins almost every state even if she only gets 40% (ironically, the Trump primary plan). Hillary + Cruz + Trump + Bernie all running in the general ensures...madness. Its possible that one will end up with 270 EVs because the plurality winner (Probably Hillary or Cruz) could win a lot of states at 30-35% vote totals. Or Trump/Bernie support could end up being more malleable, meaning that party's nominee would likely win (Hillary seems most likely) or it goes to the House if states (note votes mind you, Lincoln won a ton of electoral votes at 40%) split up enough. That would mean probably a Paul Ryan or Cruz presidency. But the reason that is unlikely is also because most states have sore loser laws (like Ohio) so if you participate in a primary, but don't get that party's nomination you cannot get on the ballot. People often forget about the sore loser rules to prevent election disruption. Its why I find the talks of the Trump 3rd party turn amusing. Wouldn't it be lucky if there were antidemocratic laws on the books if they could stop presidential candidates we don't like? All Trump had to do was run as an independent to avoid this. But he ran as a Republican in their primary and he has to play by the rules. Of course, he didn’t read the rules and neither did his staff. Its almost like he did this to himself.
"When you add them all up, practically every state is on record saying our sore loser law doesn't apply to presidential primaries," Winger said.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/politics/trump-third-party-run-barriers/
Why don't you ask an expert instead of using wishful thinking?
|
On April 08 2016 01:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 01:07 JW_DTLA wrote:
kwizach Laying down the lumber on the Bern. This race is becoming depressing, because I feel it's such a wasted opportunity. Right now the left could be pushing forward its progressive agenda with a united voice and drawing sharp contrasts with the Republicans' policy vacuity and bigotry. I truly hope that once it becomes absolutely clear to Sanders' campaign itself that they have no path to the nomination (which should be by the end of this month), Sanders will go back to a positive message only. I see the influence of his campaign advisors behind the change in tone, and he's better than that. Anyway, in other news: Show nested quote +Key conservatives pushing Mike Lee for the Supreme Court
Prominent conservatives are lobbying Donald Trump to say that he will nominate Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the Supreme Court if he’s elected president.
And Trump’s main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, has already said he’d consider his best friend in the Senate for the seat that opened with Antonin Scalia’s death.
As President Obama travels to the University of Chicago this afternoon to deliver a speech calling for Merrick Garland’s confirmation, Senate Republican leaders are expressing confidence they can hold firm through the November election in refusing to grant him even a hearing. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, there will be pressure to quickly confirm Garland so that she could not appoint someone who is younger and more liberal. If she loses, then the next Republican president will get to nominate someone else.
While the rest of the mainstream media is preoccupied with the Garland battle, conservative luminaries are increasingly looking ahead to next year and quietly touting Lee as a potential nominee. Republican senators like this idea, and Democrats are figuring out how they’d respond. Source
If Clinton wins can Obama rescind his nomination? As much as it would suck for Garland the big FU to republicans by Obama on his way out would be delicious.
|
No matter what happens to the race between Hillary and sanders the loser is going to get the second to last speech of the night and introduce the winner as the next president of the united states so the party can march to the beat of a united party. Its just how america works.
I mean can you imagine a campaign with bill clinton obama and bernie sanders all campaigning for hillary at the same time? What swing state can they lose?
|
On April 08 2016 03:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:20 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2016 03:15 oBlade wrote:On April 08 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2016 02:21 cLutZ wrote:On April 08 2016 01:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 08 2016 01:16 Mohdoo wrote:On April 08 2016 01:13 LegalLord wrote:On April 08 2016 00:36 Sent. wrote:
If Bernie and/or Trump run 3rd party, what happens when none of the candidates reaches 50+% of votes? Second round? If no one reaches 270 electoral votes then the House chooses the president. Hold the fuck up. So Trump is able to ensure a Kasich presidency by running 3rd party? Well, since most states are winner-take-all for electoral votes, it would have to involve him pulling from Clinton more than Kasich (which seems unlikely) or actually winning some blue states outright by beating Clinton without the support of the anti-Trumps (which also seems unlikely). Yes. Trump running 3rd ensures a Hillary 350+ EV majority because she wins almost every state even if she only gets 40% (ironically, the Trump primary plan). Hillary + Cruz + Trump + Bernie all running in the general ensures...madness. Its possible that one will end up with 270 EVs because the plurality winner (Probably Hillary or Cruz) could win a lot of states at 30-35% vote totals. Or Trump/Bernie support could end up being more malleable, meaning that party's nominee would likely win (Hillary seems most likely) or it goes to the House if states (note votes mind you, Lincoln won a ton of electoral votes at 40%) split up enough. That would mean probably a Paul Ryan or Cruz presidency. But the reason that is unlikely is also because most states have sore loser laws (like Ohio) so if you participate in a primary, but don't get that party's nomination you cannot get on the ballot. People often forget about the sore loser rules to prevent election disruption. Its why I find the talks of the Trump 3rd party turn amusing. Wouldn't it be lucky if there were antidemocratic laws on the books if they could stop presidential candidates we don't like? All Trump had to do was run as an independent to avoid this. But he ran as a Republican in their primary and he has to play by the rules. Of course, he didn’t read the rules and neither did his staff. Its almost like he did this to himself. Show nested quote +"When you add them all up, practically every state is on record saying our sore loser law doesn't apply to presidential primaries," Winger said. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/politics/trump-third-party-run-barriers/Why don't you ask an expert instead of using wishful thinking?
I stand corrected. I assumed they applied to the presidential race. I guess Trump can be the sore loser and run as a 3rd party, assure a victory for the Democrats.
|
On April 08 2016 03:27 Sermokala wrote:
No matter what happens to the race between Hillary and sanders the loser is going to get the second to last speech of the night and introduce the winner as the next president of the united states so the party can march to the beat of a united party. Its just how america works.
Unless we get a 4 party general
Dem
Rep
Ind
Tea
|
On April 08 2016 03:31 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:27 Sermokala wrote:
No matter what happens to the race between Hillary and sanders the loser is going to get the second to last speech of the night and introduce the winner as the next president of the united states so the party can march to the beat of a united party. Its just how america works. Unless we get a 4 party general Dem Rep Ind Tea
I can't see Sanders running as an independent, unless he really wants to help the Republicans. He is a grumpy old man, but he isn't 100% crazy.
|
On April 08 2016 03:31 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:27 Sermokala wrote:
No matter what happens to the race between Hillary and sanders the loser is going to get the second to last speech of the night and introduce the winner as the next president of the united states so the party can march to the beat of a united party. Its just how america works. Unless we get a 4 party general Dem Rep Ind Tea
We won't have a four party general. No one is going to run third party with the lesson of the bull moose party. The first side to announce a third party run with galvanize the other side for an easy win.
|
did sanders not agree to support clinton if she won the nomination?
i know trump did, but is backpedaling because the RNC are bullying him.
|
United States43533 Posts
On April 08 2016 03:26 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 01:28 kwizach wrote:On April 08 2016 01:07 JW_DTLA wrote:
kwizach Laying down the lumber on the Bern. This race is becoming depressing, because I feel it's such a wasted opportunity. Right now the left could be pushing forward its progressive agenda with a united voice and drawing sharp contrasts with the Republicans' policy vacuity and bigotry. I truly hope that once it becomes absolutely clear to Sanders' campaign itself that they have no path to the nomination (which should be by the end of this month), Sanders will go back to a positive message only. I see the influence of his campaign advisors behind the change in tone, and he's better than that. Anyway, in other news: Key conservatives pushing Mike Lee for the Supreme Court
Prominent conservatives are lobbying Donald Trump to say that he will nominate Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the Supreme Court if he’s elected president.
And Trump’s main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, has already said he’d consider his best friend in the Senate for the seat that opened with Antonin Scalia’s death.
As President Obama travels to the University of Chicago this afternoon to deliver a speech calling for Merrick Garland’s confirmation, Senate Republican leaders are expressing confidence they can hold firm through the November election in refusing to grant him even a hearing. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, there will be pressure to quickly confirm Garland so that she could not appoint someone who is younger and more liberal. If she loses, then the next Republican president will get to nominate someone else.
While the rest of the mainstream media is preoccupied with the Garland battle, conservative luminaries are increasingly looking ahead to next year and quietly touting Lee as a potential nominee. Republican senators like this idea, and Democrats are figuring out how they’d respond. Source If Clinton wins can Obama rescind his nomination? As much as it would suck for Garland the big FU to republicans by Obama on his way out would be delicious.
I'm assuming he will. He's a far more conservative candidate than any first year President would be likely to nominate. There is currently uncertainty which forces compromise rather than risking having a non compromise candidate forced down their throats for life. Recognizing the low but real risk of a Republican win Obama offered them a Republican that they could live with, forfeiting the chance to force a Democrat down their throats in favour of guaranteeing that they didn't get another Scalia.
If the Republicans reject that deal, which they appear to be doing, they're betting everything on winning the Presidency and imposing their own hardliner. They can't bet everything on that, lose and then go back and ask if the safe compromise option is still on the table. Their own refusal to work with Obama, even if it involves just doing their jobs, is going to bite them in the ass.
|
On April 08 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:
I stand corrected. I assumed they applied to the presidential race. I guess Trump can be the sore loser and run as a 3rd party, assure a victory for the Democrats.
I honestly think it's much more likely Bernie runs 3rd party. Saying Clinton isn't qualified is digging himself pretty deep at this point. He's an old fart, what does he have to lose? He's essentially trying to martyr himself for socialism. He's got no reason to stop once he loses the nomination.
On April 08 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 08 2016 01:28 kwizach wrote:On April 08 2016 01:07 JW_DTLA wrote:
kwizach Laying down the lumber on the Bern. This race is becoming depressing, because I feel it's such a wasted opportunity. Right now the left could be pushing forward its progressive agenda with a united voice and drawing sharp contrasts with the Republicans' policy vacuity and bigotry. I truly hope that once it becomes absolutely clear to Sanders' campaign itself that they have no path to the nomination (which should be by the end of this month), Sanders will go back to a positive message only. I see the influence of his campaign advisors behind the change in tone, and he's better than that. Anyway, in other news: Key conservatives pushing Mike Lee for the Supreme Court
Prominent conservatives are lobbying Donald Trump to say that he will nominate Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the Supreme Court if he’s elected president.
And Trump’s main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, has already said he’d consider his best friend in the Senate for the seat that opened with Antonin Scalia’s death.
As President Obama travels to the University of Chicago this afternoon to deliver a speech calling for Merrick Garland’s confirmation, Senate Republican leaders are expressing confidence they can hold firm through the November election in refusing to grant him even a hearing. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, there will be pressure to quickly confirm Garland so that she could not appoint someone who is younger and more liberal. If she loses, then the next Republican president will get to nominate someone else.
While the rest of the mainstream media is preoccupied with the Garland battle, conservative luminaries are increasingly looking ahead to next year and quietly touting Lee as a potential nominee. Republican senators like this idea, and Democrats are figuring out how they’d respond. Source If Clinton wins can Obama rescind his nomination? As much as it would suck for Garland the big FU to republicans by Obama on his way out would be delicious. I'm assuming he will. He's a far more conservative candidate than any first year President would be likely to nominate. There is currently uncertainty which forces compromise rather than risking having a non compromise candidate forced down their throats for life. Recognizing the low but real risk of a Republican win Obama offered them a Republican that they could live with, forfeiting the chance to force a Democrat down their throats in favour of guaranteeing that they didn't get another Scalia. If the Republicans reject that deal, which they appear to be doing, they're betting everything on winning the Presidency and imposing their own hardliner. They can't bet everything on that, lose and then go back and ask if the safe compromise option is still on the table. Their own refusal to work with Obama, even if it involves just doing their jobs, is going to bite them in the ass.
I feel like the decision making for the supreme court is going to be very telling. The nomination of Garland will signal a lack of confidence in the establishment's ability to win a general election. They essentially need to decide by the time the presidential candidates are decided, right? If they wait too long, we could see Elizabeth Warren on the supreme court lmao
|
On April 08 2016 03:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:31 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 08 2016 03:27 Sermokala wrote:
No matter what happens to the race between Hillary and sanders the loser is going to get the second to last speech of the night and introduce the winner as the next president of the united states so the party can march to the beat of a united party. Its just how america works. Unless we get a 4 party general Dem Rep Ind Tea I can't see Sanders running as an independent, unless he really wants to help the Republicans. He is a grumpy old man, but he isn't 100% crazy.
Sanders would probably have his chance in a 4-party stuff, much less in a 3-party.
On April 08 2016 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:
I stand corrected. I assumed they applied to the presidential race. I guess Trump can be the sore loser and run as a 3rd party, assure a victory for the Democrats. I honestly think it's much more likely Bernie runs 3rd party. Saying Clinton isn't qualified is digging himself pretty deep at this point. He's an old fart, what does he have to lose? He's essentially trying to martyr himself for socialism. He's got no reason to stop once he loses the nomination.
You need money to run 3rd party. And no, saying Clinton is not qualified will be forgotten in 3 months, like almost all necessarily hostile things that happen in primaries.
|
On April 08 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 08 2016 01:28 kwizach wrote:On April 08 2016 01:07 JW_DTLA wrote:
kwizach Laying down the lumber on the Bern. This race is becoming depressing, because I feel it's such a wasted opportunity. Right now the left could be pushing forward its progressive agenda with a united voice and drawing sharp contrasts with the Republicans' policy vacuity and bigotry. I truly hope that once it becomes absolutely clear to Sanders' campaign itself that they have no path to the nomination (which should be by the end of this month), Sanders will go back to a positive message only. I see the influence of his campaign advisors behind the change in tone, and he's better than that. Anyway, in other news: Key conservatives pushing Mike Lee for the Supreme Court
Prominent conservatives are lobbying Donald Trump to say that he will nominate Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the Supreme Court if he’s elected president.
And Trump’s main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, has already said he’d consider his best friend in the Senate for the seat that opened with Antonin Scalia’s death.
As President Obama travels to the University of Chicago this afternoon to deliver a speech calling for Merrick Garland’s confirmation, Senate Republican leaders are expressing confidence they can hold firm through the November election in refusing to grant him even a hearing. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, there will be pressure to quickly confirm Garland so that she could not appoint someone who is younger and more liberal. If she loses, then the next Republican president will get to nominate someone else.
While the rest of the mainstream media is preoccupied with the Garland battle, conservative luminaries are increasingly looking ahead to next year and quietly touting Lee as a potential nominee. Republican senators like this idea, and Democrats are figuring out how they’d respond. Source If Clinton wins can Obama rescind his nomination? As much as it would suck for Garland the big FU to republicans by Obama on his way out would be delicious. I'm assuming he will. He's a far more conservative candidate than any first year President would be likely to nominate. There is currently uncertainty which forces compromise rather than risking having a non compromise candidate forced down their throats for life. Recognizing the low but real risk of a Republican win Obama offered them a Republican that they could live with, forfeiting the chance to force a Democrat down their throats in favour of guaranteeing that they didn't get another Scalia. If the Republicans reject that deal, which they appear to be doing, they're betting everything on winning the Presidency and imposing their own hardliner. They can't bet everything on that, lose and then go back and ask if the safe compromise option is still on the table. Their own refusal to work with Obama, even if it involves just doing their jobs, is going to bite them in the ass.
I don't know. the last few times the republicans have refused to work with the president has worked out for the GOP swimmingly and it might act as a incentive for them to try it as a power play for whoever wins on the dem side if they lose the presidential.
|
Would Obama even want the seat if he was offered it? I would image he is looking forward to retirement after 8 years of trying to run to US.
|
United States43533 Posts
On April 08 2016 03:41 Gorsameth wrote:
Would Obama even want the seat if he was offered it? I would image he is looking forward to retirement after 8 years of trying to run to US.
He's not qualified. It's an amusing thought of them being stuck with Obama for life but he's not a judge.
|
On April 08 2016 03:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:30 Plansix wrote:
I stand corrected. I assumed they applied to the presidential race. I guess Trump can be the sore loser and run as a 3rd party, assure a victory for the Democrats. I honestly think it's much more likely Bernie runs 3rd party. Saying Clinton isn't qualified is digging himself pretty deep at this point. He's an old fart, what does he have to lose? He's essentially trying to martyr himself for socialism. He's got no reason to stop once he loses the nomination.
Because at the end of the day, he is going to do what is best for his supporters, which is not letting the Republicans win. I understand these very short term plans seem appealing, but he is facing the potential of being the guy who helps Cruz or Trump win.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Primaries are getting a bit bleh to me, both on the election side and the discussion side.
Things are really taking a turn for the worse, and everyone would be foolish not to pin the fault on *all* the candidates and all the news outlets.
|
On April 08 2016 03:41 Gorsameth wrote:
Would Obama even want the seat if he was offered it? I would image he is looking forward to retirement after 8 years of trying to run to US.
I doubt the supreme court is as stressful as president.
Plus Obama's law licence is inactive at the moment. It would take some time for him to reactivate it and get up to standards for him to be chosen for such a position.
|
On April 08 2016 03:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2016 03:34 KwarK wrote:On April 08 2016 03:26 Slaughter wrote:On April 08 2016 01:28 kwizach wrote:On April 08 2016 01:07 JW_DTLA wrote:
kwizach Laying down the lumber on the Bern. This race is becoming depressing, because I feel it's such a wasted opportunity. Right now the left could be pushing forward its progressive agenda with a united voice and drawing sharp contrasts with the Republicans' policy vacuity and bigotry. I truly hope that once it becomes absolutely clear to Sanders' campaign itself that they have no path to the nomination (which should be by the end of this month), Sanders will go back to a positive message only. I see the influence of his campaign advisors behind the change in tone, and he's better than that. Anyway, in other news: Key conservatives pushing Mike Lee for the Supreme Court
Prominent conservatives are lobbying Donald Trump to say that he will nominate Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to the Supreme Court if he’s elected president.
And Trump’s main rival for the nomination, Ted Cruz, has already said he’d consider his best friend in the Senate for the seat that opened with Antonin Scalia’s death.
As President Obama travels to the University of Chicago this afternoon to deliver a speech calling for Merrick Garland’s confirmation, Senate Republican leaders are expressing confidence they can hold firm through the November election in refusing to grant him even a hearing. If Hillary Clinton wins in November, there will be pressure to quickly confirm Garland so that she could not appoint someone who is younger and more liberal. If she loses, then the next Republican president will get to nominate someone else.
While the rest of the mainstream media is preoccupied with the Garland battle, conservative luminaries are increasingly looking ahead to next year and quietly touting Lee as a potential nominee. Republican senators like this idea, and Democrats are figuring out how they’d respond. Source If Clinton wins can Obama rescind his nomination? As much as it would suck for Garland the big FU to republicans by Obama on his way out would be delicious. I'm assuming he will. He's a far more conservative candidate than any first year President would be likely to nominate. There is currently uncertainty which forces compromise rather than risking having a non compromise candidate forced down their throats for life. Recognizing the low but real risk of a Republican win Obama offered them a Republican that they could live with, forfeiting the chance to force a Democrat down their throats in favour of guaranteeing that they didn't get another Scalia. If the Republicans reject that deal, which they appear to be doing, they're betting everything on winning the Presidency and imposing their own hardliner. They can't bet everything on that, lose and then go back and ask if the safe compromise option is still on the table. Their own refusal to work with Obama, even if it involves just doing their jobs, is going to bite them in the ass. I don't know. the last few times the republicans have refused to work with the president has worked out for the GOP swimmingly and it might act as a incentive for them to try it as a power play for whoever wins on the dem side if they lose the presidential.
You mean that time they shut down the government and the entire country got mad at them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
