POTUS Election thread

[Hooahguy]

"tax the rich!" Well, in UK they tax the poor, and it make the rich richer, but the debt increases. They don't wage war on poverty, they wage war on the poor.
So perhaps it is time to tax the rich, to tax companies making money in using tax payed infrastructures.

I am in no way saying that there shouldnt be tax hikes for the wealthy. I absolutely think they should be paying more. In 2012 Romney said that he was paying something like 12% in taxes, was it? Last year I paid a full 15% and I was in the lower end of the tax bracket. And that was after the tax return.

Im just really wary when politicians give such easy answers to big problems. Like how people are saying that overturning the Citizens United decision would solve the problems with elections, but there was dark money and corruption before the decision as well. Its going to take a lot more than just overturning that Supreme Court decision to really change things.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am in no way saying that there shouldnt be tax hikes for the wealthy. I absolutely think they should be paying more. In 2012 Romney said that he was paying something like 12% in taxes, was it? Last year I paid a full 15% and I was in the lower end of the tax bracket. And that was after the tax return.

Im just really wary when politicians give such easy answers to big problems. Like how people are saying that overturning the Citizens United decision would solve the problems with elections, but there was dark money and corruption before the decision as well. Its going to take a lot more than just overturning that Supreme Court decision to really change things.

You can tell the impact of the citizens united decision though. There should only be 4-5 Republican candidates max right now. There are so many that won't drop out because they all found at least one donor to bankroll travel expenses. This division of personalities is why trump and Carson are doing as well as they are. Jeb should have quit after the CNBC debate but there is too much money backing him.

[Hooahguy]

That is absolutely true. But overturning the decision wont fully solve the issue. And considering how partisan everything is now, overturning it via constitutional amendment is just not going to happen. Not with this political climate anyway.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That is absolutely true. But overturning the decision wont fully solve the issue. And considering how partisan everything is now, overturning it via constitutional amendment is just not going to happen. Not with this political climate anyway.

Eventually someone good enough at PR will introduce the idea as a conservative principle (reducing the influence of big unions) and it will catch on. The system is literally destabilizing and from a practical standpoint there will be a breaking point when the legitimacy of the institution must be saved by elimination of private donations. The only other option is a devolution towards oligarchy.

[Hooahguy]

The flood of money into campaigns has enabled GOP candidates to take the majority of local, state, and even federal positions. Maybe if the tables turn in a big way the GOP will reconsider the issue.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The democrats self defeating ideology is why they have lost local, state and federal positions. Nothing to do with money. Look at Kentucky, Democrats couldn't bother to vote against the Republican that promised to remove Obamacare coverage for 100,000+ people. Democrats have the worst strategists.

[Hooahguy]

Democrats always do better in years with a presidential elections, since more than a third of eligible voters come out to vote. Simple fact is, Republicans are just much better at mobilizing the ones who are more likely to vote, via large influxes of cash to pay for commercials and signs and all that fun stuff. When I went to vote in the latest election, 90% of the people I saw at the polls were elderly. Who tend to be more conservative anyways.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Democrats always do better in years with a presidential elections, since more than a third of eligible voters come out to vote. Simple fact is, Republicans are just much better at mobilizing the ones who are more likely to vote, via large influxes of cash to pay for commercials and signs and all that fun stuff. When I went to vote in the latest election, 90% of the people I saw at the polls were elderly. Who tend to be more conservative anyways.

No, the republicans are better not because they have the money to mobilize, but because they mobilize. The Democrats could do the same tactic if they wanted to, there is no limitation or imbalance of money between either party. Most donors give generously to both sides so they win no matter what.

What the Democrats fail to do is realize that people connect better to the issues on a local level. The Democrats are morons that want to shove every single issue they care about onto the national stage, they refuse to use acknowledge the Federalist structure of the US to their own deficit. There was no reason to push for a supreme court ruling on gay marriage when time was on their side. All that came about was a big pat on the back for being "on the right side of history" followed by massive right wing backlash and mobilization There is no reason to make gun control an issue since states that want gun control generally have it and states which don't want gun control generally don't. All that came about from gun control legislation is further alienation of swing states that like the big government programs but want to pretend that the US is still the land of the triumphant individual.

Democrats NEEDED to make health care Obama's number 1 priority despite the fact they got crushed in the 90s and they nearly got crushed again by having to pass what was essentially Romneycare AKA the Republicans 1992-1993 alternative to Hilarycare. Then once they finally got their big Federal bill passed, Democrats repeatedly fail to bother fighting for it on the state and local level by leaving millions of Americans to remain uninsured under Republican governors.


The real irony is that the Republicans who obstruct the Democrats at every turn are actually the loyal opposition that the Founders envisioned. They appealed to their constituencies and won a majority in the house along with majorities in the majority of state legislatures and are using the system the way it was intended to be used. The Democrats plan of having their voters come out only once every 4 years to sweep POTUS, the House and the Senate is a tactic that ONLY works due to the 17th Amendment. Because of the direct election of Senators, Democrats pull this bullshit of sweeping a presidental election year, passing what they want in the two years they have and then attempting to hold on after the midterm elections sweep congress back towards the Republicans. Without the 17th Amendment, Democrats would have to respect the state legislatures and it would force them to think on a local level and cater to the needs of individual communities. This is why current liberalism is lazy and ill-conceived.

[Montmorency]

Very good.

In ideological terms, would you say that the Democrats string themselves out across too many distinct issues while Republicans more or less follow a couple of narrow scripts that are relatively-easy to identify with?

My impression is that the Democrats maintain the most ideologically-diverse base in how they approach or interpret the same episodes, and further what issues they identify with most closely in the first place.

For all the talk of the GOP fragmenting, at least it has some lines to fragment along. The Democratic Party can't fragment because it's already so fragmented that the collective gravitational pull makes it difficult for any one bit of debris to escape, let alone a cohesive mass.

So I guess the paleoconservatives are correct: the Democratic Party is too Jeffersonian for its own good.

[Montmorency]

Interesting anecdote:

I was once working in some clinical research when it came time to process an interview conducted by the PI for speech samples. Here's what I took away from listening to the "free talk" portion, in which the subject chose to discuss his personal life and work.

The subject had been active in the Democratic Party in the 1960s and eventually worked as a mid-level organizer on the state-level. He left the party in the mid-70s because he "was very disappointed" in the policies the party was taking with respect to abortion. After leaving the party, he basically (aside from whatever small business ventures he discussed) spent his time doing nonpartisan community-level work to improve infrastructure, get public services to people, etc.

[Hooahguy]

Fair enough, didnt think of it that way.

A relevant article.

[Viking]

So, the first voting, in Iowa, is tomorrow.

Not sure who to root for. Don't like Clinton, but also sceptical of some of Sanders' views.

[Greyblades]

So is anyone going to talk about how hillary's email scandal has become potentially indictable?

[drone]

So is anyone going to talk about how hillary's email scandal has become potentially indictable?

Pffft. The rules only apply to us peasants.

[Hooahguy]

So Cruz won Iowa, with Trump in second and Rubio in third. Clinton and Sanders are neck and neck but Clinton will probably end up winning.

According to the early results anyways.

EDIT: The Huckster and O'Malley have dropped out of the race. Eager to see who else will drop out.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Anyone else feel like they could basically give the post-election speeches for any candidate by this point?

Seriously, it's essentially a paint-by-numbers job:
1. Thank the crowd for their warm reception
2. Thank the people of [location campaign is in]
3. Excessively positive spin on night's result. If loss, ignore it and focus on the good points, momentum, etc. If win, describe victory as decisive or something similar. Actual margin of victory irrelevant.
4. Congratulate opponent[s] on a good race. Bonus points for using "my friend" even though you just spent the past however many months trying to destroy them in the media.
4a. If conceding, say how now is the time to put faith and support behind opponent. Gently chide crowd for booing mention of opponent.
5. Launch into short version of stump speech. The broad ideas and broad positions that campaign touched on. Broad.
6. [If primary race] Say how you'll be back in however many months for the general election
7. Final round of thanks
8. [If primary race] Rallying cry to see you in next state being contested

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So Cruz won Iowa, with Trump in second and Rubio in third. Clinton and Sanders are neck and neck but Clinton will probably end up winning.

According to the early results anyways.

EDIT: The Huckster and O'Malley have dropped out of the race. Eager to see who else will drop out.

Should see the GOP rapidly drop to 5 or 6. Rand Paul will stay in because he's a Paul. Jeb will stay in through SC to see if he can take out Rubio in the old South. The three top votes in Iowa will stay. Christie hinges on NH performance. Carson will not drop until after SC. Rest should be out then too.

[Montmorency]

Well, looking back at the thread (almost a year?), all of us said some pretty embarrassingly-imprescient or uninformed things. For me the worst was, while I was on the right track concerning recent rule changes for GOP primaries and bound delegates, I mistakenly thought that the 400+ bonus delegates would all be unbound until the National Convention.

At any rate, given the preponderance of proportional delegates and the concentration of winner-takes-all bindings on March 15, I speculate that:

1. We are in fact down to just Rubio, Cruz, and Trump after the first shots in Iowa. No one else can realistically expect to meet the upcoming thresholds. Indeed, if Carson holds out he will only sap votes from Trump.

2. Trump's last chance for a Republican path would be March 15 (Super Tuesday). After that, he is either set (on paper), or he has to give up (on paper).

3. Depending on March 1 (Super Duper Tuesday) performances and his supporters' reactions, Trump will indeed back down - mediocre performance leads to anemia by mid-March - or he will threaten to schismatize the party with an attempted coup or an outright break (most likely in the case that he maintains consistent proportions and is in second place but 50-100 delegates behind the leader).

4. Unless it turns out that Trumpians are really resilient to setbacks, Carson promptly drops out and gets the VP nod, and Rubio and Cruz vacillate and cannibalize each other's delegates, Donald Rhetoric Duck has blown all his steam and is now a rhetorical lame duck. That's it, people, no need to give the Trump candidacy any more thought.

[Greyblades]

[Shaka_Khan]

I wonder what will happen to Trump if he loses? He made a lot of enemies during his campaign.

[Greyblades]

I somewhat doubt we'll find him face down in a ditch, if that's what you mean.

[Shaka_Khan]

Haha! I didn't think of that until you mentioned it. I was thinking more in terms of mainstream media coverage and business relationships.

[Papewaio]

I somewhat doubt we'll find him face down in a ditch, if that's what you mean.

IRS Audits is how they get whittled down to size...

[Idaho]

So with Trump is it a case of the media getting carried away withe their own news narrative - rather than what the majority of sane people would actually vote for?

[Greyblades]

Actually my understanding is that Idaho is a largely evangelical state and for cruz, being the evangelical candidate, it was his to lose.

[Idaho]

What about Iowa?

[Greyblades]

Iowa, Idaho, whats the difference!?

Yeah, typo. whoops.

[Sarmatian]

Bernie's winning this. The reason?

The Big Short.

[Hooahguy]

Lol no hes not, the GOP is purposely not attacking him because they know how easily they will beat him in the general election. All they gotta bring up is the fact that he visited the USSR on his honeymoon, sympathized with communists in his early days, and apparently there are reports that he even had hung a Soviet flag in his office when he was mayor or something. Dont know if the last one is true but it doesnt matter because it makes a great attack ad. Theres even rumors that the GOP is helping Bernie defend himself against Hillary. It will be so easy for the GOP to paint the country red in November should he win the nomination. Especially since his main group of supporters are college age kids who are notorious for not showing up on election day.

Also did anyone catch Rubio's hilariously bad debate performance? Sounded very robotic. Some are even saying he torpedoed his chances of getting New Hampshire. Seems like when he got attacked by Christie he froze.

And what was with Carsons entrance?

[Sarmatian]

Lol no hes not, the GOP is purposely not attacking him because they know how easily they will beat him in the general election.

Why are you so sure?

He has grown from a no-name senator to a guy who can challenge Clinton. He has a very enthusiastic base and republican attacks can't change that. They just prove his point. He would also be the one to gain from a higher voter turnout, so the more attention in the media, the more likely he is to profit.

Bernie has shown he is quite capable. If he mobilizes the youth, there's gonna be no stopping him.