POTUS Election thread

[Montmorency]

Bernie Sanders will get his reputation ruined because of this, Clinton will give the Republicans fodder as she tries to counter the criticism that Bernie gives her. Now instead of cultivating support, she has to defend herself as a liberal and expose herself to Republican jabs when it comes time for the general election. Meanwhile, the Republicans wont have as big of a shit show as the last two elections, so instead of everyone looking like a fool, the Republican winner will come out stronger for it.

Why wouldn't it be the exact opposite?

Also, I seriously doubt Bernie Sanders cares about his reputation in national politics when it comes to this...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why wouldn't it be the exact opposite?

Also, I seriously doubt Bernie Sanders cares about his reputation in national politics when it comes to this...

Because anyone who is actually left-leaning has always been made to look like a fool by his opponents and by the media. Ralph Nader lost much of his reputation once he tried running in 2000. Dennis Kucinich took a beating as well and eventually couldn't hold onto his Congressional spot due to political redistricting.

You could say the same thing for Ron Paul, but oddly enough, while everyone else saw him as crazy during the elections, his followers just became more cult-like.

The reason why the Republican candidate will come out stronger is because there are at least two reasonable candidates this time around to spar against each other. Previous elections you had "the winner" and you had "the rest". It was embarrassing to see Romney play the primary game against Michele"all Democrats are traitors" Bachmann, Herman "how many women have I harassed" Cain, Rick "Jesus always takes my wheel" Santorum, Ron "Buy more Gold" Paul and Texan Rick "Texas" Perry from Texas.

[Montmorency]

Because anyone who is actually left-leaning has always been made to look like a fool by his opponents and by the media. Ralph Nader lost much of his reputation once he tried running in 2000. Dennis Kucinich took a beating as well and eventually couldn't hold onto his Congressional spot due to political redistricting.

You could say the same thing for Ron Paul, but oddly enough, while everyone else saw him as crazy during the elections, his followers just became more cult-like.

The reason why the Republican candidate will come out stronger is because there are at least two reasonable candidates this time around to spar against each other. Previous elections you had "the winner" and you had "the rest". It was embarrassing to see Romney play the primary game against Michele"all Democrats are traitors" Bachmann, Herman "how many women have I harassed" Cain, Rick "Jesus always takes my wheel" Santorum, Ron "Buy more Gold" Paul and Texan Rick "Texas" Perry from Texas.

Ah, but you see, there's some important distinctions:

1. Sanders is not an unsavvy politician.
2. He's no radical comparable to the Tea Party.
3. The Republicans are getting more unhinged by the day.

My prediction:

Sanders keeps Clinton honest, but more importantly acts as a lightning rod for Tea Party froth. In other words, Clinton keeps stable while the Republicans fall over themselves to condemn the 'evil Commies' and become even more extreme and accelerating their own collapse.

The only way this could fail is if the public at large reacts really strongly to the bare fact of a self-proclaimed socialist prodding Clinton to be more asseverent and turn to the Repubs in light of that alone - in which case I don't think the prospects would have been good for the left anyway...

[a completely inoffensive name]

1. Sanders is not an unsavvy politician.

That is yet to be seen. The campaign trail will show either way.

2. He's no radical comparable to the Tea Party.

Sure he is, if we are going by US political conventions since 1992. The US left is now what used to be called "third way". Sander's is a bonafide Socialist, and some of his views are probably closer to Eugene Debs than Clinton.

3. The Republicans are getting more unhinged by the day.

I would say the opposite, 2012 was off the rails. The Republicans are beginning to transition to a new platform more inclusive of Hispanics. This election may have some internal strife's from nativist views clashing with this retooling, but so far it is already better for the GOP (candidate wise) than this time 4 years ago.

My prediction:

Sanders keeps Clinton honest, but more importantly acts as a lightning rod for Tea Party froth. In other words, Clinton keeps stable while the Republicans fall over themselves to condemn the 'evil Commies' and become even more extreme and accelerating their own collapse.

The only way this could fail is if the public at large reacts really strongly to the bare fact of a self-proclaimed socialist prodding Clinton to be more asseverent and turn to the Repubs in light of that alone - in which case I don't think the prospects would have been good for the left anyway...

I think you are way off base here with your predictions, but your last sentence gets close to the truth.

[Montmorency]

Sure he is, if we are going by US political conventions since 1992.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

Point out anything unusual, please.

At this point, Clinton would be about as left as Nixon.

I would say the opposite, 2012 was off the rails. The Republicans are beginning to transition to a new platform more inclusive of Hispanics. This election may have some internal strife's from nativist views clashing with this retooling, but so far it is already better for the GOP (candidate wise) than this time 4 years ago.

That alone will have little bearing on the upcoming election, and the long-term productivity is still doubtful.

[a completely inoffensive name]

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

Point out anything unusual, please.

There were no policies listed there. What am I supposed to point out? A liberal and a socialist will both say "gender inequality is wrong" but they will have two different policies towards it.

[Montmorency]

There were no policies listed there. What am I supposed to point out? A liberal and a socialist will both say "gender inequality is wrong" but they will have two different policies towards it.

???

Aside from that not being a very clear example to focus on...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am almost ready to offer prayers that NEITHER of them finish with 270 EC votes, that one "faithless" elector will put Paul Ryan into the mix and that the House selects him as President. Kaine would end up VP since the Senate, following Trump's "elegant leadership" of the campaign, is very likely to be a Dem majority in January (or a majority factoring the two independents who usually caucus with the Dems).

[drone]

I am almost ready to offer prayers that NEITHER of them finish with 270 EC votes, that one "faithless" elector will put Paul Ryan into the mix and that the House selects him as President. Kaine would end up VP since the Senate, following Trump's "elegant leadership" of the campaign, is very likely to be a Dem majority in January (or a majority factoring the two independents who usually caucus with the Dems).

Actually, the best-case scenario might be Evan McMullin. He may very well win Utah's EC votes, which would put him in the mix if neither of the sociopaths gets to 270. The House could be convinced to put him in, he's a true conservative.

[Husar]

How about they make a compromise and elect Bernie Sanders?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How about they make a compromise and elect Bernie Sanders?

You are nothing if not consistent in your views, pal.

Not gonna happen though.

The mechanics of a HoR vote prevent it. If no candidate gets to 270 in the electoral college, the House decides, but is limited in their choice to the top three vote getters in the Electoral College. Two of these will be Clinton and Trump. The Third (if any) would be either a 3rd party candidate who "steals" one state (the McMullen scenario above is the only one with a chance really) or a person getting one or two single votes from "faithless" electors who choose to vote for someone other than the candidate for whom they were designated to vote at the time of their selection.

Ryan or Kasich or Rubio or even Bush might get such a one off from a Trump elector. It is possible that a Clinton elector might instead vote for Sanders, thus making him 3rd and putting his name in the mix.

HOWEVER, the House vote is by STATE, not by individual as it is for the Senate vote for VP. As the GOP controls (and will do so even after the election) 27-29 of the state delegations, they person chosen from the short list will be GOP or just perhaps a conservative amenable to the GOP. Sanders would not get the nod.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Actually, the best-case scenario might be Evan McMullin. He may very well win Utah's EC votes, which would put him in the mix if neither of the sociopaths gets to 270. The House could be convinced to put him in, he's a true conservative.

He would not be my first choice as I prefer a bit more gravitas -- but if he takes UTAH and thus becomes one of the top three EC vote getters who are the limited slate from which the HoR can select, then I would happily prefer him to the other two.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am almost ready to offer prayers that NEITHER of them finish with 270 EC votes, that one "faithless" elector will put Paul Ryan into the mix and that the House selects him as President. Kaine would end up VP since the Senate, following Trump's "elegant leadership" of the campaign, is very likely to be a Dem majority in January (or a majority factoring the two independents who usually caucus with the Dems).

Fun Constitutional oddities aside, this would be greatly devastating to the American psyche and the people's faith in government.

[HopAlongBunny]

Fun Constitutional oddities aside, this would be greatly devastating to the American psyche and the people's faith in government.

But such a turn might be satisfactory to the people who run the government