|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. Presidential Election 2016
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Bibliophile: These are exactly the kinds of voters who in European countries will vote for parties of the populist right, UKIP in the UK, the Front National in France, the Danish People's Party in Denmark etc.
I agree with you. What Trump says looks a lot like these European politicians, and thoughts that he'll be off-stage quickly might be overly optimistic. There is a difference in the US (and the UK) of course because of their districtal system, I wonder how that will work out.
The electoral systems in both France and the UK work heavily against UKIP and the Front National respectively but they have both still a substantial number of voters who aren't in any hurry to switch back to the main parties. I think Trump could do reasonably well (but not win overall) in the primaries. After that he could well run as an Independent or 3rd party candidate.
I saw this clip of him being interviewed this week on the Dana Loesch show. He was asked about running as a 3rd party candidate and if you listen carefully to his answer you'll hear its what I believe politicians call a 'non-denial denial'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIItn__nXGo
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Bibliophile: I saw this clip of him being interviewed this week on the Dana Loesch show. He was asked about running as a 3rd party candidate and if you listen carefully to his answer you'll hear its what I believe politicians call a 'non-denial denial'
My guess is that if he's eliminated in the primaries, his ego won't allow him not to run as an independent. Which will give the GOP a serious problem.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
The electoral systems in both France and the UK work heavily against UKIP and the Front National respectively
The situations are by no means comparable. There is no equivalent to FPTP in national elections, and the FN is doing pretty well in first rounds.
This can be taken to be the French voting with their hearts rather than their heads, a favourite national pastime prior to the decisive round.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Lindsey Graham's response is a thing of beauty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXSFRMJhlgY
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
One thing I have hard a number of commentators say is the that the Republican Party leadership has a problem in dealing with Trump because it has no leverage with him. The other candidates will all be dependent on a network of Republican donors, if they are legislators they will be dependent on political networks for mutual legislative back scratching. These networks can be used to keep candidates in line, to remind them they have to 'play by the rules' if they want to 'stay in the game'.
Trump holds no political office, he does not need any donors. He can say more or less what he likes without it affecting his ability to stay in the race as long as he wants to.
This is something of a byproduct of the Citizens United decision. While it's always been possible for a wealthy individual to self-finance a presidential run, they historically had to do so outside the apparatus of an established party. Post-Citizens-United it seems impossible for organized parties to use the traditional methods of enforcing message discipline, like cutting off funding. In the old days the Republican Party would have had the option to tell someone like Donald Trump to go away (and to make it stick). Now their only option is to have Reince Priebus ineffectually wag his finger at Trump.
It now seems that even the finger wagging option may be getting out of reach. Trump has now openly threatened to run as as 3rd party candidate if the RNC don't 'treat him fairly'
quote:
NEW YORK — Donald Trump says the chances that he will launch a third-party White House run will “absolutely” increase if the Republican National Committee is unfair to him during the 2016 primary season.
“The RNC has not been supportive. They were always supportive when I was a contributor. I was their fair-haired boy,” the business mogul told The Hill in a 40-minute interview from his Manhattan office at Trump Tower on Wednesday. “The RNC has been, I think, very foolish.”
Pressed on whether he would run as a third-party candidate if he fails to clinch the GOP nomination, Trump said that “so many people want me to, if I don’t win.”
“I’ll have to see how I’m being treated by the Republicans,” Trump said. “Absolutely, if they’re not fair, that would be a factor.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/248910-exclusive-trump-threatens-third-party-run
in other words 'play nice and no more finger wagging or else'.
Given the Republican Party establishment's support for big money in politics they have absolutely no one to blame but themselves for this situation.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I agree that the GOP has sown the wind and is now reaping the whirlwind.
The newest meme sweeping the web: Brush your cat. Amass the brushings into a mat and put it on your cat's head. Voila -- your cat impersonating Donald Trump! Photograph him quickly and post.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think any Republican candidate can win the 2016 Presidential election unless the GOP finds both policies and a candidate to attract the (very distrustful) Hispanic and Black voters. At present, there is not much sign of both of those things happening in time.
Here is a link, with a voter composition table which makes interesting reading.
Trust once lost is hard to regain. Coupled with state voting patterns, the electoral college structure is at present (and for the foreseeable future) more favourable to the Democrats, even if the popular vote is close. ...
That is why the GOP loves voter id laws and eliminating early voting and same-day registration - because of the disproportionate impact on people of color and the poor and students and women -- all groups which lean Democratic. If they GOP can suppress their votes effectively, they might have a shot at the White House. They've already wrapped up the House until the next census and will probably always have a rural vs. urban advantage in that body. In the last election cycle, there was talk of changing the winner-take-all electoral college to distributing the electors based on congressional districts, which again would favour the GOP presidential candidate.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Soror Magna
I think the Obama campaigns countered more difficult voter registration so I guess a (probable) Clinton campaign could follow suit.
On changing the electoral college along the lines that have been suggested, how likely is that to succeed in time for 2016? On general grounds I'd have thought not.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I've never been persuaded by any of the reasons anyone has ever given on the various occasions when it has been discussed on these boards, for having your electoral college since the original reason why it was designed into the Constitution in the C18 did not stick. Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins? Inserting any other stage into the system is capable of distorting the result without adding anything.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm inclined to agree, Enoch. But that wasn't the suggestion Soror Magna referred to.
I'm pretty sure we've had a previous discussion on the pros and cons of the current electoral college. I'll have a look in the dusty archives, see if I can find it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
That's the way it is now. Those of us in states with a small number of EC votes might as well stay home on Election Day. And those of us who consistently don't vote for the candidate of the favored party in such a state are totally wasting our vote.
I want my vote to count just as much as any other vote in any other state. It will never happen with the current system.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
That's the way it is now. Those of us in states with a small number of EC votes might as well stay home on Election Day. And those of us who consistently don't vote for the candidate of the favored party in such a state are totally wasting our vote.
I want my vote to count just as much as any other vote in any other state. It will never happen with the current system.
If you do the math you will see that the smaller states are heavily weighted through the EC.
California is 38 million people. Wyoming is about 600,000. 38 million/600,000 is +/- 63.
California has 55 Electoral votes, Wyoming has 3.
55/3 is 18.
A straight popular vote would insure that no candidate for POTUS would ever be seen outside the 10 or 12 most populous states.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
The last serious effort to amend the Constitution to do away with the electoral college was in 1970, and it was a filibuster by senators from small states that killed it.
I don't know if it will make any of you feel better, but plenty of California voters feel like their votes don't matter. Our votes in the primaries come too late to matter, and Republican voters know that they haven't mattered in the general presidential election for at least 20 years, since the state has become a reliable Democrat stronghold. Candidates only visit California to raise money.
Personally, I think it's time for us to acknowledge that it's really only rich people who matter in this whole process. If a candidate can't persuade rich people to donate, it doesn't matter what the likes of you and me think.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Wouldn't it be better for electoral college votes to be apportioned by the percentage of votes for candidates, rather than awarded as a block to the winner of a plurality (Maine and Nebraska vote by congressional district, with the additional 2 going to the winner of the plurality)? In this way, should (say) 40% of Californians vote for Mr Trump, he would get 22 Californian votes, and Mrs Clinton the other 33. In this way, popular vote would have a greater say while smaller states, with their disproportional strength (i.e., Vermont with its 2+1=3 rather than its proportional 1 vote) are still relevant enough for attention by candidates.
This would have the advantage that "safe" states, which are taken for granted by candidates-- which Republican worries about Utah? -- would no longer be taken for granted as the danger of going from 5 Utah votes to 4 would ensure some attention, as would the prospect of going from 1 to 2 would engage the mind of a Democratic candidate.
This would also help keep two-party democracy operational in the "safe" states.
As it is, "battleground" states such as Florida and Arizona get disproportionate attention as they are among the few where either party can win. Still, I suppose that this helps direct large sums of campaign money into job-creation in the journalism and business-travel industries.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
There is definitely a better way to do it. But there is no will to make a change. Those in power got in on the current system, and are not motivated at all to alter it. Nor would now be a good time, ramping up to an election. The ideal time to do it is -after- an election when everyone is exhausted and all the shouting is over for a couple months. But a new incoming administration usually does not have this issue anywhere near the top of the agenda.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Drat it, hit send too fast. I have a photograph of my cat, dressed for Halloween. He is going, naturally, as Donald Trump -- his cat-hair wig is perfect. I have no idea how to post the photo here, but I could possibly get it up on the SoF Facebook page.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why not just tot up the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate and the one with the most votes wins?
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
Sorry. That's nonsense. It is not believable that all the voters in one big state would vote for the same candidate. If there's a straight headcount, all votes are of equal value, wherever they are.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
The electoral college was about protecting the interests of small states and regions. It is still about that. A state's electoral votes equals its number of senators and representatives. Give each congressional district an electoral vote. The candidate who wins the popular vote gets an extra two electoral votes.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Personally, I think it's time for us to acknowledge that it's really only rich people who matter in this whole process. If a candidate can't persuade rich people to donate, it doesn't matter what the likes of you and me think.
Damn straight.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
A whole thread on the Electoral College from 2012 can be found here.
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
Simple really. If we did that there would be no need for people in places like Wyoming or the Dakotas to bother voting.
You could just have California, Texas, Florida, and New York pick the President.
quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
A straight popular vote would insure that no candidate for POTUS would ever be seen outside the 10 or 12 most populous states.
I'm always amazed at the level of self-contradictory "reasoning" fans of the electoral college can come up with the support that anachronism. In the 2012 election Wyoming voted Republican by a margin of more than 40 percentage points, while the Dakotas had margins of about 20 percentage points each. Under the electoral college, any effort that doesn't move the state to a majority in your favor is wasted. Given this, there's no reason to visit those states now, as can be seen from this handy website. On the other hand, if votes from those states would still be counted in your presidential total even if you didn't carry a majority of the population, that would be an incentive to pay them some attention.
Now if your problem is an objection to the fact that 13,038,547 voters in California carry more electoral weight than 249,061 voters in Wyoming, your problem is with democracy in general rather than any specific vote counting system.
The electoral college is actually one of the more frequently amended sections of the Constitution. (The twelfth and twenty-third amendments revised the rules for the electoral college.) So it's demonstrably possible to pass such amendments, although it's still incredibly difficult to do so. That would be the only way to switch over to popularly electing the U.S. President.
On the other hand, some fixes are available without resorting to a Constitutional amendment. For example, expanding the size of the U.S. House of Representatives would take care of a lot of the disproportionate representation problem. By my calculations (based on the 2010 census), expanding the U.S. House (which can be done legislatively without resorting to an amendment) from its current size of 435 members to 827 would largely eliminate the disproportionality in the allocation of electors. Wyoming would have 4 electors, California would have 102. Not proportional parity, but a lot closer, and it would largely eliminate disproportionality in the U.S. House. The only practical concern is whether a legislative body that large can function.
Dividing up each state's electors on a proportional basis is also a fix that doesn't require a constitutional amendment. I'm skeptical of doing it by Congressional District, since those are subject to gerrymandering and might just end up in practical terms as a winner take all system like present. For example, in the 2014 House races in Massachusetts Republicans captured 17% of the vote (which isn't bad considering they only contested 3 of Massachusetts' 9 Congressional Districts) yet zero of Massachusetts' congressional delegation are Republicans.
At any rate, the Electoral College is an anachronism that would be better replaced by direct election, but failing that there are fixes available.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
Article giving 'the progressive case for Donald Trump'
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/07/25/3684164/case-for-donald-trump/
Hilarious!
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
No one is saying that he is a progressive but on a number of issues he is on the left of the American political spectrum.
For example, as noted above, he is in favour of universal healthcare whilst Jeb Bush has recently argued in favour of abolishing medicare. And yet Trump is the one portrayed in the media as being more extreme than Bush.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Trying to posit him as to the left or right of anything or anyone is a lesson in futility. He is a giant farcical romp, played out large for our amusement (Jon Stewart calls him the Jewish miracle which continues it's comedic burn for 8 days past when he should have burned out...).
Like so many GOP candidates before him (yes, Newt, I'm looking at you...) he isn't the least bit interested in actually becoming president-- too much work for too little pay and too little respect. But, like the others, he's found that running for president is just the little resume boost needed to restart a has-been career and launch into the far more lucrative job of political pundit. It's a well-paying and easy gig. No need to do any research or read anything, no need to make any hard decisions, and you get to sit back and criticize the poor fool who actually got the job all you want w/o worrying about the consequences. Just collect your fat check from Faux News or the Heritage Foundation or some other right wingnut organization.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Exactly. Who was it, who decided that all Trump coverage should not be filed under News & Politics but should be posted under Entertainment? They had the right of it.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks for the better link, Croesos.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Brenda Clough: Who was it, who decided that all Trump coverage should not be filed under News & Politics but should be posted under Entertainment?
I think it was Huffington Post.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Trying to posit him as to the left or right of anything or anyone is a lesson in futility. He is a giant farcical romp, played out large for our amusement (Jon Stewart calls him the Jewish miracle which continues it's comedic burn for 8 days past when he should have burned out...). ...
Is Donald Trump Jewish? Wikipedia thinks he is Presbyterian. This starts to conjure up the image of every social, religious and ethnic group rushing around frantically trying to claim he isn't and never has been anything to do with them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Trying to posit him as to the left or right of anything or anyone is a lesson in futility. He is a giant farcical romp, played out large for our amusement (Jon Stewart calls him the Jewish miracle which continues it's comedic burn for 8 days past when he should have burned out...). ...
Is Donald Trump Jewish? Wikipedia thinks he is Presbyterian. This starts to conjure up the image of every social, religious and ethnic group rushing around frantically trying to claim he isn't and never has been anything to do with them.
No, but Jon Stewart is rather famously Jewish and is probably referring to the fact that as long as Donald Trump is in the race the Daily Show will never want for material.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Won't the Daily Show want for Jon Stewart himself shortly? A thought that makes me very sad. There is nobody quite like him on either side of the pond.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Won't the Daily Show want for Jon Stewart himself shortly? A thought that makes me very sad. There is nobody quite like him on either side of the pond.
I know. I've been going to bed with Stewart (wink, wink) every night very years... it won't be the same.
I keep hoping that Trump et al will cause him to have a change of heart-- after all, with them in the race you don't even have to work all that hard, the jokes just write themselves... But sadly, he just keeps saying it's his lovely parting gift.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
There's an interesting graphic showing where 2012's presidential campaign donors are bestowing their 2016 contributions (at least to date).
Barack Obama's backers, interestingly, are going to Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton by a fairly significant margin.
A plurality of Mitt Romney's backers seem to favor Marco Rubio. Who knew?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
Also interesting to note how a number of Ron Paul sponsors went to Sanders...
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Politico says Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Walker will be auditioning for the Koch brothers and other wealthy donors this weekend. This may thin the herd somewhat.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
Triple ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
view of those who wish to immigrate.
Again, Trump is a comic poser who is running for Fox Pundit-in-Chief, not the presidency of the United States.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
view of those who wish to immigrate.
Again, Trump is a comic poser who is running for Fox Pundit-in-Chief, not the presidency of the United States.
Google "Bernie Sanders on immigration".
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
Possibly similar (I wish I could confirm your link with a more reliable source) in some aspects of immigration numerically. Clearly dissimilar in their
view of those who wish to immigrate.
Again, Trump is a comic poser who is running for Fox Pundit-in-Chief, not the presidency of the United States.
Google "Bernie Sanders on immigration".
I did. My post reflects the results of that search.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
So Fox News has lowered its standards so that all Republican candidates can participate in one of its two debates this Thursday (August 6, 2015). The standard now is either "all declared candidates whose names are consistently being offered to respondents in major national polls, as recognized by Fox News" or those who "meet all U.S. Constitutional requirements; . . . announce and register a formal campaign for president; and . . . file all necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), including financial disclosure". You'll note that the first criteria would exclude Mark Everson's ultra-longshot campaign (no one polls for his support) while the latter would include him.
At any rate, as the polls now stand the ten candidates who would get included in the prime-time debate (starts at 9:00 pm EDT) are:
- Republican Frontrunner Donald Trump
- J.E.B. Bush
- Scott Walker
- Marco Rubio
- Ted Cruz
- Rand Paul
- Mike Huckabee
- Ben Carson
- Chris Christie
- Rick Perry
The six runners-up (John Kasich, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham) would take part in the "opening act" debate (sometimes referred to as "the kiddie table") scheduled to start at 5:00 pm EDT (which is 2:00 pm on the west coast). It's actually a distinct possibility that because it has fewer (and saner) participants the earlier "kiddie table" debate might be more substantive and dignified than the main event.
Of course polling between now and then may change these line-ups, so we can probably expect a lot of crazy behavior (or at least a lot more crazy behavior) as candidates try to push themselves into the top 10 over the next week.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Honestly, I think we've been wrong about Faux News all along. They are actually left wing satirists who absolutely adore Jon Stewart and are as heartbroken as the rest of us to see him leave. Why else would they be offering up this valentine to the man just weeks before his departure? Set your DVRs folks-- next week is going to kick off the greatest week of Daily Shows in history.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
A debate 15 months before the Nov 2016 election? Each candidate getting maybe 1 or 2 questions?
Here would be my answer at such a crowded debate.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
A debate 15 months before the Nov 2016 election? Each candidate getting maybe 1 or 2 questions?
But only six months before the first caucus and primaries. And exactly a week before the opening of the Iowa State Fair, which in a year which happens to fall before a year evenly divisible by four happens to be a big candidate showcase.
As for the number of questions likely in the amount of time available, that's a decision that's been made by the Republican Party/Fox News. (Is there a meaningful distinction between these entities at this point?) This kind of early circus is how they feel it's best to provide the first public showing of next year's presidential hopefuls.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But only six months before the first caucus and primaries. And exactly a week before the opening of the Iowa State Fair, which in a year which happens to fall before a year evenly divisible by four happens to be a big candidate showcase.
Six months is still too far out, imo. That leaves the debate mattering because of a state fair. Here I am 56 years old having thought all of my life a fair was for riding rides and looking at crops and animals.
quote:
As for the number of questions likely in the amount of time available, that's a decision that's been made by the Republican Party/Fox News. (Is there a meaningful distinction between these entities at this point?) This kind of early circus is how they feel it's best to provide the first public showing of next year's presidential hopefuls.
I don't see much of a distinction between the two. I also don't much of a distinction between the DNC and the the other cable news channels.
Well, I hope they have fun. It seems I have a prior commitment to soak in the swimming pool and drink beer.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Well, I hope they have fun. It seems I have a prior commitment to soak in the swimming pool and drink beer.
Agreed-- a much more productive use of time. But I would advocate carving a bit of time there to catch Stewart's take on it all-- even if it's doomed to make us love him all the more and thus make the parting all the more poignant.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibliophile
Shipmate
# 18418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It looks like Trump and Sanders are pretty close on the immigration issue.
article
Sanders is actually rather liberal on immigration issues. As for saying that open borders is a Koch brothers proposal that's simply a statement of fact.
Posts: 635 | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
