2016 Election Thread

[USAFChief]

 

What is the justification in this day and age? It is a waste of time and money. Why should we artificially assign votes based on winner take all states? There is no reason to do that, not that I can think of. Why not just use the popular vote?

 

Right now, 4-6 states are up for grabs, year after year. Those 4-6 state decide who the president is, even if every person in NY and CA votes for 1 candidate. That seems like a violation of "every vote counts the same" to me.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

[Craig Arko]

I think Thunderdome could be the answer to the election issues; two candidates enter, one candidate leaves.

 

And has the added bonus of being more entertaining to watch than the debates.

[Shane Wahl]

 

I don't claim that they do. But then, I'm not the one making the distinction that one method is 'idealistic' and the other is 'pragmatic.'

If it was Elizabeth Warren instead of Bernie Sanders, would that distinction still have been an issue worth mentioning?

And by the way, should Senator Warren enter the race at any point, I'd support her over all the other candidates. It just so happens she's too smart to get pulled into the upcoming Presidential black hole.

No, I think she is just waiting it out right now. A miracle Sanders win would make her happy.

[Shane Wahl]

If there are still people here worried about a Trump victory over Clinton, I would suggest considering the fact that the whole neo-conservative wing of the GOP (those that actually ran the W. Bush administration) will be essentially endorsing Hillary Clinton (she is, by far, the most *predictable* war-loving candidate left). And Clinton doesn't *actually* bother the establishment moderates in the GOP because she is one of them in many ways (foreign policy, pro-neoliberalism).

[Mike Sixel]

That just reinforced my belief that it is a product of a time that has passed and that the electoral college should go away

[Craig Arko]

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

This was basically put in place after Jar-Jar nominated Palpatine as dictator, right?

[Squirrel]

 

If there are still people here worried about a Trump victory over Clinton, I would suggest considering the fact that the whole neo-conservative wing of the GOP (those that actually ran the W. Bush administration) will be essentially endorsing Hillary Clinton (she is, by far, the most *predictable* war-loving candidate left). And Clinton doesn't *actually* bother the establishment moderates in the GOP because she is one of them in many ways (foreign policy, pro-neoliberalism).

War loving? Where do you get that? Because of her Iraq vote in 2002? Do better if that is your claim.

[DaveW]

Yeah I have heard this "Hilary is a war lover" meme amongst the Sanders crowd a lot lately.

 

Give me a freaking break, she isn't the one saying we need to goto War with Iran and everyone else. She isn't pro-war in the least.

[TheLeviathan]

I think a lot of the Hillary is a hawk meme is based on some pretty entrenched naivety.

 

The world is a scary place and there are many that seek the aid of our country in the face of it. Isolating ourselves comes with serious costs as well.

 

 

Foreign policy and intervention are extremely nuanced and difficult issues. It'd be nice if Sanders said more about it than reciting is Iraq vote.

[Craig Arko]

War loving? Where do you get that? Because of her Iraq vote in 2002? Do better if that is your claim.

Do we have data on the candidates' Super PAC funding sources? That would be one plausible explanation. It would be useful for supporters, as well as non-supporters, to know where the money is coming from.

 

Until SuperPACs and Citizens United join Prohibition as historical footnotes, anyhow.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Caucuses are deeply flawed, you are asking people to spend hours out of their own day to "participate" in a caucus, which eliminates a large amount of the population, (Pretty much anyone with kids, anyone who works a lot of hours etc) it comes down to retired people and college students for the most part, which aren't a good cross section of the "public" when it comes down to it. We should have went to a popular vote a long time ago anyways. Stats already have enough "fairness" seeing how each one gets two senators. The idea that elections often come down to people in Florida or Ohio is insane.

 

I see the primary/Caucus season as the parties nomination process, many see it as round one of selecting a president.  Caucuses make a ton of sense to get the best results for the parties, primaries make the most sense if you see it as round one.  As for open primaries I don't understand why the parties award any delegates for something that can be heavily altered by the opposing party. 

 

As for the EC versus popular vote of course it has come into play more then once in about 60 elections but for the most part it makes no difference.  I can live with the popular vote, but it would create such an east coast bias I don't think even Democrats would be happy with the results, we could probably smooth out the #'s to make it to a more per capita basis but i do think it's important to try to make candidates win across the country rather then allow them to win big regionally and coast in the rest of the country.

[Squirrel]

 

I see the primary/Caucus season as the parties nomination process, many see it as round one of selecting a president.  Caucuses make a ton of sense to get the best results for the parties, primaries make the most sense if you see it as round one.  As for open primaries I don't understand why the parties award any delegates for something that can be heavily altered by the opposing party. 

 

That's why I think closed primaries are best.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

War loving? Where do you get that? Because of her Iraq vote in 2002? Do better if that is your claim.

It's also her coziness with AIPAC. 

[glunn]

In hindsight I believe that getting involved with regime change in Libya was a bad idea, and I think that Hillary should bear some responsibility for that.  On the other hand, I don't see her as reckless like Trump and Cruz.

 

 

[Shane Wahl]

 

War loving? Where do you get that? Because of her Iraq vote in 2002? Do better if that is your claim.

 

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria.

[Shane Wahl]

 

 

In hindsight I believe that getting involved with regime change in Libya was a bad idea, and I think that Hillary should bear some responsibility for that.  On the other hand, I don't see her as reckless like Trump and Cruz.

 

Which is why the neo-conservatives favor her over them. Elliot Cohen has actually come out and said it.

[Shane Wahl]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

 

Both Clinton and Kerry kept pushing Obama, and Clinton has made comments in the past few years as well.

I am pretty surprised that some of you think that this is just stuff coming from Sanders supporters. It has been known for a long time that Clinton is pro-war. I don't really understand . . . .

[Shane Wahl]

http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/

 

"Hillary Clinton’s Unapologetically Hawkish Record Faces 2016 Test"

 

I can keep going. And going.

[PseudoSABR]

Back to antiquity, a plane was hijacked and landed in Cyprus.

[DaveW]

 

Back to antiquity, a plane was hijacked and landed in Cyprus.

Sounds like the guy was trying to impress his ex wife.

 

Hard not to be impressed to be honest.

[ashbury]

but i do think it's important to try to make candidates win across the country rather then allow them to win big regionally and coast in the rest of the country.

Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968, the formula for every Republican success since then, pretty much sums up my response to that.

 

That's why I think closed primaries are best.

I always registered as Independent until 2008, when I decided I wanted a say in the Democratic nomination (though, I do not wax nostalgic for the Nevada caucus system). Then last year when we moved to another state, the DMV offered to register me to vote, and I picked Republican, figuring that would be the far more interesting primary to take part in (so, my prognostication powers proved lacking). Point being, there is still plenty of room for monkey business even if you limit primaries to those registered to one party.

[Squirrel]

 

Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968, the formula for every Republican success since then, pretty much sums up my response to that.

 

I always registered as Independent until 2008, when I decided I wanted a say in the Democratic nomination (though, I do not wax nostalgic for the Nevada caucus system). Then last year when we moved to another state, the DMV offered to register me to vote, and I picked Republican, figuring that would be the far more interesting primary to take part in (so, my prognostication powers proved lacking). Point being, there is still plenty of room for monkey business even if you limit primaries to those registered to one party.

Yes, but less so. I'm not sure how it is elsewhere, but in Illinois we have other primary races to vote on, not just president, so by choosing one party or the other, you can only vote in that party's primary and criss-cross your votes from race to race. That's how it should work, imo. And we had some very interesting, high profile (for the state) primaries this year, on both sides.

[nicksaviking]

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

 

Both Clinton and Kerry kept pushing Obama, and Clinton has made comments in the past few years as well.

I am pretty surprised that some of you think that this is just stuff coming from Sanders supporters. It has been known for a long time that Clinton is pro-war. I don't really understand . . . .

 

You say pro-war the same way conservatives say pro-abortion. No one likes abortion, some people just see it as an unfortunate but at times necessary decision.

 

I'm not in favor of war and I'd like to let other countries deal with ISL, but I'd be lying if at the time, with the information we had, that I wasn't in favor of going over seas and getting rid of Bin Laden, Hussein and Gaddafi. Almost everyone was.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

As incredible as it may seem, there are in fact highly-placed people who are pro-war. They are the neoconservatives. They have even taken to renaming the recent conflict as World War IV (with World war III being the Cold War versus the Soviet Union). The neocons are also highly skilled in PR.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/

 

. .

I have even more respect for Obama after reading this. Thanks for linking.

[Craig Arko]

 

As incredible as it may seem, there are in fact highly-placed people who are pro-war. They are the neoconservatives. They have even taken to renaming the recent conflict as World War IV (with World war III being the Cold War versus the Soviet Union). The neocons are also highly skilled in PR.

I would hazard a guess that pro-war would be anybody who makes a buck off of it. I actually find myself indirectly in that position but am currently looking at ways of rectifying the situation.

[nicksaviking]

 

As incredible as it may seem, there are in fact highly-placed people who are pro-war. They are the neoconservatives. They have even taken to renaming the recent conflict as World War IV (with World war III being the Cold War versus the Soviet Union). The neocons are also highly skilled in PR.

 

I don't disagree, there are plenty of unethical people who surely enjoy seeing our country at war. I don't think it's fair to call out someone for enjoying war though based on votes that most people agreed with.

 

That would go for other politicians too though, not just Clinton. Owning Halliburton or saying you want to carpet bomb civilians, well it's probably fair to say that person enjoys war. Encouraging the president to take out Mommar Gaddafi when there is an opening? I think reasonable people can agree that you don't have to like war to see some historical merit in that.

[Craig Arko]

 

Encouraging the president to take out Mommar Gaddafi when there is an opening? I think reasonable people can agree that you don't have to like war to see some historical merit in that.

Yes, although in some ways that's the same kind of thinking that put the Shah into power, that put Saddam into power, and gave us Iran-Contra. So what looks like a good idea at the time may not actually hold up under historical scrutiny. 20-20 hindsight is everywhere.

[nicksaviking]

 

Yes, although in some ways that's the same kind of thinking that put the Shah into power, that put Saddam into power, and gave us Iran-Contra. So what looks like a good idea at the time may not actually hold up under historical scrutiny. 20-20 hindsight is everywhere.

 

Agreed. Plenty of conflicts appear to be on the justice scale adjacent to WWII at the onset.

 

I'm speaking more to the intent than the actual action taken.

 

And we should have plenty of points of reference now to show us what actually happens when a strongman is removed. It didn't always happen this way, so I'd grant some forgiveness for those who had good intentions a decade ago. I'd grant less forgiveness for those who think they'll get a happy outcome today. I mean, we should be learning.

 

On a side note, as terrible of a person that Saddam Hussein was, even if ISL did still pop up, he'd be a pretty ruthless guy when it comes to fighting them, just like Stalin was pretty damn good at killing Nazis.

[DaveW]

Yeah, I just think calling Hillary pro war is pretty inflammatory overall.

If you want to use that label, then by all means apply it to Dick Cheney, Carly Fiorna and maybe Donald Trump?