2016 Election Thread

[Squirrel]

 

I pretty much concur Dave. I'll say this much about Clinton's e-mail scandal, it gives me pause. IMHO, she was so obsessed with controlling her e-mail, she was willing to knowingly evade proper procedure. It presents someone who is a bit on the Nixonian side. That said, it just doesn't compare to the other party's candidate, not at all. Donald Trump is seven ways to unpresidential and ten ways to unqualified IMHO. I'll vote for Hillary knowing that it's possible status quo might be in force for eight more years, it is better than falling into the abyss with Donald Trump. When Hillary exits, I want to see new blood facing the rest of the 21st Century.

New blood doesn't happen in a presidential election. New blood happens when we focus on getting the 'right' candidates into lower offices and work from there. Newer blood doesn't become president without getting into another office first. Focus on getting this new blood elected to state offices and to Congress and the Senate. Then we'll see meaningful change, but not until, imo. This is part of the problem with 3rd parties ... they want the national stage during presidential elections to try and get some press and usually fail to get enough because of the major two. Then they don't really work to maintain and expand their interest the rest of the time. Maybe they'd do better if they worked to get groundswell during the off time rather than trying to create it during a presidential run.

[TheLeviathan]

If we want third parties to get traction at lower levels we should consider why that isn't happening.  

 

Hint: In the vast majority of the country it is next to impossible to get on the ballot with any regularity because the two big parties make sure of it.  And even when you can get on the ballot - over time your voting base is bled off because of the way our "winner take all" system works.  And if there was ever a year in which you can see the video embedded in that link at work - it's this one.

 

I've heard this same refrain from Dan Savage and others and while it sounds valid, reality is quite another thing.  Third parties use the presidency as a way to gain traction at the lower level because, surprisingly, the national presidential election is sometimes easier to wedge your voice into than the local elections.

 

I will be actively and enthusiastically voting third party this year.  And the vast majority of the electorate will believe I threw my vote away.  Or that I condoned the election of (fill in Trump/Hillary).  Third parties don't exist because we have systemically made it so they don't.  Not because they're too dumb/lazy to get in on local elections.

[Squirrel]

 

If we want third parties to get traction at lower levels we should consider why that isn't happening.  

 

Hint: In the vast majority of the country it is next to impossible to get on the ballot with any regularity because the two big parties make sure of it.

 

I've heard this same refrain from Dan Savage and others and while it sounds valid, reality is quite another thing.  Third parties use the presidency as a way to gain traction at the lower level because, surprisingly, the national presidential election is sometimes easier to wedge your voice into than the local elections.

I have no issues with them getting into the race for president ... it is good exposure ... but then they do nothing in between. And there are opportunities to make a case in lower level of governments. We have a two party system of government and that makes it very difficult for any 3rd party to get traction on a national level, so start small ... local and state ... and work hard to get those candidates into state offices. That's where changes will occur ... state by state. The states control how elections are handled. That's where you work to change and make the greatest impact. Use the presidential runs for exposure, but get your traction much lower. To change the two-party system ... that's not going to happen at a national level until the States force it to.

[TheLeviathan]

You can't just "start small"  What does that even look like?  How do you generate money with no national platform from which to appeal to people and drive funding?  How do you generate name recognition when 80% of the electorate basically votes the same party the entire way down the ballot?  (Largely out of fear of the other party gaining control)  Without national prominence for your ideas you have nothing to run on, no party recognition, no money, and no structural support.  

 

People, and you are included in this Chi, say things like "I can't vote for anything other than Democrat because of the Republicans win they will do X, Y, Z" and vice versa we hear the same thing just swap the parties.  This happens because our "winner take all" method of voting, over time, funnels people inevitably into two parties.  

 

And, even if you got a really good candidate, had funding, and could generate a campaign - you have to deal with decades of gerrymandering.  Hell, even the Dems and Republicans concede huge swaths of the country thanks to this, much less some upstart.

 

And perhaps most importantly, and as a Democrat you should see this most clearly of all this year, even when an insurgent third party voice rises up......they lose one way or the other.  And when they lose the big tent party most associated with them absorbs their viewpoints into their own and assimilates the ideas as their own.  Thus crushing any burgeoning third party before it even gets started.

[Squirrel]

 

You can't just "start small"  What does that even look like?  How do you generate money with no national platform from which to appeal to people and drive funding?  How do you generate name recognition when 80% of the electorate basically votes the same party the entire way down the ballot?  (Largely out of fear of the other party gaining control)  Without national prominence for your ideas you have nothing to run on, no party recognition, no money, and no structural support.  

 

People, and you are included in this Chi, say things like "I can't vote for anything other than Democrat because of the Republicans win they will do X, Y, Z" and vice versa we hear the same thing just swap the parties.  This happens because our "winner take all" method of voting, over time, funnels people inevitably into two parties.  

 

And, even if you got a really good candidate, had funding, and could generate a campaign - you have to deal with decades of gerrymandering.  Hell, even the Dems and Republicans concede huge swaths of the country thanks to this, much less some upstart.

 

And perhaps most importantly, and as a Democrat you should see this most clearly of all this year, even when an insurgent third party voice rises up......they lose one way or the other.  And when they lose the big tent party most associated with them absorbs their viewpoints into their own and assimilates the ideas as their own.  Thus crushing any burgeoning third party before it even gets started.

First of all ... I don't just vote for Democrats. On a national level, yes. Until our system of government changes, it's too much of a risk for me. We've been over this. You have more privilege to take that risk being white and male. You can rail on that all you want, but that's the truth. Until you have been seriously denied, you truly don't get it and can't get it; intellectually, yes, but on a personal level, no. I. Won't. Risk. It.

 

But on local and state levels I really look for alternatives. I know a lot of people who do and there is little if anything. The mayoral election in Chicago for instance. There is real opportunity to put someone up for office that is a 3rd party participant and they could succeed. Personally, I think if they weren't affiliated with any party and just called themselves something general, they really could succeed. They might not win initially, and would probably take a few elections, but there isn't even a presence. This is how you start building a base. Yeah, painstakingly slow, for sure. And likely we won't see a 3rd party candidate have any chance in our lifetime, but it just won't happen from the top down. The only way it could happen is from the bottom up.

 

It's a circle, it really is ... I won't risk voting 3rd party on a national level until they have a real chance and I don't have to risk my rights and equality, and they won't have that real chance until we change our 2-party system of government and that won't happen nationally until forced. There are only two ways to force that ... start small and have a lot of patience and build ... or a violent uprising.

[PseudoSABR]

I think the presidential primary process demonstrated an alternative for diverse candidates--run within the party structure.  Both Trump and Sanders would have been cast as third-party candidates in any prior election. In order to win an election you still need (close to) a majority, and that means getting lots of party-affiliated voters.   And I think we've overestimated party loyalty to the old guard, both Republicans and Democrats showed a willingness to vote for non-traditional party types, and I imagine they would do so the local level too.   The problem with local politics is hardly any one pays attention, much less votes.

 

At the local level, socialists should feel empowered to run as Democrats; libertarians could probably run as either.  The tea-party certainly got on board running as Republicans early on, and I think we're seeing really a continuation of that on the national level, and hopefully, in the mid-terms will see more diverse candidates represented within both parties.

[TheLeviathan]

 

At the local level, socialists should feel empowered to run as Democrats; libertarians could probably run as either.  The tea-party certainly got on board running as Republicans early on, and I think we're seeing really a continuation of that on the national level, and hopefully, in the mid-terms will see more diverse candidates represented within both parties.

 

And while true, that doesn't make a third party.  Yes, you can try and get one of the two big tents to absorb you (maybe) but that comes with a lot of qualifications and concessions.  And generally doesn't start with winning lower elections.

 

Even getting the parties to broaden is very difficult bottom up.  Look at both of the major parties - their changes came top-down, not bottom up.  (Trump and Bernie have both made significant changes to party platforms, for good or bad)

 

Bernie is a good example.  Here is a guy who has been in lots of lower government roles and it did little to nothing to change the major party platforms until his message went national.

[PseudoSABR]

The point (as understand it) isn't to have a third party just to have one, the point is to get better, more ideological diverse candidates.

[TheLeviathan]

 

First of all ... I don't just vote for Democrats. On a national level, yes. Until our system of government changes, it's too much of a risk for me. We've been over this. You have more privilege to take that risk being white and male. You can rail on that all you want, but that's the truth. Until you have been seriously denied, you truly don't get it and can't get it; intellectually, yes, but on a personal level, no. I. Won't. Risk. It.

 

But on local and state levels I really look for alternatives. I know a lot of people who do and there is little if anything. The mayoral election in Chicago for instance. There is real opportunity to put someone up for office that is a 3rd party participant and they could succeed. Personally, I think if they weren't affiliated with any party and just called themselves something general, they really could succeed. They might not win initially, and would probably take a few elections, but there isn't even a presence. This is how you start building a base. Yeah, painstakingly slow, for sure. And likely we won't see a 3rd party candidate have any chance in our lifetime, but it just won't happen from the top down. The only way it could happen is from the bottom up.

 

It's a circle, it really is ... I won't risk voting 3rd party on a national level until they have a real chance and I don't have to risk my rights and equality, and they won't have that real chance until we change our 2-party system of government and that won't happen nationally until forced. There are only two ways to force that ... start small and have a lot of patience and build ... or a violent uprising.

 

First, you don't need to bristle, the point was not a criticism.  It was a statement of reality.  For you that issue is the Supreme Court.  For others it's wealth inequality.  For others it's union influence.  For others it is opposition to gay marriage.  For others it is the Supreme Court for the opposite reason of you.  We are filled with single issue voters and even more filled with voters who vote out of spite for the opposition.  That's not unusual and not a criticism, it's a natural byproduct of our system.  But also the single biggest deterrent to third party momentum.  

 

People are being criticized, loudly, for continuing their support for Bernie.  That's just a symptom of this issue and a glaring reminder of why this "third party, bottom up" approach is completely unworkable.  

 

The other problem with this bottom up argument is the one you point out - they'll likely have to lose several election cycles.  That is not some zero-sum game.  Repeatedly losing just out of some desperate hope to gain traction has a number of costs.  First, it costs time and money.  Second, losing without gaining any momentum or progress doesn't give you any better odds the next time around.  If you keep losing, you're just the losing team, so why would anyone vote for that?  Third, candidates that may run under your banner are unlikely to do so if you're never associated with winning anything.  It's like banging your head against the wall thinking you're getting somewhere just because people hear your head crushing into it.  But if you never make a dent - what did you accomplish?

 

Also, can we please stop with the "just run in Chicago!" thing.  It isn't any different.  Even if you get the ridiculously inflated signatures, they just sue you in hopes of crushing your effort.  Often with success.  This crap is common throughout the country.  

 

You right though - it's a vicious circle.  It'll probably take an uprising

[TheLeviathan]

 

The point (as understand it) isn't to have a third party just to have one, the point is to get better, more ideological diverse candidates.

 

I would hope the point is the get those diverse ideas working in the process.  Bernie may (that's still a big if, by the way) have accomplished that to some degree.  But he did it by launching a national campaign that forced the democrats to acknowledge him. Basically, he lead an ideological uprising.

 

Prior to that, the Democratic party largely ignored him.  Just like most independents and diverse thinkers are ignored.  What good does it do to get a diverse thinker under the umbrella if the umbrella just swallows them?

 

(Edit- not to mention we sort of agree.  The only way for these guys to get on the ballot is to do the old "sheep in wolves clothing" thing.  Which is fine, but if the complaint is that you only see the Green Party or Libertarian Party come presidential season....that doesn't help.  You're sort of agreeing with me the only way to get on the ballot is to accept a D or an R next to your name)

[stringer bell]

"New blood"--we have had three Bush terms and if Hillary wins two terms we would have four Clinton terms since 1989. Hill is in her late 60s and I read somewhere that Trump is 70. Both in generations and in terms of political dynasties, it is time to turn the page. I think a new generation might attempt to find real solutions for issues that have been swept under the rug for a long time.

[Willihammer]

Isn't the point to change the election rules? Ross Perot was a billionaire, self-financed, who got 8% of the national vote in 1996. The best result in recent memory. Did his campaign help 3rd parties in local elections in 1998?

 

If the goal is to make 3rd parties a viable choice at the polls then it seems you have to make constitional changes at the state level. States make their own election rules. In MN there is no Initiative so the question I would ask is, how would you get a bi-partisan state legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to change election rules from winner take all to, say, runoff voting?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Isn't the point to change the election rules? Ross Perot was a billionaire, self-financed, who got 8% of the national vote in 1996. The best result in recent memory. Did his campaign help 3rd parties in local elections in 1998?

 

If the goal is to make 3rd parties a viable choice at the polls then it seems you have to make constitional changes at the state level. States make their own election rules. In MN there is no Initiative so the question I would ask is, how would you get a bi-partisan state legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to change election rules from winner take all to, say, runoff voting?

 

You're absolutely right, that's the only way.  So the only way I see that happening is if both parties feel heavily pressured to do so.  It's why I rule out the bottom-up approach.  You'd have to have an extraordinary number of successful third party runs before you'd even put a dent in that wall.  So a top-down approach at least has hope, if there was ever one candidate that stole enough thunder from both parties.  That isn't happening this year and is unlikely to happen in the near future.  Trump and Bernie had the credentials to be the most influential third party guys since Perot and both of them decided to fold into the two parties.

 

So with that being unlikely in the near future, I'm in the "voter uprising" camp.  Though I wish there was a better answer.  It's unfortunate, but the obstacles to any kind of sustained third party effort are just way, way too high for any to overcome on a consistent basis without uprooting the system.  And I think nothing short of a revolt is going to uproot the system.  As soon as someone tried to do that from the inside both parties would join forces like some evil juggernaut and squash it before it ever got going.  It's the one thing they're both more than happy to do to help each other.

[Willihammer]

Thing is if it didn't work with Perot, with the financial might he had, we're unlikely to do better with a guy like Trump and much less Sanders.

 

Here's where I'm at. If 58% of Americans would like a viable third option in elections, then why aren't citizens of states with Initiative voting on changing their voting rules? Or are they? I haven't looked into it.

All it would take to get the rule change added to the ballot is a friendly State Secretary or Lt Governor.

 

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not sure that would work in MN. The only things that go on the ballot are amendments passed by the legislature, with a few specific exceptions. In some states you could attempt an "initiative" but the rules for that vary.

[PseudoSABR]

How And Why Trump Will Try to Ditch the Debates

 

I've been thinking this for a while now; I wonder if he can actually do it, and I wonder what the reaction would be.

[DaveW]

How And Why Trump Will Try to Ditch the Debates

 

I've been thinking this for a while now; I wonder if he can actually do it, and I wonder what the reaction would be.

I don't see any possible way he could get away without looking at he very least like a huge coward who runs from his problems and confrontation.

 

Even Fox News would turn against him at that point IMO.

[TheLeviathan]

 

How And Why Trump Will Try to Ditch the Debates

 

I've been thinking this for a while now; I wonder if he can actually do it, and I wonder what the reaction would be.

 

I haven't even read the article yet....but that picture is awesome.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

He will claim it was rigged, his followers will believe him, he'll throw some more insults, and that's basically it.

 

But...he's more worried about the NFL and says nothing about the MLB postseason?? That's it! He doesn't get my vote!

[Badsmerf]

Wait, you were going to vote for him before?

[Bark's Lounge]

A Trump presidency is national suicide, and the rest of the world nations will be murdered by the aforementioned gun man.

[USAFChief]

Trump's treatment of the Khan family is shameful.

 

It's a national embarrassment, and even worse is the refusal of many Republicans to say so.

[TheLeviathan]

In addition to what Chief said, it's also just plain stupid. I think it's indicative, again, of how he will handle diplomacy. To not even care enough to just let it go and be smart about it, he dives head first into stupid and offensive rhetoric.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

Trump's treatment of the Khan family is shameful.

It's a national embarrassment, and even worse is the refusal of many Republicans to say so.

Solidarity on that 100,000,000,000,000,000,000%

[DaveW]

We have a friend who was gearing up for a 2018 congress run, the GOP pretty much had guaranteed him the republican primary win (by more or less agreeing to back him/fund him and a lack of other real good candidates in his district) and legitimately had a 50/50 shot at getting the seat in 2018 (I'm leaving a lot of parts vague here for good reason)

 

After Trump was nominated by the GOP he said he couldn't in good conscience run in 2018 and was going to see how things went and think about 2022 instead, after this Khan fiasco and how things have gone recently with the GOP continuing to back Trump time after time, he has decided to leave the party all together.

 

Keep in mind, this was a very intelligent, very successful and somewhat youngish (under 45 years old) man who dedicated a lot of his life and time over the past decade or so to the republican party. Campaigning, raising money for others, etc. The fact that he no longer wants to run for the GOP, AND is going to vote Hillary speaks volumes IMO on how most reasonable Americans will view trump, even the reasonable republican voters.

Many won't come out and say they will vote for Hillary, but I have a feeling once they get into the privacy of the voting booth they won't and can't in good conscience vote for the GOP's nominee for POTUS.

[Bark's Lounge]

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone.

 

I have learned a lot on this thread, it has been inspiring.

 

I am going back to college and I need to be prepared for that with the other things I have going on.

 

Good luck to everyone and I hope the election turns out right.

 

I think most on this sight know what right is. (:

 

let;s hope that happens!!!

 

So long,

 

Bark

[Shane Wahl]

My initial 347 prediction for Hillary is climbing, climbing, climbing. Even Georgia and Arizona look to be in play right now. It could get close to 400.

[Brock Beauchamp]

My initial 347 prediction for Hillary is climbing, climbing, climbing. Even Georgia and Arizona look to be in play right now. It could get close to 400.

NBC News wrote a depressingly hilarious article on all the things that went wrong with the Trump campaign in the 24 hour period yesterday.

 

I was concerned Trump would pull his head out and run a straight campaign, moving to center in the process.

 

Yeah. Egomaniacal lunatics don't do that. What (somehow) brought Trump to prominence in the primaries is going to crush him under the bright lights of a general.

[TheLeviathan]

This has been the kind of week that was necessary to knock Trump down.  But there is a lot of time left and the guy's base isn't going anywhere.  Until the Republicans really back off their support in meaningful ways, I wouldn't count him out.

 

And even then I'm not sure I would.

[Badsmerf]

Clinton opened up a ten point lead on him now, with Johnson at 12% according to fox news. I keep saying it, but once Johnson gets in the polls, it's a game changer. I hope even some of the trump base would defect when they come to terms with who trump is.

 

I read a good article about the religious right and the Republican party recently. Basically, it talks about the southern strategy, abortion and how that base is vital to the republicans.