The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[The Romulan Republic]

So she's parading Warren around as show for the progressives?

Has Clinton mentioned Warren? If that's the case, that may change things and maybe a Warren is seriously considering a run. Which would be too bad, IMO, as the VP can't do as much as a senator, unless her joining the ticket has conditioneds

The VP has lately had as much advisory power as the President wants. Just ask Cheney how much influence the progressives might give Warren insofar as the vote is concerned.

Yeah. Its pretty much become an unofficial tradition for the VP to be part of the President's inner circle of advisors. The only official powers, I believe, of the VP are to replace the President if need be and to cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate. But Obama, Bush II, and I believe Bill Clinton as well all gave considerable influence to their VPs, beyond what they were required to do. Its a reasonable guess that Clinton II will want to do the same.

[The Romulan Republic]

The new direction of the Sanders campaign, in keeping with last night's address:

https://berniesanders.com/press-release ... rs-appeal/

BURLINGTON, Vt. — Less than 24 hours after U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders called on his supporters to run for office at the local or state level, nearly 6,700 people have signed up on BernieSanders.com/Win to learn more.

In total, almost 11,000 supporters expressed interest in running for office or volunteering for other Sanders supporters who run.

Sanders called the response “extraordinary.”

“I have no doubt that with the energy and enthusiasm our campaign has shown that we can win significant numbers of local and state elections if people are prepared to become involved,” Sanders said. “This will be part of transforming our country from the bottom on up.”

Since 2009, some 900 legislative seats have been lost to Republicans in state after state throughout this country. In fact, the Republican Party now controls 31 state legislatures and controls both the governors’ mansions and statehouses in 23 states.

“That is unacceptable,” Sanders told supporters on Thursday, during a live online address.

The 6,685 supporters who expressed interest in running cover 51 percent of state house districts, 69 percent of state senate districts and every congressional district in the country.

Yeah, Sanders' own site obviously isn't a non-biased source, but I do think that this is an interesting direction to take, using his new-found influence to promote progressive candidates at lower levels.

Its also a side of the election that doesn't get talked about enough. Discussion in these election threads, for example, has been almost entirely focussed on the Presidential race, but Congress is going to potentially be just as crucial to deciding the future direction of the country. And local/state elections are significant too.

The downside, of course, is that some of these people might run independent/third party in close races and pull votes from the Democrats, helping the Republicans. However, state and local elections are a field where independent/third party candidates sometimes (if rarely) actually win (see Sanders himself, Independent Senator from Vermont until he became a Democrat during this election), and I actually wouldn't mind more elected officials from outside the two party-structure, as long as they're Left-leaning. I don't think there's much love for the two party structure- people stick with it because they're afraid of vote splitting and letting the other side win.

There's also the issue that many low-level elections are won by default because the candidate is running unopposed.

[Gaidin]

Its also a side of the election that doesn't get talked about enough. Discussion in these election threads, for example, has been almost entirely focussed on the Presidential race, but Congress is going to potentially be just as crucial to deciding the future direction of the country. And local/state elections are significant too.

I don't know where you've been but his lack of attention to down ballot races has been called out by EVERYONE before he lost. I don't know why he waited until now to PRETEND to do this.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its also a side of the election that doesn't get talked about enough. Discussion in these election threads, for example, has been almost entirely focussed on the Presidential race, but Congress is going to potentially be just as crucial to deciding the future direction of the country. And local/state elections are significant too.

I don't know where you've been but his lack of attention to down ballot races has been called out by EVERYONE before he lost. I don't know why he waited until now to PRETEND to do this.

Yes, I know about the accusations of Sanders not supporting down-ballot candidates enough. I could reply by pointing out the allegation that most of the vaunted Clinton fundraising for down-ballot candidates in fact ended up going to the Clinton campaign. But what would be the point in rehashing primary disputes now?

Regardless, it doesn't invalidate what I said, which is that down-ballot races get (in the public and media anyway, to be more precise) comparatively little attention.

As to the accusation that Sanders is only pretending to support down-ballot candidates, do you have any evidence whatsoever for the accusation that his efforts are insincere or feigned?

Though I can, as I noted, see some potential problems, I think that on the whole this is potentially a very useful direction for Sanders' future efforts to take, and that I don't see any good reason to attack him for it. Its also something that, as you noted, his opponents have been decrying him for not doing for a long time, so why condemn him now for doing it?

[Gaidin]

As to the accusation that Sanders is only pretending to support down-ballot candidates, do you have any evidence whatsoever for the accusation that his efforts are insincere or feigned?

Nah. He's sincere. More he's never been running for a high office in a major party and doesn't know what he's doing. I think A) just doesn't know what he's doing and B) too ( I ) and C) too PROUD to give a damn.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I suppose time will tell what the results of his efforts will be.

But whatever one thinks of his competency as a campaigner, or a supporter of others' campaigns, he does command considerable influence and an enthusiastic following of millions now. That does mean that he can rally more people to become involved in the political process (what he's doing here), and it gives him a great deal that he can potentially offer to any down-ballot candidate he supports, if he chooses, in terms of funding, name recognition and publicity, and credibility with progressives. And since he seems to realize now that Clinton is secure in her position as the presumptive nominee, he has nothing better to do with that support than put it behind down-ballot candidates of his choosing.

[Flagg]

So she's parading Warren around as show for the progressives?

Has Clinton mentioned Warren? If that's the case, that may change things and maybe a Warren is seriously considering a run. Which would be too bad, IMO, as the VP can't do as much as a senator, unless her joining the ticket has conditioneds

The VP has lately had as much advisory power as the President wants. Just ask Cheney how much influence the progressives might give Warren insofar as the vote is concerned.

The voters don't get to decide how much power the VP has, the POTUS does. And given how far apart Warren and Clinton are on soooo many economic issues, I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton stuck her in a broom closet for the entire first term.

[Gaidin]

The voters don't get to decide how much power the VP has, the POTUS does. And given how far apart Warren and Clinton are on soooo many economic issues, I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton stuck her in a broom closet for the entire first term.

You're missing the sarcastic point and you know it. Stop acting like I'm the guy you can troll.

[Flagg]

The voters don't get to decide how much power the VP has, the POTUS does. And given how far apart Warren and Clinton are on soooo many economic issues, I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton stuck her in a broom closet for the entire first term.

You're missing the sarcastic point and you know it. Stop acting like I'm the guy you can troll.

Sorry, I actually took that as a serious comment. And making factual statements that make babies cry isn't trolling. If it were, liberals wouldn't be allowed on the internet.

But I think my point still stands. If Warren were offered VP she would want, in the infinite wisdom of Sherriff's Deputy Richard Grimes: "Stuff... And... Things." And since she is polar opposite of Clinton of those aforementioned stuff-things, I can't see that marriage working. Clinton strikes me as a politician that want's a lapdog VP, and since Joe Lieberman retired after performing a blood eagle on the Democrats in 2010, I'm thinking more along the lines of someone whose first name is a racist yet incredibly popular plumber/videogame character and whose last name rhymes with Cher's long-dead (RIP) stepping stool ex-husband Sonny Bono, and current Governor of NY.

[maraxus2]

But I think my point still stands. If Warren were offered VP she would want, in the infinite wisdom of Sherriff's Deputy Richard Grimes: "Stuff... And... Things." And since she is polar opposite of Clinton of those aforementioned stuff-things, I can't see that marriage working. Clinton strikes me as a politician that want's a lapdog VP, and since Joe Lieberman retired after performing a blood eagle on the Democrats in 2010, I'm thinking more along the lines of someone whose first name is a racist yet incredibly popular plumber/videogame character and whose last name rhymes with Cher's long-dead (RIP) stepping stool ex-husband Sonny Bono, and current Governor of NY.

Mario Cuomo? He's been dead for over a year and a half. Andrew Cuomo's the current Gov, and I'd eat my boots if he were the nominee. He'd be a horrible pick, given his terrible relations with NY Liberals and less-than-sterling ethics/corruption track record.

The consensus picks right now are:
1. Sen.Tim Kaine (VA) (Think he'll be the nominee if Clinton's feeling safe about the election)
2. Secretary of Labor Tom Perez
3. Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH) (Says he doesn't want it, Republican Governor gets to appoint his replacement)
4. Sen. Elizabeth Warren
5. Secretary of HUD Julian Castro (former San Antonio mayor)
6. Sen Corey Booker (Republican Governor gets to appoint, makes me queasy just thinking about Clinton-Booker)
7. Rep. Xavier Becerra (CA, House leadership team)
8. Mayor of Los Angeles Eric Garcetti (not a chance, but lots of love for this dude)
9. Rep. Tim Ryan (OH)(extremely doubtful)

Who the hell knows about Trump. He might nominate Ivanka for all we know.

[Tsyroc]

I recently ran across an interesting but improbable possibility in the presidential election.

It was on a Libertarian website so be warned.

The interesting part was that if Gary Johnson (the Libertarian nominee for president) won just his home state of New Mexico he might have a shot of winning if neither of the other two candidates get enough electoral votes to win outright. If nobody receives enough electoral votes on election day the vote goes to the House of Representatives when the new congress convenes in January, 2017. Each state gets one vote and the representatives are not required to vote how their state voted in the election. They choose from the top three electoral vote getters, so the third person has to get at least one state or some votes from a state that isn't winner take all. It's fair to assume that Johnson's best shot in this is to win New Mexico.

It would be interesting to see how much a Republican House does or does not like Trump. Gary Johnson (he is a former Republican) might end up being the better pick over Trump, but I figure he would probably lose some votes because he smokes weed, and because of some part loyalty. However, I think it would be very interesting/entertaining if the guy who got the fewest votes ended up as president because enough people hate the two main candidates so much.

[maraxus2]

I recently ran across an interesting but improbable possibility in the presidential election.

It was on a Libertarian website so be warned.

The interesting part was that if Gary Johnson (the Libertarian nominee for president) won just his home state of New Mexico he might have a shot of winning if neither of the other two candidates get enough electoral votes to win outright. If nobody receives enough electoral votes on election day the vote goes to the House of Representatives when the new congress convenes in January, 2017. Each state gets one vote and the representatives are not required to vote how their state voted in the election. They choose from the top three electoral vote getters, so the third person has to get at least one state or some votes from a state that isn't winner take all. It's fair to assume that Johnson's best shot in this is to win New Mexico.

It would be interesting to see how much a Republican House does or does not like Trump. Gary Johnson (he is a former Republican) might end up being the better pick over Trump, but I figure he would probably lose some votes because he smokes weed, and because of some part loyalty. However, I think it would be very interesting/entertaining if the guy who got the fewest votes ended up as president because enough people hate the two main candidates so much.

See there's just one problem (well, lots of them actually) with this plan. Does it make sense for someone to win the presidency with less than 1% of the electoral college vote? Because that's what would happen if Johnson just won NM and nothing else. How would that work?

Also, I'm not sure where people get this brain bug that people hate the two party system. There's lots of kvetching (what else is new?) but no real movement do change to a different system.

[Gaidin]

See there's just one problem (well, lots of them actually) with this plan. Does it make sense for someone to win the presidency with less than 1% of the electoral college vote? Because that's what would happen if Johnson just won NM and nothing else. How would that work?

Also, I'm not sure where people get this brain bug that people hate the two party system. There's lots of kvetching (what else is new?) but no real movement do change to a different system.

I mean, what would we have to do? Fundamentally re-write the Constitution? Literally? Or literally by required to assign smaller parties to districts as such if percentages were reached nationally if all we wanted were an amendment? The fact that people sort of vote their representative in the parties just formed.

[maraxus2]

I mean, what would we have to do? Fundamentally re-write the Constitution? Literally? Or literally by required to assign smaller parties to districts as such if percentages were reached nationally if all we wanted were an amendment? The fact that people sort of vote their representative in the parties just formed.

I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here. The Constitution doesn't make reference to political Parties, and I'm not sure what you mean by "assign smaller parties to districts."

Re: the two-party system, my point is that, contrary to the damn near constant complaints about the two-party system, most people are actually pretty comfortable with it. The terrible truth that Green and Libertarian Party activists realize is that, however different they may be than the Dems and the GOP, the public broadly just doesn't have an appetite for them. The American public either doesn't vote or doesn't feel enough discontent to vote for someone else. If the voting public felt that the Democrats were not broadly representative of the left/moderates, or that the Republicans were not broadly representative of conservatives, there'd be a potential for another party. So far, though, this doesn't appear to be the case.

[Gaidin]

I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here. The Constitution doesn't make reference to political Parties, and I'm not sure what you mean by "assign smaller parties to districts."

Re: the two-party system, my point is that, contrary to the damn near constant complaints about the two-party system, most people are actually pretty comfortable with it. The terrible truth that Green and Libertarian Party activists realize is that, however different they may be than the Dems and the GOP, the public broadly just doesn't have an appetite for them. The American public either doesn't vote or doesn't feel enough discontent to vote for someone else. If the voting public felt that the Democrats were not broadly representative of the left/moderates, or that the Republicans were not broadly representative of conservatives, there'd be a potential for another party. So far, though, this doesn't appear to be the case.

The two-party system is the way it is because the main parties are so vaguely defined with a handful of key subjects attracting most of the voters one direction or another. As such the parties aren't even a government thing. More a people thing. What I'm saying is you'd literally have to fundamentally legally require districts to vote in certain parties if we wanted a third(instead of a representative) if we wanted more. At least without redesigning the system from the ground up.

[bilateralrope]

See there's just one problem (well, lots of them actually) with this plan. Does it make sense for someone to win the presidency with less than 1% of the electoral college vote? Because that's what would happen if Johnson just won NM and nothing else. How would that work?

Also, I'm not sure where people get this brain bug that people hate the two party system. There's lots of kvetching (what else is new?) but no real movement do change to a different system.

I mean, what would we have to do? Fundamentally re-write the Constitution? Literally? Or literally by required to assign smaller parties to districts as such if percentages were reached nationally if all we wanted were an amendment? The fact that people sort of vote their representative in the parties just formed.

That might be what people start demanding if a candidate with such a low number of votes (EC and popular vote) wins the presidency.

[maraxus2]

The two-party system is the way it is because the main parties are so vaguely defined with a handful of key subjects attracting most of the voters one direction or another. As such the parties aren't even a government thing. More a people thing. What I'm saying is you'd literally have to fundamentally legally require districts to vote in certain parties if we wanted a third(instead of a representative) if we wanted more. At least without redesigning the system from the ground up.

Vaguely defined? There are clear and obvious differences between the Democrats and Republicans on the vast majority of issues. You don't even need to look that hard to see them either, just look at the states where one party has total control over the State government. California is making it easier for people to vote, while North Carolina is marking it much harder. California is making it easier for women to get abortions, Mississippi and North Dakota are trying to outlaw them entirely. California is making it much easier for undocumented people to live, Arizona is trying to drive them out of the state. And at the most basic level, California is willing to accept higher taxes in exchange for state services, while Kansas is not.

Your point has more validity when it comes to foreign policy, but the two parties could not be more different on domestic policy.

Again, I'm not sure why we'd want to create an artificially popular third party. In my view, the mere fact that third parties basically don't have viability indicates that the public at large is basically contented with their representation. The dislike to the two parties stems more from an abstract discontent with the feds, rather than an active dislike of the system. This is part of the reason why Congress can have an overwhelmingly negative approval rating, yet most individual Congresscritters aren't at much risk of defeat.

Maybe this is my inner (outer?) partisan hack talking here, but I see a lot of people whinging about how they don't like the two party system, yet have no appetite whatever to vote for a third-party candidate.

[Borgholio]

Maybe this is my inner (outer?) partisan hack talking here, but I see a lot of people whinging about how they don't like the two party system, yet have no appetite whatever to vote for a third-party candidate.

Because there has never (to my knowledge) been a third party candidate that ever had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. It's always been one of two major political parties. I'm sure if there was a third party candidate that appealed to the majority of voters, there could be a very real chance of a three-way election.

[maraxus2]

That might be what people start demanding if a candidate with such a low number of votes (EC and popular vote) wins the presidency.

Exactly. There's no particular reason why Johnson would win the presidency just by winning NM and Trump being an obvious disaster. Thinking that the House would vote for someone other than the Republican nominee seriously misunderstands how Congresscritters would think about that choice.

That being said, Johnson's an interesting candidate. His ticket has far more executive experience on it than the Dems and GOP combined. He has a strong possibility of exploiting distaste for Trump and (to a lesser extent) Clinton and running strongly in a couple of western states. He probably doesn't have enough support to actually win any of those states, but he could draw enough Republican votes to put them in the Dem column. He'd probably pull enough votes to put Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada into the solid Dem column, and could draw enough votes to make Arizona and even fucking Utah of all places a competitive state.

A Trump-shits-the-bed campaign coupled with a strong Libertarian turnout could result in a 400+ electoral vote landslide for Hillary.

[maraxus2]

Maybe this is my inner (outer?) partisan hack talking here, but I see a lot of people whinging about how they don't like the two party system, yet have no appetite whatever to vote for a third-party candidate.

Because there has never (to my knowledge) been a third party candidate that ever had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. It's always been one of two major political parties. I'm sure if there was a third party candidate that appealed to the majority of voters, there could be a very real chance of a three-way election.

What about this guy? Or this guy? Or this guy? or even even this guy? Independent candidates can win, but they just never have enough support among the national electorate to be successful.

That strikes me as a problem with the electorate, not necessarily a flaw in the political system.

[Borgholio]

That strikes me as a problem with the electorate, not necessarily a flaw in the political system.

I don't think it's a flaw with the system. I agree it's a problem with the electorate. But that doesn't change the fact that voting third party in this day and age is literally throwing your vote away due to the lack of support.

[maraxus2]

That strikes me as a problem with the electorate, not necessarily a flaw in the political system.

I don't think it's a flaw with the system. I agree it's a problem with the electorate. But that doesn't change the fact that voting third party in this day and age is literally throwing your vote away due to the lack of support.

Agreed. This is why I can't understand why people would vote for Libertopians or for Jill Stein. Voting for either candidate basically removes a vote from one of the two mainstream candidates who would likely support most of the voter's priorities.

[The Romulan Republic]

I recently ran across an interesting but improbable possibility in the presidential election.

It was on a Libertarian website so be warned.

The interesting part was that if Gary Johnson (the Libertarian nominee for president) won just his home state of New Mexico he might have a shot of winning if neither of the other two candidates get enough electoral votes to win outright. If nobody receives enough electoral votes on election day the vote goes to the House of Representatives when the new congress convenes in January, 2017. Each state gets one vote and the representatives are not required to vote how their state voted in the election. They choose from the top three electoral vote getters, so the third person has to get at least one state or some votes from a state that isn't winner take all. It's fair to assume that Johnson's best shot in this is to win New Mexico.

It would be interesting to see how much a Republican House does or does not like Trump. Gary Johnson (he is a former Republican) might end up being the better pick over Trump, but I figure he would probably lose some votes because he smokes weed, and because of some part loyalty. However, I think it would be very interesting/entertaining if the guy who got the fewest votes ended up as president because enough people hate the two main candidates so much.

I shudder to imagine the public backlash if the House appointed a President other than who won the most votes. Even though its legal, it would (rightly) be seen as terribly undemocratic, and the rage over super delegates would pale in comparison. I would honestly expect rioting from both the Clinton and Trump camps (though primarily the latter).

Although, at the end of the day, better Johnson than Trump.

However, I very much doubt Clinton won't get a majority of the electoral college, so this is thankfully just hypothetical.

[bilateralrope]

That strikes me as a problem with the electorate, not necessarily a flaw in the political system.

I don't think it's a flaw with the system. I agree it's a problem with the electorate. But that doesn't change the fact that voting third party in this day and age is literally throwing your vote away due to the lack of support.

Agreed. This is why I can't understand why people would vote for Libertopians or for Jill Stein. Voting for either candidate basically removes a vote from one of the two mainstream candidates who would likely support most of the voter's priorities.

I can understand voting for a third party candidate if someone is in a state that looks guaranteed for the candidate from the major two that they like the least. Their vote is already going to have the same effect one the results as if they stayed home, so they might as well try to send a message with it.

[maraxus2]

I shudder to imagine the public backlash if the House appointed a President other than who won the most votes. Even though its legal, it would (rightly) be seen as terribly undemocratic, and the rage over super delegates would pale in comparison. I would honestly expect rioting from both the Clinton and Trump camps (though primarily the latter).

Although, at the end of the day, better Johnson than Trump.

However, I very much doubt Clinton won't get a majority of the electoral college, so this is thankfully just hypothetical.

Yeah, for real. The American public fucking hates backroom politics. Whatever possible advantage might be gained by not having Clinton or Trump in the hot seat would vanish immediately once every GOP house member lost their seat in the next election.

I can understand voting for a third party candidate if someone is in a state that looks guaranteed for the candidate from the major two that they like the least. Their vote is already going to have the same effect one the results as if they stayed home, so they might as well try to send a message with it.

But see, electeds and their campaign staff basically don't take that message in the spirit in which it's intended, at least in my experience anyway. Campaigns for federal office, and most state offices too for that matter, are basically base elections. An elected will work to secure their most reliable voters before they spend any comparable amount of time on other groups. Even then, they basically focus on swing voters that might be persuaded to vote for a candidate. For the most part, they do not focus on third-party voters because they cannot be relied upon to come out and actually vote for a candidate.

This is true even in close elections. In the last twenty years, Libertarian and Green candidates have cost the Democrats and Republicans numerous close elections up and down the ticket. Off the top of my head, I can think of three elections in 2002 (WY and OK gubernatorial, and MN Senate) where a strong third-party challenge cost the incumbent party those seats. The incumbent party would have every reason to push candidates that could win those votes in 2006 and 2010. None of them did. The same thing happened with Gore in 2000. Nader's voters also wanted to send a message to the national Dems by voting Green. The Dems had substantial reason to push forward a candidate who might be able to win those voters in 2004. Instead, John Kerry won the nomination.

TL;DR: If you're interested in sending a message, you'd better register with either the Republicans or the Democrats, because they do not give a shit about third party voters in most circumstances.