The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[The Romulan Republic]

How does the democrat leadership contest work? Does it work on an electoral collage like the US presidential election? Because if not, why do individual states matter?

It's complicated and it varies from state to state. Here's a quick rundown of how things work.

Some states have Primaries. These are contests in which the entire state can vote. Depending on the state, the Primary may be open (any registered voter can cast a ballot for anyone) or closed (only those registered for that party's primary can vote for that party's candidate).

Some states have Caucuses. These are not elections so much as gatherings of people who together decide on candidates.

In each state the candidates vie for Delegates. These are people who vote for them at the National Conventions that happen in the late summer before the Election. In some states, the system is Winner Takes All: the person who receives the most votes gets all of the delegates. Others are proportional: the total pool of delegates is divided up amongst the candidates according to the percentage of votes they receive.

Early states like Iowa and New Hampshire tend to be considered bellwethers as to the viability of a candidate. You'll often see a number of them drop out after these two (one's a caucus, the other is a primary). After all 50 states (and many terrtiories eg Puerto Rico and Guam) have had a primary or a caucus, the formal selection process occurs at the Convention. Most of the time it's merely a formality and an opportunity to fire up the base. The delegates from each state cast their ballots and the candidate who receives a majority of the delegates becomes the Candidate. Oftentimes the selection of the VP candidate is announced here as well.

That's pretty much it, except that Democrats have what's called a Superdelegate; these are people who aren't pledged to vote for any one candidate. They were pretty important in 2008, as I recall. In the end Clinton moved to end the delegate roll call early and select Obama by a vote of acclaim.

The Superdelegates worry me regarding Sanders' chances. I'm concerned that if Sanders takes the lead in the primaries/caucuses, as appears possible, Clinton will use her connections within the Democratic Party to swing enough super delegates to her to steal the nomination from him against the will of the voters. Is that a realistic possibility?

Its something, incidentally, which I think would pretty much ensure the Democrats' defeat. I don't see their being much enthusiasm or high turnout for a candidate who was chosen in that manner.

[Gandalf]

Do you remember 2008 TRR?

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course, but I don't really have much memory of the role the super delegates played.

[Mr Bean]

Of course, but I don't really have much memory of the role the super delegates played.

If info please is to be believed in 2016 there are just shy of 750 Super delegates (747) of a total of 5,083 total delegates or roughly 14% of the total delegate count. Republicans have 437 of a total of 2,470 or roughly 17% of total delegates. Yes it was the case in the past that Hillary won a state but Obama took the majority of super delegates from that state and there was one possibly two incidents (New Hampshire) in which Obama received more votes than the winner thanks to super delegates.

Yes they can swing a close election but as seen in years past for that very reason they don't tend to commit until the last few months. There was a very real fear in 2008 that Obama could be handed a loss thanks to super delegates but that's only because of how long and how close the 2008 primary was, one of the longest and most intense party primaries in almost a century.

[Dalton]

I have a feeling that this Primary will be just as bonkers. Bernie is really drawing out BIG crowds. I've been hearing rumors about Biden and Gore too.

[The Romulan Republic]

Gore? That's kind of funny.

Admittedly, Gore vs. Bush round two would be rather hilarious and appropriate, seeing as how Gore lost under questionable circumstances last time.

[Lord MJ]

I would like Bernie Sanders to win the nomination, since I think he's the only one serious about tackling money in politics and the wealth gap.

But if he wins the nomination, would he be electible, and be able to attract independents?

I think there would be a sentiment that he is either lying or clueless about economics if memes like this are any indication:



I'm not a believer in mandatory minimum wage as documented earlier, but zero-sum thinking like this would be something Bernie will have to be up against in the general election. If the DNC doesn't try to torpedo him first.

[Mr Bean]

To be fair updating the minimum wage is badly overdue. Had they pegged it to inflation like they should have almost a century ago then everything would be better as we would be in the 10$ an hour range and a lot better off talking about if inflation had not accounted for things like Internet requiring a slightly higher COL calculation so we need to move the minimum wage up to the 11$-12$ range. I believe the 15$ minimum wage line is a negotiation tatic adopted by Sanders and other Progressives.

It's a long standing issues that under the "leadership" of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid that when negotiation time comes around the Republican position is whatever they want X2 so they have room to negotiate down to what they want/think they can get while the Democratic position is what they want -5%.

Or to put in tax terms if the Republicans and Democrats are negating the Republican position will be a 10% across the board rate cut while the Democrats will offer a 1.8% tax increase. After lots of back and forth negotiations the Democratic position will be a 2% tax cut and the Republican position will be a 8% tax cut and they will come together and agree that 5% sounds fair as it's midway between the positions. And thus the Republicans get a 5% tax cut. I watched the Healthcare and Immigration bill negotiations and the amount of law writing done by people who would go on to vote against the bill was shocking.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would like Bernie Sanders to win the nomination, since I think he's the only one serious about tackling money in politics and the wealth gap.

But if he wins the nomination, would he be electible, and be able to attract independents?

I think there would be a sentiment that he is either lying or clueless about economics if memes like this are any indication:



I'm not a believer in mandatory minimum wage as documented earlier, but zero-sum thinking like this would be something Bernie will have to be up against in the general election. If the DNC doesn't try to torpedo him first.

It disturbs me too.

A Bernie Sanders candidacy would be a huge gamble, not only in the sense every election is, but in the sense that his defeat would probably discredit the viability of the Left in American politics for the foreseeable future.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Not to derail things too much...
But what are peoples thoughts on the mindlessly stupid "Server Gate" that is the scandal of the month for Republicans?
(For those outside the states, or just don't follow every ranting from Republicans...)

During Hillary's time as Secretary, she had a private Email server. (something virtually every Secretary has done in recent years)
Because it was "Private" the far right reasoned she could have received or sent sensitive state secrets without anyone know.
By extension, since it was "private" no one knows WHO she 'might' have sent secrets too, Russians, China, even ISIS!
By extension extension, Hillary is a traitor and needs to goto prison for sending state secrets to America's enemy!

Basically for the last few months, the far right has been going on about how "Any day now...any day..." Hillary will be indicted for High Treason and hauled off to court.

Curious if there is ANYONE who thinks will actually hurt her running down the road?

[The Romulan Republic]

Unless there's actual evidence of a crime, its unlikely very many people will care except for those who already oppose her.

[Elheru Aran]

In other news:

Donald Trump recently states his intentions towards immigration in the US. Surprise, surprise, it's rather atrocious.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/trump-s ... president/

Republican presidential contender Donald Trump would deport all undocumented immigrants and rescind U.S. President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration if he is elected to the White House, he said in an interview with NBC News that will air on Sunday.

“We’re going to keep the families together, but they have to go,” Trump told NBC’s “Meet the Press,” according to an excerpt released on Saturday.

Asked by host Chuck Todd about illegal immigrants who might have nowhere else to go, Trump said: “We will work with them.

“They have to go … we either have a country, or we don’t have a country,” he added.

Trump, 69, also said in the interview he would need to rescind Obama’s executive orders on immigration, including one that protects from deportation the children of parents who came to the country illegally.

The real estate mogul and television personality, who has rocketed to the top of opinion polls among the 17 Republican contenders, has aroused controversy with his provocative comments on illegal immigration, including describing some undocumented migrants from Mexico as criminals and rapists.

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

[Terralthra]

That article leaves out the part where he wants to rewrite the 14th Amendment.

[Elheru Aran]

That article leaves out the part where he wants to rewrite the 14th Amendment.

That came a bit later, but yes, that's part of it too apparently. Fuckwit is going to really shred any credibility that the Republican Party has left-- not that there's much, but there's just a wee bit-- if he keeps going.

[Borgholio]

That article leaves out the part where he wants to rewrite the 14th Amendment.

That came a bit later, but yes, that's part of it too apparently. Fuckwit is going to really shred any credibility that the Republican Party has left-- not that there's much, but there's just a wee bit-- if he keeps going.

He is seriously the best thing to happen to the Democrats in a very long time.

[Elheru Aran]

That article leaves out the part where he wants to rewrite the 14th Amendment.

That came a bit later, but yes, that's part of it too apparently. Fuckwit is going to really shred any credibility that the Republican Party has left-- not that there's much, but there's just a wee bit-- if he keeps going.

He is seriously the best thing to happen to the Democrats in a very long time.

Yeah? I don't know. I suspect they're gonna drop it like a 90-pound nerd handed a medicine ball. Sanders seems to be too principled to take more than the customary shots at his opponents, and Clinton has enough dirt (or dirty-seeming stuff, anyway) in her past that she's avoiding confrontation. Nobody else cares about the rest. For the Democratic Party overall... it'll give them a boost in the long run, but right now, they aren't doing anything other than sitting back and letting Trump devastate the media. Which may work out for them. We'll have to see...

[bilateralrope]

Now is not the time for the democrats to go after republican candidates. A successful attack against a republican candidate now will only mean that another candidate gets the nomination.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders hits hard on the issues. He just doesn't tend to stoop to personal attacks on his opponents from what I've seen.

Regardless, Trump being Trump should be enough to cost the Republicans any shot at the Latino vote for the forseeable future. And considering that's a fast-growing demographic... yeah, they're fucked.

[Gandalf]

Now is not the time for the democrats to go after republican candidates. A successful attack against a republican candidate now will only mean that another candidate gets the nomination.

So knock down the bad ones and try for the best possible opponent?

[The Romulan Republic]

A cynical, ruthless Democratic candidate would probably rather run against a bad candidate than a good one. It'll help their chances, even if it'll fuck over the country if they lose.

[Mr Bean]

Let me post something here from Scott Adams Blog about how Trump works
Trump the Clown Genius

Like many of you, I have been entertained by the unstoppable clown car that is Donald Trump. On the surface, and several layers deep as well, Trump appears to be a narcissistic blow-hard with inadequate credentials to lead a country.

The only problem with my analysis is that there is an eerie consistency to his success so far. Is there a method to it? Is there some sort of system at work under the hood?

Probably yes. Allow me to describe some of the hypnosis and persuasion methods Mr. Trump has employed on you. (Most of you know I am a trained hypnotist and this topic is a hobby of mine.)

For starters, Trump literally wrote the book on negotiating, called The Art of the Deal. So we know he is familiar with the finer points of persuasion. For our purposes today, persuasion, hypnosis, and negotiating all share a common set of tools, so I will conflate them.

Would Trump use his negotiation and persuasion skills in the campaign? Of course he would. And we expect him to do just that.

But where is the smoking gun of his persuasion? Where is his technique laid out for us to see.

Everywhere.

As I said in my How to Fail book, if you are not familiar with the dozens of methods of persuasion that are science-tested, there’s a good chance someone is using those techniques against you.

For example, when Trump says he is worth $10 billion, which causes his critics to say he is worth far less (but still billions) he is making all of us “think past the sale.” The sale he wants to make is “Remember that Donald Trump is a successful business person managing a vast empire mostly of his own making.” The exact amount of his wealth is irrelevant.

When a car salesperson trained in persuasion asks if you prefer the red Honda Civic or the Blue one, that is a trick called making you “think past the sale” and the idea is to make you engage on the question of color as if you have already decided to buy the car. That is Persuasion 101 and I have seen no one in the media point it out when Trump does it.

The $10 billion estimate Trump uses for his own net worth is also an “anchor” in your mind. That’s another classic negotiation/persuasion method. I remember the $10 billion estimate because it is big and round and a bit outrageous. And he keeps repeating it because repetition is persuasion too.

I don’t remember the smaller estimates of Trump’s wealth that critics provided. But I certainly remember the $10 billion estimate from Trump himself. Thanks to this disparity in my memory, my mind automatically floats toward Trump’s anchor of $10 billion being my reality. That is classic persuasion. And I would be amazed if any of this is an accident. Remember, Trump literally wrote the book on this stuff.

You might be concerned that exaggerating ones net worth is like lying, and the public will not like a liar. But keep in mind that Trump’s value proposition is that he will “Make America Great.” In other words, he wants to bring the same sort of persuasion to the question of America’s reputation in the world. That concept sounds appealing to me. The nation needs good brand management, whether you think Trump is the right person or not. (Obviously we need good execution as well, not just brand illusion. But a strong brand gives you better leverage for getting what you want. It is all connected.)

And what did you think of Trump’s famous “Rosie O’Donnell” quip at the first debate when asked about his comments on women? The interviewer’s questions were intended to paint Trump forever as a sexist pig. But Trump quickly and cleverly set the “anchor” as Rosie O’Donnell, a name he could be sure was not popular with his core Republican crowd. And then he casually admitted, without hesitation, that he was sure he had said other bad things about other people as well.

Now do you see how the anchor works? If the idea of “Trump insults women” had been allowed to pair in your mind with the nice women you know and love, you would hate Trump. That jerk is insulting my sister, my mother, and my wife! But Trump never let that happen. At the first moment (and you have to admit he thinks fast) he inserted the Rosie O’Donnell anchor and owned the conversation from that point on. Now he’s not the sexist who sometimes insults women; he’s the straight-talker who won’t hesitate to insult someone who has it coming (in his view).

But it gets better. You probably cringed when Trump kept saying his appearance gave FOX its biggest audience rating. That seemed totally off point for a politician, right? But see what happened.

Apparently FOX chief Roger Ailes called Trump and made peace. And by that I mean Trump owns FOX for the rest of the campaign because his willingness to appear on their network will determine their financial fate. BAM, Trump owns FOX and paid no money for it. See how this works? That’s what a strong brand gives you.

You probably also cringed when you heard Trump say Mexico was sending us their rapists and bad people. But if you have read this far, you now recognize that intentional exaggeration as an anchor, and a standard method of persuasion.

Trump also said he thinks Mexico should pay for the fence, which made most people scoff. But if your neighbor’s pit bull keeps escaping and eating your rosebushes, you tell the neighbor to pay for his own fence or you will shoot his dog next time you see it. Telling a neighbor to build his own wall for your benefit is not crazy talk. And I actually think Trump could pull it off.

On a recent TV interview, the host (I forget who) tried to label Trump a “whiner.” But instead of denying the label, Trump embraced it and said was the best whiner of all time, and the country needs just that. That’s a psychological trick I call “taking the high ground” and I wrote about it in a recent blog post. The low ground in this case is the unimportant question of whether “whiner” is a fair label for Trump. But Trump cleverly took the high ground, embraced the label, and used it to set an anchor in your mind that he is the loudest voice for change. That’s some clown genius for you.

Update: When Trump raised his hand at the debate as the only person who would not pledge to back the eventual Republican candidate, he sent a message to the party that the only way they can win is by nominating him. And people like to win. It is in their nature. And they sure don’t want to see a Clinton presidency.

Update 2: And what about Trump’s habit of bluster and self-complimenting? Every time he opens his mouth he is saying something about the Trump brand being fabulous or amazing or great. The rational part of your brain thinks this guy is an obnoxious, exaggerating braggart. But the subconscious parts of your brain (the parts that make most of your decisions) only remember that something about that guy was fabulous, amazing and great.

If you’re keeping score, in the past month Trump has bitch-slapped the entire Republican Party, redefined our expectations of politics, focused the national discussion on immigration, proposed the only new idea for handling ISIS, and taken functional control of FOX News. And I don’t think he put much effort into it. Imagine what he could do if he gave up golf.

As far as I can tell, Trump’s “crazy talk” is always in the correct direction for a skilled persuader. When Trump sets an “anchor” in your mind, it is never random. And it seems to work every time.

Now that Trump owns FOX, and I see how well his anchor trick works with the public, I’m going to predict he will be our next president. I think he will move to the center on social issues (already happening) and win against Clinton in a tight election.

I also saw some Internet chatter about the idea of picking Mark Cuban as Vice Presidential running mate. If that happens, Republicans win. And I think they like to win. There is no way Trump picks some desiccated Governor from an important state as his running mate. I think Cuban is a realistic possibility.

I don’t mean this post to look like support for a Trump presidency. I’m more interested in his methods. I’m not smart enough to know who would do the best job as president. There are a lot of capable people in the game.

The TL:DR of the piece is this, Scott Adams believe that Trump befuddles reporters because he is very much a cutthroat businessman rather than a politician. Fundamentally his approach to running for President. is totally different from anyone else. Something he goes in length in Political Reporters Cover a Business Candidate another post of his. Trump is not a politico in the literal sense of he is operating nothing like a politico does, he's operating as if he's a businessman trying to beat out fifteen other people for the job of America's CEO.

I'll post one extra part here from Scott

Bonus Thought 4: In all likelihood, Donald Trump will pick our next president. If he runs as a Republican, he will be picking himself, and winning, assuming he keeps going this way. If he runs as an independent he will be picking Clinton as president. There’s your republic: One guy gets to vote for President this year.

Scott Adams as the creator of Dilbert comic strip is long known as something of a mildly to moderately crazy person but I believe his reading of Trump is on the money. Trump is here to stay because he's got the skills to, the mental and verbal speed and the passionate Republican base to stay at number 1 well until the time of the Iowa caucuses and NJ voting. After those first two states I don't know but I'm willing to predict now we will not see a repeat of 2012 with one person cycling in popularity while a Mitt Romney holds strong

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't you love the profound arrogance of assuming that a) Trump will win if he is the Republican nominee and b) that Clinton will inevitably be the Democratic nominee? Kind of ignoring the elephant in the room with skyrocketing poll numbers named Bernie Sanders.

[Mr Bean]

Don't you love the profound arrogance of assuming that a) Trump will win if he is the Republican nominee and b) that Clinton will inevitably be the Democratic nominee? Kind of ignoring the elephant in the room with skyrocketing poll numbers named Bernie Sanders.

I believe Scott believes that as long as it's Trump VS 16 other people Trump wins, even Trump Vs 8 Trump Wins because he has that dependable 25% who also happen to be very likely to turn up in caucus states. Those 25% of most right wing typically make up 40%-70% of those who appear in caucus calculations because they can be bothered to show up in person and wait.

Why he assumes Hillary will win the Democratic primary is likely similar to the same reason you assume Sanders will win the democratic primary.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not sure what you mean by that.

In any case, I do not assume Sanders will win. I merely think he's doing well enough to make treating Clinton's victory as a forgone conclusion ridiculous.

[Mr Bean]

Not sure what you mean by that.

In any case, I do not assume Sanders will win. I merely think he's doing well enough to make treating Clinton's victory as a forgone conclusion ridiculous.

Hillary has the entire Democratic machine behind her, endless name recognition and Obama fundraising machine. She will also have Obama's support and the infrastructure he put in place for his two runs which is already a proven quality. Look for President Obama's people to start signing up for Hillary in droves as we get closer to the first few votes.