The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[Sgt_Artyom]

Quite true.

[Mr Bean]

Quite true.

Here's the thing the deregulation is fairly recent thanks to Open Secrets for this handy chart.


Follow the link for the raw numbers but basically massive outside spending is a new thing that started happening in 2000 when deregulation first started happening and it's been getting much worse much faster each election cylce with each fresh new wave of deregulation.

A better chart with the numbers since 1990 can be found here.

The Graph rather neatly explains how bad and recent this phenomenon is and has gotten.

A note on the chart, the reason why some years is much less than others is because well... midterms, without a President on the ticket expect half as much effort unless it's a year ending in 0 because those are census years and vital for future gerrymandering.

Canada has nothing on us, we had nothing on us less than twenty years ago but change laws so outside spending is a thing and from 2006 on massive outside spending and massive campaign donations become a thing. The raw dollar amount campaigns raise is still relatively low compared to the two to six times as much that outsiders poor into their favorite front runner.

[jwl]

I don't know what happens in Canada, but in the UK, we have party political broadcasts, which means that parties don't have to (and in fact aren't allowed to) spend money on TV advertisements. The US doesn't have this. You also have a spending cap on general elections (about £20 million if you contest all the seats, I think), whilst from what I've heard here, the US has a donations cap per person, not a spending cap. Do you have this kind if stuff in Canada?

[Sgt_Artyom]

I don't know what happens in Canada, but in the UK, we have party political broadcasts, which means that parties don't have to (and in fact aren't allowed to) spend money on TV advertisements. The US doesn't have this. You also have a spending cap on general elections (about £20 million if you contest all the seats, I think), whilst from what I've heard here, the US has a donations cap per person, not a spending cap. Do you have this kind if stuff in Canada?

Pre-campaign, there are no limits to what a party can spend — spending rules only kick in once the writ is dropped and the campaign has officially begun. In a typical 37-day election period, each party can spend a maximum of $25 million. For each additional day, the limit is increased by 1/37th, or an extra $675,000, meaning an 11-week campaign would allow parties to spend more than $50 million.

We're having an 11 week election in Canada (One of the longest ever) and some are worried this gives the Cons an advantage as they've got quite a bit more money to throw into a longer campaign.

The cap on donations is around $1,500. I think Candidates are allowed to donate up to $5,000 of their own money and candidates for leadership are allowed to donate up to an additional $25,000.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&lang=e This has some great charts that even break down spending limits by each provinces riding (Electoral district).

[SpottedKitty]

Aside from paying staffers

Not a problem for some of the Clown Car's back seat drivers...

[jwl]

I don't know what happens in Canada, but in the UK, we have party political broadcasts, which means that parties don't have to (and in fact aren't allowed to) spend money on TV advertisements. The US doesn't have this. You also have a spending cap on general elections (about £20 million if you contest all the seats, I think), whilst from what I've heard here, the US has a donations cap per person, not a spending cap. Do you have this kind if stuff in Canada?

Pre-campaign, there are no limits to what a party can spend — spending rules only kick in once the writ is dropped and the campaign has officially begun. In a typical 37-day election period, each party can spend a maximum of $25 million. For each additional day, the limit is increased by 1/37th, or an extra $675,000, meaning an 11-week campaign would allow parties to spend more than $50 million.

We're having an 11 week election in Canada (One of the longest ever) and some are worried this gives the Cons an advantage as they've got quite a bit more money to throw into a longer campaign.

The cap on donations is around $1,500. I think Candidates are allowed to donate up to $5,000 of their own money and candidates for leadership are allowed to donate up to an additional $25,000.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&lang=e This has some great charts that even break down spending limits by each provinces riding (Electoral district).

Is that in Canadian dollars or US dollars?

[Dominus Atheos]

New poll out:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/image ... p.2016.pdf

Trump 32%
Carson 19%
Bush 9%
Cruz 7%
Huckabee 5%
Walker 5%
Fiorina 3%
Paul 3%
Rubio 3%
Christie 2%
Kasich 2%

Dailykos' reaction is the best:

How bad are things for the GOP? Imagine if the Democratic primary looked like this

The newest national Republican primary poll finds Donald Trump at the summit and still climbing, with Ben Carson decisively in second and Jeb! Bush languishing in third with just a single-digit share. All in all, the non-insane/non-absurd GOP candidates take less than a quarter of the vote. The nutbars rule the roost.

But to truly put this in perspective, what would it look like if the Democratic primary resembled the Republican contest? In a genius comment, sacman701 illustrates this hilarious and disturbing alternate reality:

Bill Maher 32%
Dr. Oz 19%
Ed Rendell 9%
Dennis Kucinich 7%
Keith Olbermann 5%
John Hickenlooper 5%
Wendy Davis 3%
Bernie Sanders 3%
Martin Heinrich 3%
Jay Nixon 2%
Steve Beshear 2%

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/1 ... -like-this

[Sgt_Artyom]

Is that in Canadian dollars or US dollars?

It's in Canadian dollars.

[The Romulan Republic]

In other news, Sanders has apparently passed Clinton in Iowa.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... iowa-polls

Vermont senator Bernie Sanders has taken the lead from former secretary of state Hillary Clinton for the first time in a poll in the crucial early voting state of Iowa, as the self-declared socialist Democrat continues to tighten the race with the party establishment favorite.

A Quinnipiac University poll released on Thursday found that 41% of likely Democratic primary voters in Iowa said they would vote for Sanders, while 40% said they would vote for the former secretary of state. Though Sanders’ edge is within the margin of error of 3.4 percentage points, Clinton led Sanders by double digits in Iowa in July. Averages of all polling in the state show Clinton with a quickly eroding lead that nevertheless remains in the double-digits.


0:00
/
0:00
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Recording an appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton apologises over the email controversy.
The poll comes as Clinton continues to be dogged by the controversy over her use of a private email server, which she apologized for in an ABC interview this week after twice declining to do so. The release of the poll also comes amid ongoing deliberations over a potential run by Vice-President Joe Biden, who is said to be seriously considering a run against Clinton in the Democratic primary.

Advertisement

While Clinton remains on top in national polling and is still the party’s frontrunner, the surprising success of Sanders’ insurgent campaign has excited the Democratic primary the party once worried was going to be a coronation. Nonetheless, the shift is a marked one, recalling the 2008 Iowa race when Clinton, then the presumptive nominee, faltered and finished a disappointing third behind Barack Obama and John Edwards.

“[Sanders] is the candidate of the Democratic left, against his own party’s bosses and their prized presidential candidate, secretary Hillary Clinton,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University poll.

The last Quinnipiac poll of the state, in July, found that 52% of voters said they would vote for Clinton compared with 33% for Sanders.

Other Democratic candidates, including former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley and former Virginia senator Jim Webb, have struggled to gain traction in polling so far. O’Malley gathered 3% and Webb failed to register above the mark while undeclared Biden came in third in the poll, with 12% of respondents saying they would vote for the vice-president.

The Quinnipiac poll also found that Sanders and Biden have a higher net favorability rating than Clinton and score higher ratings for honesty and empathy. A bright note for Clinton: more voters believe she has the leadership and temperament to handle an international crisis.

In the latest NBC News/Marist poll released on Sunday, Clinton led Sanders 48% to 37%. The poll also showed Sanders ahead 9% in New Hampshire, another crucial early voting state.

If Clinton has any sense, she's very alarmed about her rapidly diminishing chances.

Edit: This really is quite impressive. I thought, based on past polling and Sanders' momentum, that maybe Sanders would take Iowa when the primary happened. I did not expect him to take a lead their this summer.

[FaxModem1]

Rick Perry has bowed out of the Republican primaries. Frankly, I think he just knew he didn't stand a chance.

NPR

Rick Perry Suspends Presidential Campaign
SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 5:27 PM ET
Jessica Taylor - Square 2015
JESSICA TAYLOR
Twitter
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced Friday in St. Louis that he is suspending his second bid for the presidency.
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced Friday in St. Louis that he is suspending his second bid for the presidency.
Paul Sancya/AP
Updated at 7:00 p.m. ET.

Days before he was to be relegated once again to a second-tier debate, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced Friday he was suspending his struggling presidential campaign. It makes him the first to bow out in the crowded Republican presidential nominating contest.

"When I gave my life to Christ, I said, 'Your ways are greater than my ways. Your will superior to mine.' Today I submit that his will remains a mystery, but some things have become clear," Perry said, speaking to the conservative Eagle Forum conference in St. Louis. "That is why today I am suspending my campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Perry continued: "We have a tremendous field — the best in a generation — so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grass roots, the cause of conservatism will be too. I share this news with no regrets. It has been a privilege and an honor to travel this country, to speak with the American people about their hopes and dreams, to see a sense of optimism prevalent despite a season of cynical politics."

Since launching his second presidential bid in June, Perry struggled to move past the missteps of his disastrous 2012 bid. Once seen as the front-runner four years ago, Perry was sluggish on the campaign trail after back surgery. His stumbles were captured in a single "Oops" moment when he blanked on the three government agencies he would eliminate.

Four years later, a more energetic Perry tried to reintroduce himself to voters. With new black-frame glasses, he said he had studied up on policy and was more prepared. He tried to show he was more energetic and engaged when campaigning. And since stepping down as Texas' longest-serving governor, he was able focus full time on his campaign instead of juggling his official responsibilities.

But the reboot — and re-brand — weren't enough for Perry. He never gained traction in the polls and struggled to break through in a 17-candidate field of newer, flashier faces.

He also was unable to distinguish himself in the second-tier forum Aug. 6, one that took place hours before a prime-time debate, featuring the top 10 candidates in the polls. Instead, he was overshadowed by Carly Fiorina, a former Hewlett-Packard chief executive.

Last month, in what appeared to portend what was to come, Perry stopped paying his campaign staff, as his fundraising dried up. While some stuck by him, taking no pay, others bolted for rival campaigns.

Speaking Friday, Perry did not exit without taking a few parting shots at GOP front-runner Donald Trump, with whom he has repeatedly clashed. Though he didn't mention the billionaire real-estate mogul by name, his target was clear.

"The answer to a president nominated for soaring rhetoric and no record is not to nominate a candidate whose rhetoric speaks louder than his record," Perry said. "It is not to replicate the Democrat model of selecting a president, falling for the cult of personality over durable life qualities."

He added later, "It is time to elevate our debate from divisive name-calling, from sound bites without solutions, and start discussing how we will make the country better for all if a conservative is elected president."

Perry is technically only suspending his presidential campaign, a distinction that could still leave the door open for him to change his mind and re-enter, though that's unlikely. Now, he can still continue raising money to retire any debt.

Perry's exit leaves only four candidates who will participate in CNN's second-tier debate on Wednesday — former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former New York Gov. George Pataki. Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore did not poll high enough to make the cut.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, that's good news and bad news. Good news because it means one of the GOP asshats is out of the race. Bad because it means the field is shrinking and his meagre support might go to someone even worse.

[Raw Shark]

Perry was out of his goddamned mind to run again in the first place, after the way he screwed the pooch last time. "No really, I'm not a dumbass anymore - I have glasses now!" Everybody else at the kids' table who can't elbow their way into the big debate after this one is completely fucked, too, and will drop out if they know what's good for them, so get ready for the field to narrow some more.

[The Romulan Republic]

I watched Sanders being interviewed on Meet the Press this morning, and I'm not really impressed with how he handled foreign policy.

He was vague regarding refugees. He seemed less passionate and less clear in general than he sometimes does. I get the feeling that he is mainly focussed on domestic issues and doesn't much care about foreign policy, at least in comparison to issues like poverty.

I also think that his opposition to having troops in the Middle East seemed to be based on America's interests more than what's best for the region, which is obviously reasonable in a candidate for the American Presidency but also indicates a certain selfishness/nationalism at the expense of other nations. His position on ISIS basically seemed to at least partly be that we should get countries in the Middle East to fight them while we don't suffer the cost of fighting a war. Expecting others to clean up our mess. This seems contradictory in light of his at least partly blaming the situation in the Middle East on America's actions and his past support, mentioned by the interviewer, for intervening in Kosovo.

I didn't entirely disagree with him. He was right to vote against the Iraq War of 2003, he was right to vote for the war in Afghanistan (and I liked that he specified wanting to capture Bin Laden for trial), and he at least acknowledged that America bears some responsibility for the refugee crisis and should be doing something about it. But again, my point is not simply that he is wrong about what we should be doing. I'm concerned that he doesn't seem to really be focussed on foreign policy. As much as America needs to address its internal problems, a President must also pay attention to the rest of the world.

He definitely failed to impress me when it came to foreign policy. Whatever positions he takes, right or wrong, I think he needs to, to be blunt, give more of a fuck about it if he's going to be President.

[The Romulan Republic]

In other news, the mighty Sanders juggernaut continues.

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253509-poll-sanders-up-by-10 points-in-iowa

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is up by double-digits on former secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire, according to a poll released by CBS News on Sunday.

The senator is drawing 43 percent support in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucus, besting Clinton by 10 points.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sanders is also drawing 52 percent support in New Hampshire, almost doubling Clinton, who sits at 30 percent support in the Granite State.
Clinton, however, doubles-up Sanders in South Carolina, drawing 46 percent compared to the senator’s 23 percent.

Vice President Biden, who is considering a run for the Democratic presidential nomination, places third in all three states, drawing 10 percent support in Iowa, 9 percent support in New Hampshire, and a strong 22 percent backing in South Carolina.

The YouGov/CBS News 2016 Battleground Tracker poll, conducted Sept. 3 – 10, surveyed 548 likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, 528 in South Carolina, and 646 in Iowa. The margin of error for the poll is 5 percent.

Screw it. Presuming this is even close to accurate, I'm calling it. Barring some major scandal or catastrophe (God forbid), Sanders will be the Democratic Party's nominee. His momentum is overwhelming. Clinton has gone in weeks from a solid lead to a distant second in key states.

[Terralthra]

He has the lead in two states with overwhelmingly white populations. He's incredibly weak amongst people of color, which is why his numbers crater in South Carolina, and he won't do nearly as well elsewhere. Democratic nominees have to win minority votes, and he is not.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why? From what I've read about it Sanders' civil rights record isn't particularly bad. He's addressing poverty, the prison system- is this just because some Black Lives Matter folks decided to single him out for God knows what reason?

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, I would point out that 23% in South Carolina is still fairly respectable, and that Sanders has a lot of time to continue building support.

And if he gets the nomination, I very much doubt most minorities will pick a Republican over him. Not if they have a functioning sense of self-interest or self-respect, anyway. At worst, we'd get some more people not voting, but even that seems like a relatively minor concern when it seems like the Republicans are going to pick Donald the Mexican hater.

[Terralthra]

I don't have a good answer for that question. 538 has been covering the polling extensively, and they remain skeptical about an overall Sanders victory in the primary. They acknowledge the surge in numbers, but their current take is that Sanders could win Iowa and New Hampshire, but not much beyond that unless he starts to get moderates and non-whites.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, Sanders winning Iowa and New Hampshire should give him a nice boost in publicity and credibility.

[jwl]

I still don't understand why "key states" make a massive difference to Sanders. What I can see they do is raise his public profile, which is pretty high anyway; and help him harness the anti-Hillary vote, which will help but not when Hillary has vacuumed up 45% of poll votes already.

[Mr Bean]

I still don't understand why "key states" make a massive difference to Sanders. What I can see they do is raise his public profile, which is pretty high anyway; and help him harness the anti-Hillary vote, which will help but not when Hillary has vacuumed up 45% of poll votes already.

Public profile which means 61% of the Democratic base have no idea who he is along with 86% of the Republican base have no idea who he is.

[Raw Shark]

Do not underestimate the American Mindless Bandwagon Vote. A lot of people don't even think about who they're going to support in the primary until after New Hampshire, if they think about it at all.

With Regard to Sanders and Foreign Policy: TRR is 100% correct that Sanders is far more focused on domestic policy than foreign, but I for one see that as a good thing, at least for right now. Sanders seems to agree with my opinion that we need to quit trying to be the world's cop and prioritize putting our own house in order.

[The Romulan Republic]

I trust you understand that being focussed on foreign policy is not automatically the same as "...trying to be the world's cop...". That that is not the only position one can take on foreign policy while still taking the issues seriously.

The fact of the matter is that the US is a disproportionately powerful nation, so that what it does or doesn't do will have a disproportionate affect on the world. And that what happens in the rest of the world will effect us because of that funny thing called globalization. You know, how all our economies are interconnected, people can travel around the world in a day, people can communicate around the world in an instant, and alliances (and hostilities) stretch across the planet. Problems don't remain confined to the region in which they originated.

I'm not saying the US should presume to run the world. Just that a Presidential candidate cannot afford to be disengaged, even slightly, with foreign policy. Especially not with some of the things that are happening now (neo-Cold War, Middle Eastern wars, refugee crisis, North Korean insanity, etc.).

I don't expect nor want Sanders to go all-out interventionist. But I think it would benefit him to be a bit more passionate and clear about foreign policy.

[jwl]

I still don't understand why "key states" make a massive difference to Sanders. What I can see they do is raise his public profile, which is pretty high anyway; and help him harness the anti-Hillary vote, which will help but not when Hillary has vacuumed up 45% of poll votes already.

Public profile which means 61% of the Democratic base have no idea who he is along with 86% of the Republican base have no idea who he is.

That sounds pretty specific. Was there a survey on this or something?

[The Romulan Republic]

Fortunately for Sanders, lack of recognition is a problem that is likely to diminish as the campaign goes on, especially if he scores some early primary victories. So I don't think it really harms his prospects much.