Presidential Race 2016

[baller7345]

On 4/26/2016 at 8:57 AM, saevel25 said:

That will happen when you have an electoral college.  

I like the electoral college because it doesn't let one state rule over other states. 

This is something I dislike about the electoral college.  It also essentially makes my vote worthless since I live in a state that is assuredly going to vote republican.  My vote is basically meaningless in the current system (for this cycle), unless I move to a blue state or a state that is actually contested.

Edited April 28, 2016 by baller7345

[saevel25]

Just now, baller7345 said:

This is also something I dislike about the electoral college.  It also essentially makes my vote worthless since I live in a state that is assuredly going to vote republican.  My vote is basically meaningless in the current system (for this cycle), unless I move to a blue state or a state that is actually contested.

There are pro's and con's on both. It's tough if you live in a Red state and you are a Democrat. 

Why should California, one state, which has 12% of the population have such a deciding influence over all other other states?  That is one of the big arguments during the creation of our government. That is why we have a senate and a house. The house is based on population, yet the senate allows for equal representation from all the states. That is why the electoral college mimics how congress is made up. 

Another reason is that each state has it's own sovereignty to decide who their electorate votes. In some regard we are 50 countries that are strongly tied by a very strong federal government. In that regard I like that each state has some equal representation in the electoral college like how the senate creates that equal representation. 

 

[StevenR84]

The electoral college is a joke. It has only happened a few times, but on what planet should someone win the popular vote and lose the election? If you receive the most votes from the people in the country you should be the President elect.

[Mr. Desmond]

20 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

The electoral college is a joke. It has only happened a few times, but on what planet should someone win the popular vote and lose the election? If you receive the most votes from the people in the country you should be the President elect.

Thank you, Al Gore...

[9wood]

I live in a very liberal State where the Donkey party always wins by an overwhelming margin. Since I'm a Conservative, I often feel like, what's the sense of voting when I know the candidate of my choice doesn't stand a chance. Yet I still exercise my right to vote. In the end, it's the swing States votes which are of great importance. If you live in a swing State, then do not stay home on election day. 

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

It has only happened a few times, but on what planet should someone win the popular vote and lose the election? 

Earth

3 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

If you receive the most votes from the people in the country you should be the President elect.

The United States for all purposes has 50 Countries. Each State is given a set of electoral votes to help choose the President. How they assign those electoral votes is up to that State. 

Why should California, being it's own state with it's own government,  have more sway than Montana? The system is set up to win the state. In that regard it is a popular vote. You win the popular vote of the state. 

The system makes sense in that it is a compromise of allowing larger states with more population some extra sway, but then each state get's equal say as well. 

[Braivo]

12 hours ago, saevel25 said:

There are pro's and con's on both. It's tough if you live in a Red state and you are a Democrat. 

Why should California, one state, which has 12% of the population have such a deciding influence over all other other states?  That is one of the big arguments during the creation of our government. That is why we have a senate and a house. The house is based on population, yet the senate allows for equal representation from all the states. That is why the electoral college mimics how congress is made up. 

Another reason is that each state has it's own sovereignty to decide who their electorate votes. In some regard we are 50 countries that are strongly tied by a very strong federal government. In that regard I like that each state has some equal representation in the electoral college like how the senate creates that equal representation. 

 

This, 100% ^^^^^

Our nation was not founded on a majority rules principle. 

The electoral college allows for states like MT and ND to have some material say in the outcome of the election. If it were based purely on a popular vote then the people in those states would be largely silenced. Exactly the reason each state has 2 senators. (Now, whether this is actually working in reality, with people moving to states simply for political opportunities, is another story).

Now, back on topic. There is a lot of talk about typical red and blue states. In this cycle I believe many states that have always gone blue will have a chance to go red with Trump (admittedly a very liberal candidate for the GOP). Michigan is in play for the first time in 30 years. There may be others. 

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, Braivo said:

Now, back on topic. There is a lot of talk about typical red and blue states. In this cycle I believe many states that have always gone blue will have a chance to go red with Trump (admittedly a very liberal candidate for the GOP). Michigan is in play for the first time in 30 years. There may be others. 

I am not sure some of the states like Arkansas or Tennessee don't go democrat. They did under Bill Clinton. I think the Clinton name travels well in that region. If you look at his results in the NE versus the middle of the country. Trumps dominance over his opponents decreases the further you go west into the Plain States. This might be an interesting electoral map this year on both sides. 

I don't see many traditional Democrat states going Republican like they did under Reagan. Though Hillary does have a smaller lead in the polls in Michigan, Minnesotan and Pennsylvania. 

Just for fun

For me, If Trump can't get at least one out of the two between Michigan and Pennsylvania then it will be tough sledding for him. 

If you pan it out where Clinton gets most of the Lake Michigan area states and she loses Pennsylvania. Then it comes down to Ohio and Florida again. 

Yea, unless something bonkers happens. I see the first step for victory being Trump needs to secure Michigan and/or Pennsylvania. If he succeeds at that then it probably falls to Ohio and Florida as the deciding states. 

If he doesn't then Hillary can win the election with out actually needing Ohio and Florida if she gets Minnesota as well. 

 

 

[Braivo]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

I am not sure some of the states like Arkansas or Tennessee don't go democrat. They did under Bill Clinton. I think the Clinton name travels well in that region. If you look at his results in the NE versus the middle of the country. Trumps dominance over his opponents decreases the further you go west into the Plain States. This might be an interesting electoral map this year on both sides. 

I don't see many traditional Democrat states going Republican like they did under Reagan. Though Hillary does have a smaller lead in the polls in Michigan, Minnesotan and Pennsylvania. 

Just for fun

For me, If Trump can't get at least one out of the two between Michigan and Pennsylvania then it will be tough sledding for him. 

If you pan it out where Clinton gets most of the Lake Michigan area states and she loses Pennsylvania. Then it comes down to Ohio and Florida again. 

Yea, unless something bonkers happens. I see the first step for victory being Trump needs to secure Michigan and/or Pennsylvania. If he succeeds at that then it probably falls to Ohio and Florida as the deciding states. 

If he doesn't then Hillary can win the election with out actually needing Ohio and Florida if she gets Minnesota as well. 

 

 

Interesting. I will point out, however, that Trump's candidacy has defied every single prediction. Might I remind you that early in the primary process you were still saying Trump had no chance to win even after a big victory in South Carolina. Even when I pointed out that nearly every single candidate to win NH and SC went on to get the nomination you said "Trump's campaign is an outlier, it defies conventional wisdom, he won't win." (I'm paraphrasing of course, I am not going to dig up old quotes, but you said such things.)

This is not an attack on you by any means, I am simply making note of the fact that you are now trying to apply "conventional" predictions to a candidate that you have already stated defies convention because it suits your personal bias toward a dem candidate. It's ok, a lot of people have been wrong on Trump for a long time, there are still people out there who things Cruz has a valid chance to become POTUS. 

[StevenR84]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Earth

The United States for all purposes has 50 Countries. Each State is given a set of electoral votes to help choose the President. How they assign those electoral votes is up to that State. 

Why should California, being it's own state with it's own government,  have more sway than Montana? The system is set up to win the state. In that regard it is a popular vote. You win the popular vote of the state. 

The system makes sense in that it is a compromise of allowing larger states with more population some extra sway, but then each state get's equal say as well. 

I disagree with looking at it on a state by state basis. Take away state lines for general elections and everyone has 1 vote that counts just as much as the next guy. As it is it always comes down to states like Ohio and Florida, why do they get all the power?

[jamo]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Earth

The United States for all purposes has 50 Countries. Each State is given a set of electoral votes to help choose the President. How they assign those electoral votes is up to that State. 

Why should California, being it's own state with it's own government,  have more sway than Montana? The system is set up to win the state. In that regard it is a popular vote. You win the popular vote of the state. 

The system makes sense in that it is a compromise of allowing larger states with more population some extra sway, but then each state get's equal say as well. 

Because they have more people.

If it was just a straight popular vote, it wouldn't matter where someone lived. A vote from a Californian should be the same as a vote from an Ohioan.

[RandallT]

Good stuff, @saevel25 with the analysis. And I agree, @Braivo, about Trump defying all conventional wisdom so far. 

Remember the adage that Republicans should always nominate the most right-leaning conservative, but viable/electable, candidate they can at any opportunity? I think it was the Buckley rule or something?

Well, Trump is the most left-leaning liberal Republican they could possibly nominate! The question is, can he upend the business as usual in people's political choices? 

I can honestly see Trump picking off quite a few Democrats. I think I've mentioned before that I'm surprised he hasn't done a major address to the NAACP or La Rasa or something.  He could go right into some bastion of liberal support and make an honest case for his presidency, and boldly show that he is willing to discuss things. Treat them with respect. And NOT take them for granted. He could easily tell minority groups that the Democrats are using them, and that they should hold the Democrats accountable for the lack of progress in their plight. If he focuses on traditional Democrat solutions that have shown such little progress in inner cities, and hammers it home, he could raise doubt that the Democrat party is their answer, and he could show that he's willing to deal with their group.

I know this flies in the face of traditional wisdom that Trump is a racist, but I just can't believe that he is such a despicable human being. Narcissist yes. Self-absorbed yes. But shrewd and willing to deal with anyone and everyone to make his case for the presidency- absolutely. He could do it confidently, boldly, and with a style that is appealing.

I could see Trump shredding all the rules, and making a broad appeal to many groups, across many regional areas and cultural backgrounds. After he sets his sights on the Clinton machine, he might make her seem quite unappealing to even people solidly on the left. It might be a rout.

I'm always wrong on these predictions, of course. History suggests that the left will knuckle down and win this fairly easily by destroying Trump. Against that onslaught of media/academia/political elite, it'll be easy to make Trump look like the most evil villain of all time. If Trump is not careful, he could be caricatured right out of this from the start, if not already. He has a long way to go to break down the image that has emerged so far- but if anyone can do it, it's Trump.

[saevel25]

38 minutes ago, Braivo said:

This is not an attack on you by any means, I am simply making note of the fact that you are now trying to apply "conventional" predictions to a candidate that you have already stated defies convention because it suits your personal bias toward a dem candidate. It's ok, a lot of people have been wrong on Trump for a long time, there are still people out there who things Cruz has a valid chance to become POTUS. 

My early points were made under the assumption he would flame out. Most people thought he would. Clearly he hasn't. I don't like how he has run his campaign. It has been entertaining to watch the GOP flounder around. To give credit where it is due, he's exceeding many expectations. 

This is why I made the choices I did on the map above. It wasn't based on assumptions but just observations from how the results have turned out so far in the GOP primary. Here are some trends that have shown up so far. 

1. When Trump has a sizable lead in the polls he maintains it pretty well or exceeds it in the final voting. PA he was projected at +21, he ended up with +36. 

2. When Trump's lead is smaller the results are much tighter in the final voting. Missouri Trump was predicted at +7 he ended up at +0.2. In Louisiana he was projected at +15, he ended up at +3.6. 

3. It seems like he's going to have a tough time in the plain states and some of the Rocky States. The further west he goes till about Nevada he loses popularity. See the map below. 

That is why I think Arkansas and Tennessee might even be in play for Clinton because of her history there and because the further west you go the tougher time Trump has had winning. 

I think the most likely states for Trump to pull of the switch are MI, PA, and MN. 

Of course nothing is certain. 

24 minutes ago, StevenR84 said:

 As it is it always comes down to states like Ohio and Florida, why do they get all the power?

It's just how the math has worked out. If certain states fall this year to Hillary then she would win with out needing either of the two states. It didn't matter much for Reagan ;) 

17 minutes ago, jamo said:

Because they have more people.

If it was just a straight popular vote, it wouldn't matter where someone lived. A vote from a Californian should be the same as a vote from an Ohioan.

People in different areas of the country have different view points, different values. I don't think one State should have substantially more pull than another. 

The Constitution was founded on compromise. That was one of the big issues when it was created. Should Congress be based on population or equal representation. That is why we have a bi-lateral Congress. To them it made sense to just assign each state their number of Congressman as electoral votes. Honestly, I think it has worked just fine for over 200 years. I don't see a need to change it. 

[Braivo]

10 minutes ago, RandallT said:

Good stuff, @saevel25 with the analysis. And I agree, @Braivo, about Trump defying all conventional wisdom so far. 

Remember the adage that Republicans should always nominate the most right-leaning conservative, but viable/electable, candidate they can at any opportunity? I think it was the Buckley rule or something?

Well, Trump is the most left-leaning liberal Republican they could possibly nominate! The question is, can he upend the business as usual in people's political choices? 

I can honestly see Trump picking off quite a few Democrats. I think I've mentioned before that I'm surprised he hasn't done a major address to the NAACP or La Rasa or something.  He could go right into some bastion of liberal support and make an honest case for his presidency, and boldly show that he is willing to discuss things. Treat them with respect. And NOT take them for granted. He could easily tell minority groups that the Democrats are using them, and that they should hold the Democrats accountable for the lack of progress in their plight. If he focuses on traditional Democrat solutions that have shown such little progress in inner cities, and hammers it home, he could raise doubt that the Democrat party is their answer, and he could show that he's willing to deal with their group.

I know this flies in the face of traditional wisdom that Trump is a racist, but I just can't believe that he is such a despicable human being. Narcissist yes. Self-absorbed yes. But shrewd and willing to deal with anyone and everyone to make his case for the presidency- absolutely. He could do it confidently, boldly, and with a style that is appealing.

I could see Trump shredding all the rules, and making a broad appeal to many groups, across many regional areas and cultural backgrounds. After he sets his sights on the Clinton machine, he might make her seem quite unappealing to even people solidly on the left. It might be a rout.

I'm always wrong on these predictions, of course. History suggests that the left will knuckle down and win this fairly easily by destroying Trump. Against that onslaught of media/academia/political elite, it'll be easy to make Trump look like the most evil villain of all time. If Trump is not careful, he could be caricatured right out of this from the start, if not already. He has a long way to go to break down the image that has emerged so far- but if anyone can do it, it's Trump.

He will. He most certainly will. People have been trying to prove that he's a racist this entire time, yet they cannot find a single quote or person out there that can prove that he is. All evidence is to the contrary. 

He has survived, and thrived, after the first onslaught from the global elite. He can do it again, but more likely they will pull back and accept the inevitable as his popularity soars as he does the things you mentioned above. Truly a once in a generation political event. 

[Mr. Desmond]

Trump tells people what they want to hear, instead of what they need to hear.

Look at his foreign policy speech -- full of contradictions because he panders and lacks knowledge. In fact, Obama is already doing things he wants done. But Trump demonizes everyone because that is what Trump does.

I mean, I like the fact that he has brought up these issues, but he has not presented solutions. At best, he has presented band-aids. Everyone has a band-aid. His band-aids peel off too easily.

As to racism, I don't think Trump is a racist but his message attracts racists because he panders.

There is nothing of substance here, folks, it's best to move along. But it won't... and he won't.

[saevel25]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/boehner-cruz-lucifer-in-the-flesh-145118346.html

Want to talk about no PC Comments from the former House Speaker on Cruz. 

Quote

“Lucifer in the flesh,” Boehner said during a talk hosted by Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., according to the Stanford Daily. “I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life.”

 

 

[Mr. Desmond]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/boehner-cruz-lucifer-in-the-flesh-145118346.html

Want to talk about no PC Comments from the former House Speaker on Cruz. 

 

 

Does that surprise anyone?

This guy played Fiorina like a drum, and she took it in the ... and liked it. lol. Partners in crime.

[saevel25]

Trump should stop whining about the GOP rules. It has been a big boost to him. If the GOP used the Democtrat method it would be 100% a contested convention. The fact is Trump has gotten 40% of the vote yet 50% of the delegates. The GOP system is set up to not end in contested conventions though we might get one. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-delegate-lead-would-triple-under-gop-rules/