Hillary Clinton and The Left

[Derec]

Pointing out that 270 electoral votes are required to win, does not equal an endorsement of the electoral college. It's an acknowledgement of how the system works. What's the incentive for the smaller states, by population, to ratify a constitutional amendment to do away with it?

Actually most small states would benefit from popular vote. Sure, their influence would be small, commensurate with their population share, but small is better than virtually zero for reliably red states like Wyoming or reliably blue states like Vermont.

Why would the larger states, by population, agree to a system for allocating their electoral vote other than "winner take all"?

Because it gives them more weight if it applies to every state.

A constitutional amendment might not even be necessary if the National Popular Vote passes and is not blocked by SCOTUS. It would only have to pass in states that account for 270 EVs.

But 270 is beside the point in this discussion. Whether we are talking about 270 EV or 50%+1 popular vote, fringe candidates are not going to get either.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What is a good candidate? One who stands for something or one who can get 270? Why not have both? But if you could have both you wouldn't be discussing Hillary W. Bush. Maybe the fact that you've already thrown in the towel and accepted Hillary as your candidate long before the first vote is even cast is why you can't have someone better.

Well, There's only two people running now: omalley and Clinton. I like Clinton so far, but it's early. Do you consider that as 'throwing in the towel"?

 

[Ford]

What is a good candidate? One who stands for something or one who can get 270? Why not have both? But if you could have both you wouldn't be discussing Hillary W. Bush. Maybe the fact that you've already thrown in the towel and accepted Hillary as your candidate long before the first vote is even cast is why you can't have someone better.

Well, There's only two people running now: omalley and Clinton. I like Clinton so far, but it's early. Do you consider that as 'throwing in the towel"?

psst...you're supposed to support the as-yet-to-be-announced genuinely progressive challenger.

 

[Terrell]

What do you define as a good candidate, and can they get to 270 votes in the electoral college?

What is a good candidate? One who stands for something or one who can get 270? Why not have both? But if you could have both you wouldn't be discussing Hillary W. Bush.

Maybe the fact that you've already thrown in the towel and accepted Hillary as your candidate long before the first vote is even cast is why you can't have someone better.

What one stands for is meaningless if they cannot get to 270 as they have no power to either sign favorable legislation or veto unfavorable legislation. Not to mention appointments to both the cabinet & the courts. If a candidate stands for something & can get to 270, whether or not they're a better candidate depends on what they stand for. Who controls the Congress also matters.

Actually most small states would benefit from popular vote. Sure, their influence would be small, commensurate with their population share, but small is better than virtually zero for reliably red states like Wyoming or reliably blue states like Vermont.

Why would the larger states, by population, agree to a system for allocating their electoral vote other than "winner take all"?

Because it gives them more weight if it applies to every state.

A constitutional amendment might not even be necessary if the National Popular Vote passes and is not blocked by SCOTUS. It would only have to pass in states that account for 270 EVs.

But 270 is beside the point in this discussion. Whether we are talking about 270 EV or 50%+1 popular vote, fringe candidates are not going to get either.

The smaller states (by population) get more bang for their buck with the electoral college, since they have fewer voters per elector compared to larger states. (their representation is greater in proportion to their population, compared to larger states) A state that's solidly in one column or the other, regardless of it's population isn't going to receive the same level of attention from the major parties that a contested state.

Problem with national popular vote is, how do you prevent any of the states that agreed to this from reneging should it be favorable to them to do so?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What is a good candidate? One who stands for something or one who can get 270? Why not have both? But if you could have both you wouldn't be discussing Hillary W. Bush.

Maybe the fact that you've already thrown in the towel and accepted Hillary as your candidate long before the first vote is even cast is why you can't have someone better.

What one stands for is meaningless if they cannot get to 270 as they have no power to either sign favorable legislation or veto unfavorable legislation. Not to mention appointments to both the cabinet & the courts. If a candidate stands for something & can get to 270, whether or not they're a better candidate depends on what they stand for. Who controls the Congress also matters.

It doesn't matter how bad they are if they can get 270. If Rick Perry changed parties and challenged Hillary, he'd be good too because he can get 270. Policy be damned, it's all about 270 (and the party letter after the name).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What one stands for is meaningless if they cannot get to 270 as they have no power to either sign favorable legislation or veto unfavorable legislation. Not to mention appointments to both the cabinet & the courts. If a candidate stands for something & can get to 270, whether or not they're a better candidate depends on what they stand for. Who controls the Congress also matters.

It doesn't matter how bad they are if they can get 270. If Rick Perry changed parties and challenged Hillary, he'd be good too because he can get 270. Policy be damned, it's all about 270 (and the party letter after the name).

Rick Perry could not get 270 EVs.

 

[Terrell]

What one stands for is meaningless if they cannot get to 270 as they have no power to either sign favorable legislation or veto unfavorable legislation. Not to mention appointments to both the cabinet & the courts. If a candidate stands for something & can get to 270, whether or not they're a better candidate depends on what they stand for. Who controls the Congress also matters.

It doesn't matter how bad they are if they can get 270. If Rick Perry changed parties and challenged Hillary, he'd be good too because he can get 270. Policy be damned, it's all about 270 (and the party letter after the name).

You must have missed this, if you're saying if you think my position is it doesn't matter how bad a particular candidate is.

Jerry Brown.

Perhaps, is he running?

Who is your alternative, with a realistic shot of getting elected?

doesn't answer the question posed, but then again, it's not supposed to, now is it?

I'm not moving from the question I asked until it's answered.

Try again.

No it's not, it's just to point out that you can't always get what you want. If what you want is entirely out of reach, does it not make sense to get at least someone who isn't flat out hostile to what you want? The presidency is going to go to either a Democrat or a Republican, if there's a realistic alternative to that possibility, it has yet to present itself.

As for Hillary Clinton, she should run as the person she is. The left can either go for idealism, or pragmatism. Own your choice either way.

Personally I think that HRC is a centrist Democrat, at least by the standards of American politics. I'd take a centrist Democrat appointing Federal Judges over a Republican any day of the week. I don't expect more Ruth Bader Ginsberg or someone further left than her, but I'll take a Justice comparable to Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan over Justices comparable to Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. I don't believe for a second that John McCain or Mitt Romney would appoint Supreme Court Justices of comparable ideological views to President Obama's appointments. I think the same would apply to Hillary Clinton vs. whomever the Republican nominee is.

I have my doubts that President Obama will be successful in making a nuclear deal with Iran, especially considering the current behavior of Congress, but I wouldn't expect McCain or Romney to even try. McCain, I think would push for war instead, I'm not sure about Romney. IMO war with Iran is a very bad idea. I don't know if Iran can be stopped from getting nuclear weapons either way. Of my realistic choices for 2016 I think the Democratic nominee, most likely Hillary Clinton, is the least likely of the candidates to start a war with Iran. While the Green Party would almost certainly oppose war with Iran, it's also almost certain that they won't even get 1 electoral vote. I'd be surprised if they got 5% of the popular vote.

 

[fromderinside]

re: is he running?

He's hoping Silicon valley comes up with a time machine real quick. Then .......?

 

[Terrell]

re: is he running?

He's hoping Silicon valley comes up with a time machine real quick. Then .......?

I don't know, you brought him up as an alternative to HRC.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Who is your alternative, with a realistic shot of getting elected?

Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, even Brian Schweitzer.

O'Malley:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...81178a-ea9d-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html

 

[Derec]

The smaller states (by population) get more bang for their buck with the electoral college, since they have fewer voters per elector compared to larger states. (their representation is greater in proportion to their population, compared to larger states)

I understand the math of small states getting more EVs per capita than bigger states. My point is that "bang" is not the same as number of EVs. A handful of swing, purple states get all the bang regardless of

A state that's solidly in one column or the other, regardless of it's population isn't going to receive the same level of attention from the major parties that a contested state.

That's my point and that applies only with the state-by-state EC model. With a national popular vote each vote would count the same, be the state big or small, red, blue or purple.

Problem with national popular vote is, how do you prevent any of the states that agreed to this from reneging should it be favorable to them to do so?

It would be enacted as a binding law. Of course SCOTUS might declare such laws unconstitutional and it might not rule until after the fact, so there's that risk. But I think it's worth the the risk to defang the Electoral College if we can't get rid of it altogether through an amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, even Brian Schweitzer.

O'Malley:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...81178a-ea9d-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html

So he's gonna lose the rioter vote. Big deal!

 

[Terrell]

I understand the math of small states getting more EVs per capita than bigger states. My point is that "bang" is not the same as number of EVs. A handful of swing, purple states get all the bang regardless of

A state that's solidly in one column or the other, regardless of it's population isn't going to receive the same level of attention from the major parties that a contested state.

That's my point and that applies only with the state-by-state EC model. With a national popular vote each vote would count the same, be the state big or small, red, blue or purple.

Problem with national popular vote is, how do you prevent any of the states that agreed to this from reneging should it be favorable to them to do so?

It would be enacted as a binding law. Of course SCOTUS might declare such laws unconstitutional and it might not rule until after the fact, so there's that risk. But I think it's worth the the risk to defang the Electoral College if we can't get rid of it altogether through an amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, even Brian Schweitzer.

O'Malley:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...81178a-ea9d-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html

So he's gonna lose the rioter vote. Big deal!

I think we agree more than we disagree, but I'm not sure. I do think that in cases like 2000 the states would prefer whichever system benefits their favored candidate, big or small. I think that the smaller states might like the current setup, not having foresight of when the popular vote and electoral college disagree, if they think it favors their interests.

On the equal counting of votes, I don't know. It may be a double-edged sword. I could see the parties putting more "get out the vote" efforts, if necessary, to those areas within states that favor their preferred ideology. I think most of the resources, used for persuasion, would still go to the swing areas. In some of the smaller states there may not be any swing areas big enough to attract national attention. Maybe the small states benefit from the get out the vote effort, maybe not. I'm not sure.

I do agree that the electoral college needs to vacation with the non-avian dinosaurs, permanently. I'm ambivalent on whether or not the risk is worth it on the national popular vote initiative, absent some federal law backing it. I guess I'd have to see a case where it happened and the resulting outcome to be sure. I'd like to see the Constitution amended to remove the renege factor.