US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[MarkW]

Is still a democratically elected president with just a 40% of the vote?

In the US, yes. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln won under 40% of the nationwide popular vote (in a 4-man race). As virtually all of his vote was in the North and Midwest, he won a clear majority in the electoral college. In 1912, Woodrow Wilson took the election with under 42% of the popular vote due to the Republican party split between Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft.

 

[Deepak]

Yes, if 40% is the most a single candidates get.

Sorry, there's no rule that says "The winner of the election will be the one that gets the majority of the vote. If no one gets the majority, the candidate that angelo prefers is the winner."

I think run off elections are a good idea, the problem being in America there's so much problem with voter turn out and suppression that it would favor truly minority candidates.

Runoff voting would only serve to increase the turnout. I know it's in vogue to trot out the stupid-fat-lazy American trope, but most people don't turn out because they don't believe the system provides them with candidates they can get behind. This is in speaking to people from both parties - the consistent thread ends up being to vote for candidate X because the other party's guy would be terrible, not vote for candidate X because I like him. FPTP and winner takes all states practically ensure that.

And unlike Tristan - I'm not so hopeful about a shift to the left from the Ds. They'll likely see Sanders' support (and supporters) as failures and if anything I expect them to shift right even if the Rs implode due to a brokered convention/Trump 3rd party run.

This is the same party who implemented the Heritage Foundation's cap & trade and health care scheme, basically wholesale implementations of the R platform from the 90s, while simultaneously getting the shit kicked out of them by the Rs for being 'socialists'.

Ob la di, Ob la da - but I wouldn't ask any of these people to so much as negotiate a decent price on a used car for me.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes, if 40% is the most a single candidates get.

Sorry, there's no rule that says "The winner of the election will be the one that gets the majority of the vote. If no one gets the majority, the candidate that angelo prefers is the winner."

I think run off elections are a good idea, the problem being in America there's so much problem with voter turn out and suppression that it would favor truly minority candidates.

Runoff voting would only serve to increase the turnout. I know it's in vogue to trot out the stupid-fat-lazy American trope, but most people don't turn out because they don't believe the system provides them with candidates they can get behind. This is in speaking to people from both parties - the consistent thread ends up being to vote for candidate X because the other party's guy would be terrible, not vote for candidate X because I like him. FPTP and winner takes all states practically ensure that.

And unlike Tristan - I'm not so hopeful about a shift to the left from the Ds. They'll likely see Sanders' support (and supporters) as failures and if anything I expect them to shift right even if the Rs implode due to a brokered convention/Trump 3rd party run.

This is the same party who implemented the Heritage Foundation's cap & trade and health care scheme, basically wholesale implementations of the R platform from the 90s, while simultaneously getting the shit kicked out of them by the Rs for being 'socialists'.

Ob la di, Ob la da - but I wouldn't ask any of these people to so much as negotiate a decent price on a used car for me.

Pretty much this. Without Sanders in the nomination I pretty much have no reason to vote at all; Hilary Clinton would be a terrible president for entirely different reasons than Trump would be a terrible president. Voting for EITHER of them would be a waste of ink.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Runoff voting would only serve to increase the turnout. I know it's in vogue to trot out the stupid-fat-lazy American trope, but most people don't turn out because they don't believe the system provides them with candidates they can get behind. This is in speaking to people from both parties - the consistent thread ends up being to vote for candidate X because the other party's guy would be terrible, not vote for candidate X because I like him. FPTP and winner takes all states practically ensure that.

And unlike Tristan - I'm not so hopeful about a shift to the left from the Ds. They'll likely see Sanders' support (and supporters) as failures and if anything I expect them to shift right even if the Rs implode due to a brokered convention/Trump 3rd party run.

This is the same party who implemented the Heritage Foundation's cap & trade and health care scheme, basically wholesale implementations of the R platform from the 90s, while simultaneously getting the shit kicked out of them by the Rs for being 'socialists'.

Ob la di, Ob la da - but I wouldn't ask any of these people to so much as negotiate a decent price on a used car for me.

Pretty much this. Without Sanders in the nomination I pretty much have no reason to vote at all; Hilary Clinton would be a terrible president for entirely different reasons than Trump would be a terrible president. Voting for EITHER of them would be a waste of ink.

No problemo. But would you agree to not bitch when the country goes to hell under a Trump presidency? (so sick of Nader voters complaining about GW!)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Pretty much this. Without Sanders in the nomination I pretty much have no reason to vote at all; Hilary Clinton would be a terrible president for entirely different reasons than Trump would be a terrible president. Voting for EITHER of them would be a waste of ink.

No problemo. But would you agree to not bitch when the country goes to hell under a Trump presidency? (so sick of Nader voters complaining about GW!)

I'll agree not to bitch about Trump SPECIFICALLY.

I do, however, reserve the right to point out what a horrible shit sandwich his presidency will turn out to be. I say "will" because I expect the cable media to turn on Hillary the moment the Hill v Trump showdown begins and there is no candidate on Earth -- other than possibly Obama -- that Republicans hate more than Hillary Clinton.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No problemo. But would you agree to not bitch when the country goes to hell under a Trump presidency? (so sick of Nader voters complaining about GW!)

I'll agree not to bitch about Trump SPECIFICALLY.

I do, however, reserve the right to point out what a horrible shit sandwich his presidency will turn out to be. I say "will" because I expect the cable media to turn on Hillary the moment the Hill v Trump showdown begins and there is no candidate on Earth -- other than possibly Obama -- that Republicans hate more than Hillary Clinton.

Good deal. You're a better man than me!

 

[RavenSky]

Whatever happens between now and November, surely a democratic victory cannot be good for America and democracy.

No, it'll be fine. Clinton will be a competent and effective President, if not a particularly revolutionary one, and the Sanders supporters are well positioned to start a Tea Party like movement and give the left wing a real voice in the country. Trump's run may effectively burn the GOP to the ground and there's a chance that someone sensible might come along and rebuild it as something not quite so batshit crazy and give voters a real choice.

Things are actually looking up in the US.

I hope so

 

[RavenSky]

Without Sanders in the nomination I pretty much have no reason to vote at all; Hilary Clinton would be a terrible president for entirely different reasons than Trump would be a terrible president. Voting for EITHER of them would be a waste of ink.

Reason: Supreme Court nominations

 

[MarkW]

Without Sanders in the nomination I pretty much have no reason to vote at all; Hilary Clinton would be a terrible president for entirely different reasons than Trump would be a terrible president. Voting for EITHER of them would be a waste of ink.

Reason: Supreme Court nominations

And appellate court nominations, and heads of important regulatory agencies, and lots of nitty-gritty policy details that will be handled very differently under a Democratic president than under a Republican one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Without Sanders in the nomination I pretty much have no reason to vote at all; Hilary Clinton would be a terrible president for entirely different reasons than Trump would be a terrible president. Voting for EITHER of them would be a waste of ink.

Reason: Supreme Court nominations

This. Even if Hillary was as bad as The Big Fart she'll still have much better picks for the court.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Without Sanders in the nomination I pretty much have no reason to vote at all; Hilary Clinton would be a terrible president for entirely different reasons than Trump would be a terrible president. Voting for EITHER of them would be a waste of ink.

Reason: Supreme Court nominations

Where she might just turn out to be as big a disappointment in this area as she has been in every other area. But better not risk going for good when bad under the correct party label exists.

 

[James Brown]

I’ve long made this case . . . for example here in 2008: a New York Times infographic by Tommy McCall showing how $10,000 invested in the S&P since 1929 only under Republican presidents would have grown to $11,733 but to $300,671 under Democrats...

Vote blue, boys and girls.

Because as I’ve argued before, it’s not one of those flukes without causation — like the way you could seemingly predict the market depending on who won the Super Bowl. Republicans and Democrats have different governing philosophies that cause different economic outcomes.

Link

 

[Ford]

Whatever happens between now and November, surely a democratic victory cannot be good for America and democracy.

No, it'll be fine. Clinton will be a competent and effective President, if not a particularly revolutionary one, and the Sanders supporters are well positioned to start a Tea Party like movement and give the left wing a real voice in the country. Trump's run may effectively burn the GOP to the ground and there's a chance that someone sensible might come along and rebuild it as something not quite so batshit crazy and give voters a real choice.

Things are actually looking up in the US.

I dunno. I was watching Ted Cruz on Meet the Press this morning and he seemed pretty convinced that if Hillary gets elected America will effectively cease to exist. We'll have our guns taken away, our religious liberty will mean nothing, there will be live abortions on television, and the official language will change to either Spanish or Arabic...not sure which.

Of course there is the very remote possibility that Cruz wasn't being entirely honest and was just using the opportunity of national television coverage to repeat his talking points, but just to be safe we should probably vote for anyone other than Hillary. I was planning a nice vacation for early next year and I can't very well enjoy it with the country being destroyed and stuff.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, my bad then. I don't feel qualified to question Mr Cruz's positions.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I do! Cruz, he a kook! Luckily, he does not seem likely to be president. Unfortunately, after he loses, he comes back to Texas.

 

[angelo]

Christ, even Hillary sounds good in comparison to Cruze!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Christ, even Hillary sounds good in comparison to Cruze!

How charitable of you.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Wheeeee! Here we go! Will Trump crush Cruz? Will Cruz win in Indiana? The battle is on. For Cruz, it's probably make or break. The few states left Cruz can take, the Dakotas, perhaps Wyoming have few delegates.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It'll be interesting. A solid Trump win really puts the screws to Cruz in California. And Kasich has to think about pausing, as he has really accomplished little. Rubio stepped out and still has more delegates than Kasich after a dozen or so more primaries (maybe more?).

Is Trump going to win the first ballot after all? Would this be a good time to note that Trump doesn't have enough money to run for President if the Party doesn't help him?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Even if Trump doesn't win on the first ballot, I can't see him losing on the 2nd or 3rd ballot. The GOP just cannot get away at this point in helicoptering in somebody else, and they aren't friendly to Cruz. If they cheat Trump out of the nomination, the Trumpistas will punish them by staying home, come election day.