OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
It used to be that Americans were top dogs in the world, we did whatever we wanted because we could. [/quote]

We still are the top dogs in terms of military, cultural, and economic might. But instead of being the top dog by a country mile, we’re now in a position closer to a plurality.

Obviously this isn’t post WWII when Europe was decimated, China was still mostly a nation of farmers and the US far and away was THE superpower, with the USSR a distant second. The US hugely benefited in the 50s and 60s from brain draining Germany and the Soviets. That period was so great for America in part because we were the top dogs by default, and in part because we could basically pick and choose anyone we wanted to join our team.

I’m disappointed that no one seems to want to “Make America Great Again” by investing in science and (non-military) technology. A commitment to public research, in part because of the Cold War, is part of why America was so great in the past. Now we just don’t seem to care as much about progress and growth.

[outtamojo]

[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=FlyerInHi]
It used to be that Americans were top dogs in the world, we did whatever we wanted because we could. [/quote]

We still are the top dogs in terms of military, cultural, and economic might. But instead of being the top dog by a country mile, we’re now in a position closer to a plurality.

Obviously this isn’t post WWII when Europe was decimated, China was still mostly a nation of farmers and the US far and away was THE superpower, with the USSR a distant second. The US hugely benefited in the 50s and 60s from brain draining Germany and the Soviets. That period was so great for America in part because we were the top dogs by default, and in part because we could basically pick and choose anyone we wanted to join our team.

I’m disappointed that no one seems to want to “Make America Great Again” by investing in science and (non-military) technology. A commitment to public research, in part because of the Cold War, is part of why America was so great in the past. Now we just don’t seem to care as much about progress and growth.[/quote]

Yeah who needs science when we’ve got reality tv and the khardashians and big butts that don’t need no explainin.

[spdrun]

What’s disappointing is that all of the candidates that are heavily supportive of NASA are either berzerk in other ways or have no chance of winning (Bush the Third).

[FlyerInHi]

Some people are technophobes. They are obsessed with drill-baby-drill and don’t even want efficiency improvements that make our lives better.

Read about the opposition to air conditioning efficiency and the roll back of SEER standards. Or the incandescent light bulb act. Who uses incandescent at 100w a pop these days?

[temeculaguy]

[quote=outtamojo]

Yeah who needs science when we’ve got reality tv and the khardashians and big butts that don’t need no explainin.[/quote]

Hold it right there! Admittedly I have never watched an episode of the Khardashians and can probably only name three (one being Bruce) but big butts I will defend with my last breath. The Brazilian Butt Lift fat transfer (not implants) along with yoga pants has made the world a better place. Whoever perfected the surgery that transfers love handles to big butts deserves a medal!!! Men decry plastic surgery in public but as soon as someone perfects a safe and reliable male augmentation surgery, I’m going into the surgery loan business.

Bernie would get my vote if butt augmentation surgery was part of his universal health care, strictly from a spectator’s point of view.

On that note, my low 20’s kids freaking love Bernie, as do all their college aged or recent graduate friends. Hillary does not resonate with the young people, her voice annoys the shit out of me and deja vu, she’s starting to lose her lead like she did against Obama at this same spot 8 years ago. I was working on my taxes today and all this Bernie talk forced me to evaluate how bad of a hit I’m going to take of he wins. It turns out, probably not too bad, so the world won’t end if he wins and as a heathen, I like that he doesn’t go to church.

I’ll modify my prediction, Sanders vs Trump. Not sure who wins but their debates will be must see TV. I’m cool with either winning. Just anyone other than Hillary will make me happy, or Ted Cruz, he annoys me as well. BTW it’s not because she is a woman, in fact any other woman would be fine, just not her. Even Amy Pohler pretending to be Hillary works for me. Actually Tina Fey pretending to be Palin is better than Palin as a VP choice. I’m going to research the person someone called “just like Palin with a brain.” It boggles my mind, I’m ready for a female president, I’ve had awesome female bosses/leaders in the last decade, I think it’s time. But the only two either party has sent out are these two, really!!!

Lets say Trump wins nomination as does Hillary, or it’s Bernie and Cruz, if I were Trump or Bernie, my VP choice would be Trump/Bernie and the reverse is true. Neither are beholden to their chosen party and they would each assuage the fears of the other side of the spectrum. If this happens, I demand full credit, plus I’ll be emailing them if either of them win the nomination.

[zk]

Trump vs. Sanders could happen. And if it does, there’s a good chance it would be Trump vs. Sanders vs. Bloomberg. I was going to say that I think that, unlike any 3rd party candidate in recent history, he’d have a decent chance of winning. Then I read the about the twelfth amendment, which includes this:

The person having the greatest number of [electoral] votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote…

Am I reading that wrong? If no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, than it no longer matters who the people voted for? And even if the representatives from each state were conscientious enough to vote for the candidate who won their state’s popular vote, Wyoming and Alaska and Alabama added up would count the same as California, New York, and Texas added up?

Please tell me I’m reading that wrong.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]Trump vs. Sanders could happen. And if it does, there’s a good chance it would be Trump vs. Sanders vs. Bloomberg. I was going to say that I think that, unlike any 3rd party candidate in recent history, he’d have a decent chance of winning. Then I read the about the twelfth amendment, which includes this:

The person having the greatest number of [electoral] votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote…

Am I reading that wrong? If no candidate gets a majority of electoral votes, than it no longer matters who the people voted for? And even if the representatives from each state were conscientious enough to vote for the candidate who won their state’s popular vote, Wyoming and Alaska and Alabama added up would count the same as California, New York, and Texas added up?

Please tell me I’m reading that wrong.[/quote]

This is completely correct. If nobody gets the 270 majority of electoral votes then the house of representative delegation for each each gets 1 vote for the president. Interestingly enough the Senate elects the Vice President by the same method if this were to happen. The constitution was created with strong protections for state rights and equal treatment so it doesn’t surprise me that each state would get an equal vote in process. We really haven’t changed much about the system in the past 100+ years.

I could certainly see the possibility of this happening with a Bloomberg/Sanders/Trump election. Bloomberg and Sanders split the various blue states and Trump taking most of the Red States. Of course in that scenario Trump might actually win pluralities in some solidly blue states. Take a state like CA. Republicans usually take about 35-40% of the vote here but if democrats split equally between Sanders and Bloomberg here you could end up with Trump wining a plurality. I have no idea how something like that might split out.

[spdrun]

If the popular vote is grossly ignored, I hope we end up with riots in the streets and a revolution. I mean that in the most literal sense possible.

[moneymaker]

If both Trump and Bernie are not nominated do either of them have a chance as write in candidates? It really bothers me that so many people vote party line without even thinking about what the candidates stand for.

[poorgradstudent]

I’m calling my shot now that Ben Carson will finish Iowa a lot lower than the 8% he’s roughly polling.

This could lead to a Cruz victory, because Cruz has seemed to be the one who has gobbled up the most of Carson’s supporters as Carson’s polls have collapsed.

I’m very eager to see the results from Iowa.

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]If the popular vote is grossly ignored, I hope we end up with riots in the streets and a revolution. I mean that in the most literal sense possible.[/quote]

We live under a constitutional republic. It was specifically designed this way so that majorities couldn’t repress minorities. There were checks and balances such that a small state like Road Island had an equal say about government activities as the larger states at lease in some branches of government. It’s always convenient to say majority rule goes right up until your on the wrong side of the majority. It’s good that we have these checks and balances. That said it would be next impossible for someone to massively win the popular vote and fail to get 50% of the electoral college.

[spdrun]

The Electoral Kludge is irrelevant in 2016. It’s not a check on populism — the courts are the check on populism. Why should a voter in RI have more power to elect a President than someone living a mile away in MA?

It essentially introduces an element of random error into what would otherwise be a fair election. We’re not a government of the states, we’re a government of the people.

[utcsox]

Sean Trende of the RealClear Politics has a three-part series about the rise of Donald Trump. I have to admit Trump is a lot more electable than I first think he is. I can see why the Republican establishment is warming up to him…..

Here are the links below; I highly recommend reading it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/27/the_meaning_of_trump_129454.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/28/cruz_trump_and_the_missing_white_voters_129465.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/29/why_trump_why_now_129486.html

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]

This is completely correct. If nobody gets the 270 majority of electoral votes then the house of representative delegation for each each gets 1 vote for the president. Interestingly enough the Senate elects the Vice President by the same method if this were to happen. The constitution was created with strong protections for state rights and equal treatment so it doesn’t surprise me that each state would get an equal vote in process. We really haven’t changed much about the system in the past 100+ years.
[/quote]
I don’t see how counting the votes of 40 million people of one state the same as the votes of 600,000 people of another state is protecting “state rights.”
[quote=livinincali]
I could certainly see the possibility of this happening with a Bloomberg/Sanders/Trump election. Bloomberg and Sanders split the various blue states and Trump taking most of the Red States. Of course in that scenario Trump might actually win pluralities in some solidly blue states. Take a state like CA. Republicans usually take about 35-40% of the vote here but if democrats split equally between Sanders and Bloomberg here you could end up with Trump wining a plurality. I have no idea how something like that might split out. [/quote]
I see Bloomberg taking as many votes from Trump as from Sanders. A lot of republicans are relatively sane, and think Trump would be a disaster.

[quote=livinincali]

We live under a constitutional republic. It was specifically designed this way so that majorities couldn’t repress minorities.
[/quote]
Giving a state with 40 million people more of a vote than a state with 600,000 is not repressing minorities.

[quote=livinincali]

…it would be next impossible for someone to massively win the popular vote and fail to get 50% of the electoral college.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by massively (nor am I sure why you seem to imply that it’s not important what happens when a candidate wins by a solid but not massive margin), but it would be very easy to win the popular vote in a 3-candidate race by a solid margin and fail to get 50% of the electoral college.

To have congressmen choose a president is really bad. To have them choose a president in a way that a Wyomingan’s vote essentially counts 65 times as much as a Californian’s is a travesty of democracy.

[Coronita]

[quote=zk]

I see Bloomberg taking as many votes from Trump as from Sanders. A lot of republicans are relatively sane, and think Trump would be a disaster.
[/quote]

Personally, I am either going to vote for a third party this year or not vote at all. I can’t bring myself to voting for Trump. It’s not Trump by itself that bothers me, it’s a lot of his voter base.

I can’t bring myself to voting for Hillary or Bernie either, nor Cruz.

The only viable candidate from the GOP that I would consider is maybe Rubio. But I don’t think he’s going to make it.

[Author]

Posts