[zk]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I just watched Romey’s speech.
At this point I doubt Trump supporter care what the establishment is saying. They want “down to earth” speech, not “elitist” political talk…

On the bright side, we now know what the Republican base is all about.[/quote]

Here’s an article showing that Romney was saying many of the same things in 2012 that Trump is saying now. But he was saying it more nicely and, sometimes, in code.

From that article,

“Trumpism is Republican conservatism stripped of its politesse.”

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/opinions/mitt-romney-gop-trump-waldman/

But then Trump adds the truth about what republicans have really been doing “for” the working class:

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/listen_to_the_donald_trump_voters_it_has_taken_an_ignorant_demagogue_to_tell_truth_about_gop_humiliate_party_establishment/

It was a genius reading of the working-class voter by Trump. Hence the votes.

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]

You do remember this factor correct? In a 4 person race the odds are probably even higher for congress to get the privilege of electing the next president.

[/quote]

Yes, I do remember. It’s a shame that, in any 3-or-more-way race, it’s not unlikely that the people will not end up electing the president. When something as important as the selection of the president is involved, an outdated amendment (or provision of the original constitution) that takes away the power of the people’s votes should be fixed.

If it’s Clinton vs. Trump vs. Rubio, and Clinton (or Trump) wins the popular vote, with Rubio coming in a not-very-strong third, and Rubio ends up being elected by the house (not unlikely), I think you’ll see a lot of people surprised that that’s the process, and then I think you’ll see a lot of consternation that that’s the process, and then I think you’ll see an outcry about that being the process, and then I think you’ll see a strong push to fix that part of the election process. But, with Rubio in office, and that process heavily favoring conservatives, I think you’ll see that push fail. Until a democrat is in office, at which point it will succeed. It shouldn’t be about democrat vs. republican, it should be about the will of the people. But it’s not about the will of the people. And that needs to be fixed.

[zk]

This is just crazy, and highly unlikely, but a 4-way race would be fascinating. Clinton vs. Rubio vs. Trump vs. Bloomberg. I think Bloomberg would have a real shot in that race. Or any race he’s in, really.

[zk]

Possible scenario:

Trump falls just short of the delegates needed to win on the first ballot. On a subsequent ballot, the republican party nominates Rubio (or Bush, or Romney, or Ryan, etc). Trump, having pledged not to run as a 3rd party candidate, does so anyway. The republican party nominated somebody else despite the fact that he, Trump, got far more votes than anyone else, so why would he abide by a pledge he made to them? Probably, at this point, Hillary would win the general election.

If the republicans nominate Rubio, (or maybe one of the others), and Trump doesn’t run, the republican nominee would have a decent shot at beating Hillary. Maybe… What about this:

If Trump ends up with a solid plurality of delegates, but not quite enough to win on the first ballot, and the republicans nominate somebody else, and Trump doesn’t run as a 3rd party candidate, what are all those Trump voters going to do? They’re already angry. They already feel like they don’t have a voice (research is showing that feeling like you don’t have a voice in the direction of this country is the most accurate predictor of whether you’re a Trump fan or not). You take millions of angry people who don’t feel like they have a voice, and then you TELL them that they don’t have a voice by nominating someone other than the candidate that got the most votes. Someone other than their candidate, the one that was speaking for them, giving them a voice. Who got more votes than anyone else, by a large margin. You tell them: Your vote doesn’t matter. You don’t matter. Fuck off. We, the republican elite, will decide who your president will be. And you, you go ahead and go back to not mattering. You go back to being nothing.

I’m not a guy who sees revolt around every corner. And, even in the above scenario, I don’t think much would come of it, other than futile, impotent, raging, short-lived anger. But if ever there were a recipe for revolt, short of hunger and imprisonment, it seems to me that would be it.

[zk]

Another (slim, but not super-slim) possibility: The republican primary in California actually matters. The last day of primary voting is June 7. Winner-take-all republican primaries in California, New Jersey, Montana, and South Dakota. Also voting in D.C., North Carolina, and New Mexico. If Trump needs some of those states to reach the number required to win the nomination on the first ballot, that would be interesting. The GOP would probably working hard to prevent him from getting those votes. And he’d be working hard to get them. And we’d be eating popcorn and watching.

[zk]

This topic has come up quite a few times before, and it might be useful to read some of the old threads. I don’t know how much things have changed, but this one is from 2011:

http://piggington.com/how_about_steeplechase_area

In that thread, I said:

All in all, we loved living [in Scripps Ranch]. As I said in a previous post, I think Scripps Ranch is a real sweet spot. The weather isn’t too hot, there are lots of families, the schools are good, and the houses are less expensive than CV. If you want to pay 15% more for slightly better schools, 8-10 degree cooler weather in the summer, a shorter drive to the beach, and, depending where you work, maybe a shorter commute, then Carmel Valley is a good spot for you.

And I still feel that way. Scripps Ranch is nice.

But there is one neighborhood in Carmel Valley that has what I think is a rare sense of community these days: Palacio Del Mar. We have lots of friends who live there, and many of them talk about how much they love the sense of community. It’s a gated community, and it’s perceived as relatively safe. Nowadays, there aren’t as many kids playing outside as there used to be. You’ll find more kids playing outside there than any place else I’ve seen recently. Halloween is a big deal there. Parents seem a bit more likely to let their kids go unsupervised (within the community) than most places. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing. They have a 9-hole golf course and two nice community pools. The HOA fees were around $270/month last I checked, but I believe the houses are slightly cheaper than most of Carmel Valley. There are a lot of smaller (and therefore more affordable) houses there. Obviously that won’t be a great fit for everyone, but something to consider.

………………

Here’s one from a year ago:

http://piggington.com/scripps_ranch_2

……………….

These are from 2007:

http://piggington.com/4s_ranch_vs_carmel_valley

http://piggington.com/good_place_to_live_with_children?page=1

http://piggington.com/seeking_advice_buying_in_carmel_valley_vs_4s_ranch
……………….

Here’s some more from 2011

http://piggington.com/help_me_piggs_you039re_my_only_hope

http://piggington.com/4s_ranch_vs_carmel_valley_schools
………………..
This one is from 2013, and, while the title makes it seem not very directly related, it swerved into more related topics, and it has some good info:

http://piggington.com/which_public_schools_are_better_carmel_valley_or_la_jolla

In that thread, I said:

A word on the weather. You may already know all this, but just in case…
In May and June, we have “May gray” and “June gloom.” It’s frequently cloudy in the mornings and at night. Sometimes all day. The further you go inland, the less cloud cover you’ll have.
Also, it’s pretty cool (temperature-wise) near the coast. If you like highs in the upper ’60s and low ’70s, right along the coast is good. Every mile you go inland makes a difference. In Carmel Valley (about 3 miles inland) it’s in the low ’70s almost every day in the summer. Which sounds really nice. And I guess it is. But I’ve found it a bit cool for my taste. And it’s cool every night (except a few nights during the strongest Santa Anas). Great sleeping weather, but you’ll need a jacket if you want to spend much time outside at night. Even in July and August. In Scripps Ranch and Poway (9-12 miles inland), it’ll be 6-15 degrees warmer than Carmel Valley, depending on the microclimate where you are. That usually varies depending on how much air flow you get from the ocean. The more seabreeze, the cooler, obviously. You’ll get less cloud cover out there, too.
The real beauty is you can pick exactly how warm you want it to be. La Jolla and Del Mar, Carmel Valley, Santa Luz (you might check that out) and Rancho Penasquitos, Scripps Ranch, Poway. Each of these is a bit warmer than the previous.
Good luck and enjoy the great weather!

…………..

Here’s one from 2006:

http://piggington.com/best_communities_of_san_diego

…………..

From 2009:

http://piggington.com/scripps_ranchwhat_say_you?page=1

and

http://piggington.com/del_sur_vs_4s_0

…………..

From 2010:

http://piggington.com/looking_for_good_family_area_that_i_can_commute_from_to_el_cajon

……………..

In the “forum” area, there’s a section called “properties or areas.”

Most of the above are linked there, plus dozens of others. Here’s the link:

http://piggington.com/taxonomy/term/21/termsofuse

[zk]

[quote=Blogstar]9-10AM , weekends. If I see guest showing up at the neighbor’s place , or getting together in the back yard then I’ll quit and do the work another time and let them enjoy their visit.[/quote]

That’s very neighborly! Kudos for that.

[zk]

[quote=svelte]

That’s my impression too, which means Dem turnout may be low. What may bring liberal leaners out to vote, however, is the MJ initiatives in many states.[/quote]

If it’s Hillary vs. Trump, I don’t think the democratic turnout will be low. Not because anybody’s super-excited about Hillary, but because they’d be super-excited about making sure Trump didn’t win.

To me, though, the brokered convention looks more likely than ever, with Rubio the nominee.

[zk]

[quote=paramount][quote=outtamojo]Actually, there is a big labor case being argued at the moment involving public sector Unions- Friedrich vs California Teachers Association.[/quote]

ding ding ding ding[/quote]

Wow. They probably did kill him. And, since you let the cat out of the bag, you’re probably next. I hope you’re reading this from a secure bunker in a secret location.

[zk]

[quote=paramount]
R u kidding!? That’s all I’m saying -> I don’t want to end up with a pillow on my face![/quote]

List of things that might kill you (paramount), in descending order of likelihood :

1.Cardiovascular disease
2.Cancer
3 through 6,377,843.other things
6,377,844. An infection caused by the bite of a gypsy to whom you owed money.
6,377,845 to 8,457,142. other things
8,457,143. An infection caused by the bite of a gypsy who thought you owed him money (but he had the wrong guy).
8,457,144. Ebola
8,457,145. Being hit directly by a meteor
8,457,146. Santa Claus
8,457,147. CTA (whoever/whatever that is), even if you type what “CTA” stands for.

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]

Well first of all our government isn’t a pure democracy. It’s a constitutional republic and it was specifically designed that way to prevent tyranny. The founders decided that if you couldn’t manage greater than 50% of the electoral college that congress would decide the president.
[/quote]
You’re going to have to explain to me how that last sentence relates to the first two sentences.

Yes, I get that our government isn’t a pure democracy. The world hasn’t seen one of those in thousands of years, if ever. I get that it’s a constitutional republic, where the people elect representatives.
How does that translate to, or lead to, or result in, “The founders decided that if you couldn’t manage greater than 50% of the electoral college that congress would decide the president.”

When I say, “it’s a travesty of democracy,” and you respond with, “our government isn’t pure democracy,” that’s missing the point. The point isn’t that our country is technically a democracy and this goes against that. The point is that about the will of the people. In a constitutional republic, our representatives should be elected by the people. And if you give equal vote to 600,000 Wyomingans and 40 million Californians (which is the best-case scenario – the house members are not obliged to cast their state’s vote for the candidate who won that state…worst case scenario, the house members pick whomever they want to pick out of the three), then our representatives are not being elected by the people.
[quote=livinincali]

Assume for a moment that you had 5 candidates running with 3 somewhere in the middle, 1 extremely left and 1 extremely right, what if the hard core right managed 30%, the hard left managed 25% and the rest in the middle split the vote of the majority of american’s core ideology. Would you want the hard core right to rule because they got the majority vote? In that case you probably want congress to elect the more middle 3rd place finisher.
[/quote]

That’s what I, personally, would want in that particular case. But what I, personally want is not what’s important. Also, in your example, what makes you think congress would elect the middle-of-the-road, 3rd-place finisher?

Let’s use a different example. Let’s say it’s Sanders/Cruz/Bloomberg. Sanders and Bloomberg get 40% each, and Cruz gets 20%. The red states don’t count for many electoral votes because they don’t have many people. That’s why Cruz only got 20%. But, if nobody gets a majority of the electoral vote, each red state counts as much as each blue state in the house vote, despite the fact that Wyoming has 600,000 people and California has 40,000,000 people. Bloomberg and Sanders split the blue and purple states, and Cruz gets all the red states. Cruz gets “elected.”

[quote=livinincali]

Some countries solve that issue with a run off. But then again would you want to be forced to chose between the hard right and hard left of which neither really represents your core values because they ended up being the top 2.
[/quote]

That’s kinda how it is now in most elections. And that’s preferable to a vote where a heavier vote is given to some citizens than others.
[quote=livinincali]

The system was designed to keep a weak majority from claiming the power of the executive branch and in the US the executive branch as a lot of power. It has some flaws but every system of elected government has it’s flaws.

[/quote]

Better that the president is chosen by a weak majority of the people than not by the people at all.

[zk]

[quote=livinincali][quote=zk]
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.[/quote]

It’s happened once in the country’s history so it’s not common. Jackson won the popular vote by a significant margin but congress elected Quincy Adams. I wouldn’t call it a travesty though. It split the one party system of the Democratic-Republican party into 2 parties. Jackson won the 1828 election by a landslide. In some respects it woke the voters up. Maybe that’s exactly what we need in our current political process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824%5B/quote%5D

Whether it’s common or not is completely irrelevant.

How it changed the political parties in that particular instance is also irrelevant.

Jackson got 41% of the popular vote to Adams’s 31% (and won the electoral vote 99-84), and Adams was “elected” president.

How is that not a travesty of democracy?

How would it not again be a travesty of democracy if Bloomberg or Sanders won a solid plurality of both popular and electoral votes, but republican nominee and third-place finisher in the general election Ted Cruz was elected president?

[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.

[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.

[zk]

Just got back from Seattle. It was 48 degrees. 48 doesn’t sound that cold, but I was wearing 5 layers and I was still cold. It sucked. I got back to SD, and 63 degrees never felt so good. I love it here. I am envious of the 30 inches of snow they got back east. A good snowstorm is a wondrous thing. And I miss thunderstorms. But having those things occasionally vs. having good or great weather almost all the time is, for me, not even close to worth it. The myriad outdoor recreational opportunities available year-round in SD totally sell it for me.

[Author]

Posts