Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[mheslep]

...Several voting districts have yet to be added, Nevada, Alaska, Maine for example. I wouldn't declare Hillary the winner just yet.

Sanders can't win anymore, mathematically. Doesn't matter what happens in the remaining states.

 

[gjonesy]

Sanders can't win anymore, mathematically. Doesn't matter what happens in the remaining states

When it comes to pledged votes, (you know how this works obviously), the popular votes count, how ever your district votes is how a delegate (has to support) that candidate. superdelegates can vote anyway they want. If say the vote is split 49.6 for Sanders and 49.4 for Clinton in a district where you have 21 delegates and 14 are pledges by district Sanders could get 7 Clinton could get 7 but let's say the other 7 are superdelegates 5 go to Clinton 2 to sanders...Clinton wins the state. The popular vote has no affect what so ever.

 

[Samy_A]

When it comes to pledged votes, (you know how this works obviously), the popular votes count, how ever your district votes is how a delegate (has to support) that candidate. superdelegates can vote anyway they want. If say the vote is split 49.6 for Sanders and 49.4 for Clinton in a district where you have 21 delegates and 14 are pledges by district Sanders could get 7 Clinton could get 7 but let's say the other 7 are superdelegates 5 go to Clinton 2 to sanders...Clinton wins the state. The popular vote has no affect what so ever.

The concept "wins the state" has no special significance in the democratic primary (it has in the electoral college, for all but two states). The pledged delegates are allocated proportionally in each state.
The superdelegates indeed can do whatever they want.
Had Sanders won more pledged delegates than Clinton, it may well have been the same scenario as in 2008. Clinton started with an advantage in superdelegates, but when it became clear that Obama will win in pledged delegates, superdelegates started to switch sides.
Of course this is pure speculation for 2016, as Sanders is trailing in popular vote and in pledged delegates.

 

[Derek Francis]

If Bernie Sanders cannot win California, he should drop out. Even though I'd support him over Hillary Clinton, I'd lose respect for him if he kept running in the race knowing there's no path to the nomination. He would just be wasting everybody's time. The superdelegates argument, at this point, is glib.. It assumes that every single one of Hillary's superdelegates will shift to Sanders. He ran a great campaign. He raised awareness for numerous issues. It's just not his time this year.

 

[Astronuc]

Jobs is the principal issue for at least one portion of the population.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/04/news/economy/america-left-behind-white-men/index.html

Nearly one-quarter of white men with only a high school diploma aren't working. Many of these men, age 25 to 64, aren't just unemployed ... they aren't even looking for a job, according to federal data.

I'm not sure how Trump, Clinton or any of the candidates would actually 'bring jobs back' to the US. US businesses have moved where labor is cheaper, and the rest of the industrialized world produces goods in competition with the US.

China didn't force US companies to move jobs to China, US companies were quite willing.

A hundred and some years ago, the US had tariffs on import to protect US industry. Now, with 'free' trade, businesses produce in low cost markets in order to sell at greater profit. This scenario leads to an erosion of the economic base supporting a consumption economy.

 

[mheslep]

I'm not sure how Trump, Clinton or any of the candidates would actually 'bring jobs back' to the US

Is that to say you don't like some the ideas long put forward to create jobs and growth, or disagree they can work?

Some general commentary from an economist:

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/papers/cochrane_growth.pdf

...
Regulation
The vast expansion in regulation is the most obvious change in public policy accompanying America’s growth slowdown. Most recently, under the Dodd-Frank act and the ACA or Obamacare, these two large segments of the economy have seen radical increases in 5 regulatory intervention. But environmental, labor, product, and energy regulation have all increased dramatically as well...
Economic regulation has left behind the rule-of-law framework that many Americans suppose governs their affairs. In the popular imagination, regulation is about rules, and there are just too many of them. In many areas, however, the regulations are so vast, so complex, selfcontradictory and so vague, that they basically give the regulators free rein to do what they want. In many cases, there is not a set of rules that you can read and comply with. You need to ask for preemptive permission from a regulator, who determines if your project can go ahead. Delay in getting needed approval is as good as denial in many cases. Projects that cost millions cannot bear years or often decades of delay in getting approvals...

and

...the U.S. economy is simply overrun by an out-of-control and increasingly politicized regulatory state. If it takes years to get the permits to start projects and mountains of paper to hire people, if every step risks a new criminal investigation, people don’t invest, hire or innovate. The U.S. needs simple, common-sense, Adam Smith policies...

Specifically, Trump favors an end to US corporate taxes. The US has the "third Highest Corporate Tax Rate among 173 Nations". That's a good way to retain US jobs in the US, and Obama's own commission, https://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf , which he ignored, called for substantially lowering the corporate tax.

 

[Astronuc]

Is that to say you don't like some the ideas long put forward to create jobs and growth, or disagree they can work?

No, I was wondering what their proposals are.

How about we cut/eliminate all taxes, but send a bill for the current debt, apportioned by wealth of the individual or institution? The individual or institution can then work out a payment plan.

 

[mheslep]

No, I was wondering what their proposals are.

How about we cut/eliminate all taxes, but send a bill for the current debt, apportioned by wealth of the individual or institution? The individual or institution can then work out a payment plan.

Different topic from how to create jobs, but ok.

Apportioned by wealth, not income? Yes that would include grabbing the assets of the very wealthy like Soros, of Trump. It would also grab assets from the retired, the disabled. Of college savings for kids. "From each according to hide ability, to each according to their needs" has never worked out well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs

 

[Astronuc]

GOP Senator Calls for 'Adult' Third-Party Presidential Candidate
https://gma.yahoo.com/gop-senator-calls-adult-third-party-presidential-candidate-142117698--abc-news-topstories.html

I think there are a lot of folks who would like to see a third alternative.

 

[jtbell]

I can't think of anyone who could win the election outright as a third-party candidate. The best he/she could hope to do is win enough states to block any candidate from getting a majority in the Electoral College, which would throw the election to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. If they then elected a "never-Trump Republican in third-party disguise", Trump and his supporters would surely be enraged, and seek revenge in the next House election cycle.

 

[russ_watters]

GOP Senator Calls for 'Adult' Third-Party Presidential Candidate
https://gma.yahoo.com/gop-senator-calls-adult-third-party-presidential-candidate-142117698--abc-news-topstories.html

I think there are a lot of folks who would like to see a third alternative.

Yep, that's me.

 

[russ_watters]

I can't think of anyone who could win the election outright as a third-party candidate. The best he/she could hope to do is win enough states to block any candidate from getting a majority in the Electoral College, which would throw the election to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

That isn't the way I'd see it going. I'm envisioning something similar to 1992, where Clinton won what looked like an Electoral College landslide despite only earning 43% of the popular vote. With 19% of the popular vote, Perot earned zero electors.

The winner take all electoral college turns weak pluralities into landslides and makes getting the election to the House very difficult.

We Republicans may end up with the exact same dilemma as we faced in '92: Should I vote for the moderate/independent, maybe accomplishing nothing more than ensuring a Clinton victory?

[Late edit] Perhaps you realize how long of a shot that is and you were just pointing out the only shot...

 

[Astronuc]

Yep, that's me.

You want a third alternative, or you are the third alternative?

I think you should step up Russ.

 

[mheslep]

GOP Senator Calls for 'Adult' Third-Party Presidential Candidate
https://gma.yahoo.com/gop-senator-calls-adult-third-party-presidential-candidate-142117698--abc-news-topstories.html

I think there are a lot of folks who would like to see a third alternative.

I think there are a lot of *senators* who would like a 3rd party alternative, one in which they are likely to gain a cabinet post or have leverage for their pet pork project. Actual voters, that's another story. GOP turnout in the primaries has broken records, going from 1.1 million in Ohio 2008 to 2 million now (far higher than the Ohio Democratic turnout). From the outcome, we know those voters did not turn out to write-in their senator.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/47068...far-outstripping-democrats-in-primary-turnout

 

[Astronuc]

I think there are a lot of *senators* who would like a 3rd party alternative, one in which they are likely to gain a cabinet post or have leverage for their pet pork project. Actual voters, that's another story. GOP turnout in the primaries has broken records, going from 1.1 million in Ohio 2008 to 2 million now (far higher than the Ohio Democratic turnout). From the outcome, we know those voters did not turn out to write-in their senator.

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/47068...far-outstripping-democrats-in-primary-turnout

The NPR article links to http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data
http://www.electproject.org/2016P

I was wanting to tally the votes in caucuses and primaries to see what the popular vote this year might look like. The problem with some caucuses is that the reported vote count is just the number of precinct delegates, not the true number of people who participated and voted.

 

[jtbell]

That isn't the way I'd see it going. I'm envisioning something similar to 1992, where Clinton won what looked like an Electoral College landslide despite only earning 43% of the popular vote. With 19% of the popular vote, Perot earned zero electors.

Or 2000. If Ralph Nader hadn't been on the ballot in Florida, Al Gore probably would have won the White House instead of Bush 43.

I agree that sort of scenario is more likely than throwing the election into the House.

 

[jim hardy]

Keep an eye on this guy

http://www.hoover.org/research/new-american-grand-strategy

Daily Beast reports of a move to draft him

CALL OF DUTY
04.07.16 11:15 PM ET
The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President
Gen. James Mattis doesn’t necessarily want to be president—but that’s not stopping a group of billionaire donors from hatching a plan to get him there.

Just might see a Bullmoose party this year . That Doris Goodwin book Astro linked in TIL thread gives a feeling of prescience.

 

[DiracPool]

If you want to sub-break down the Trump candidacy, I think there's a lesson to be learned here. Ultimately, at the end of the day, I think the people's vote counts, and if you're running for president and get the majority of the popular vote, then there's a good argument you should be president no matter how kooky you are.

What we saw with Trump, though, was a rare and unexpected phenomenon. He was able to basically hijack the republican party by silently slithering into the initial 17 candidate debates. Hahaha, it's Donald Trump, this should be fun. Well, he basically turned the whole thing into a TV game show or virtual reality series and, IMO, ran an illegitimate "collateral" campaign as TV game show host alongside the legitimate race of the legitimate "politicians." These are two separate things, but because the RNC entertained Trump as a legitimate candidate in the beginning, the whole enchilada got f-d up and they didn't know how to walk it back.

You don't want a bricklayer wiring your electrical system. I don't want a greedy, reality show businessman "politicking" for my country oversees. Give him a job as the "minister of finance" or Treasury Secretary advisor or something. That's all he's good for. And let him have it if he proves he's capable. He's no president, though. I don't want a guy who's tag line is "You're fired" with his finger on the button.

Even Ronald Reagan the actor served as governor of California for a while. To have a president in office with zero political experience is scary.

I think the lesson from this should be that there's a requirement of some minimum form of political experience in order to get the support of a major political party. Trump didn't qualify for this and the RNC screwed up. If you don't have that experience then go ahead and run as an independent candidate and good luck to you.

 

[jim hardy]

"The economic disasters of socialism and communism come from assuming a blanket superiority of those who want to run a whole economy." --Thomas Sowell

There's dissenting opinions on the "Smartness of crowds" vs "Dumbness of crowds"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/wisdom-crowds.html

In the early 1900s, British scientist Sir Francis Galton thought he was proving the ignorance of the masses when he noted that no one got the right answer at a country-fair competition in which entrants were asked to guess the exact weight of an ox. What Galton failed to realize was that the median of all the guesses produced close to the right answer—and showed the "wisdom of the crowd."

http://p2pfoundation.net/Wisdom_of_Crowds

The Wisdom of Crowds generally breaks down when information sharing/group think starts to skew and bias people towards errors. ...
...When aggregation is used in the wrong way, drowning out individual creativity and difference, what results is not wisdom, but Groupthink or the Dumbness of Crowds.

Watching the Indiana returns i noticed Trump got almost as many votes (587K) as Sanders and Clinton combined(628K).

"People who are very aware that they have more knowledge than the average person are often very unaware that they do not have one-tenth of the knowledge of all of the average persons put together. In this situation, for the intelligentsia to impose their notions on ordinary people is essentially to impose ignorance on knowledge." --Dr. Thomas Sowell

MIght be we plain folks have been brainwashed by the merchants of discontent and Trump is another Pied Piper .
MIght be we plain folks are on to something.

As a very NON intellectual person, i say "One plays the hand one was dealt."
Republicans were dealt Trump.
They need to just "Deal with it."

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ump-wont-be-president-says-barack-obama-video

 

[Astronuc]

Paul Ryan is troubled by Trump’s views on executive power
https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-imperial-presidency-20-ryan-is-troubled-by-221506666.html

Ryan's position seems reasonable.

 

[Astronuc]

Presidential candidates apparently get a national intelligence briefing, usually after the parties convention.

Apparently, some in the intelligence community are reluctant, or otherwise averse, to give a briefing to Trump.

 

[Dotini]

Paul Ryan is troubled by Trump’s views on executive power
https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-imperial-presidency-20-ryan-is-troubled-by-221506666.html

Ryan's position seems reasonable.

Ryan has offerred to quit his position as chairman of the Republican convention if Trump so desires.

 

[Dotini]

Presidential candidates apparently get a national intelligence briefing, usually after the parties convention.

Apparently, some in the intelligence community are reluctant, or otherwise averse, to give a briefing to Trump.

Trump is not accepting the "foreign policy consensus," says Putin is a "strong leader", and believes torture yields valuable information and so his intel briefings will be challenging, it says here:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/trump-in-line-to-receive-top-u-s-intelligence-secrets-1.1569064
Once Trump, known for his off-the-cuff speeches and constant tweets, becomes the Republican nominee for the White House in July, he'll be entitled to updates based on the President's Daily Brief, a compilation of top-level classified intelligence about global events.

It's a prospect giving pause to some officials, who wonder how Trump will react to the information and whether he might inadvertently let some sensitive information slip out, according to several who asked not to be identified because they don't want to be seen as taking sides in the political campaign.

"We will absolutely have no problem keeping it private. Nobody can hold information better than Mr. Trump," Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Trump's campaign, said when asked about the briefings. "We look forward to asking questions."

While every Republican and Democratic nominee since the 1950s has received such briefings, providing them to Trump is going to be a unique experience for intelligence professionals, said Michael Hayden, who served as director of the CIA from 2006 to 2009 and participated in the sessions for Democrat Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Arizona Sen. John McCain, in 2008.

"My life experience had me brief, or see others brief, candidates who are familiar with and accepting of the post-World War II American foreign policy consensus," Hayden, who is now with the Chertoff Group in Washington, said in an interview. "None of that appears to apply to Mr. Trump. This is going to make this series of briefings particularly challenging and exciting."

During the Republican primary season, Trump has at times questioned the U.S. role in NATO, called Russian President Vladimir Putin "a strong leader," and said he's "in that camp" that believes torture yields valuable information from detainees.

Hayden declined to speculate whether Trump can be trusted but said he would expect the Obama administration to give the Republican nominee the same briefings as his Democratic opponent.

The Democratic front-runner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is a veteran recipient of government secrets, although Republicans contend she broke the law because classified information was included in messages on her private e-mail system. The FBI is investigating the matter.

In addition to giving the presidential nominees top-level security clearances, Hayden said some of their top aides also would be cleared to receive the briefings.

 

[jim hardy]

candidates who are familiar with and accepting of the post-World War II American foreign policy consensus,"

So "...fundamentally transform America..." was just a line?

 

[Dotini]

So "...fundamentally transform America..." was just a line?

"Fundamentally transform America" is a line used by Obama, but also hinted at in the noises and inchoate plans of both Sanders and Trump. I highly doubt any individual is going to fundamentally transform America. But the people can do that. In the French Revolution, the middle classes forced regime change and guillotined the elites and the bankers. In the current situation, the media and political class is in a panic and the middle classes on both left and right are as angry as boiled owls. So yes, rebellion if not revolution is in the air.

 

[mheslep]

"Fundamentally transform America" is a line used by Obama, but also hinted at in the noises and inchoate plans of both Sanders and Trump. I highly doubt any individual is going to fundamentally transform America. But the people can do that. In the French Revolution, the middle classes forced regime change and guillotined the elites and the bankers. In the current situation, the media and political class is in a panic and the middle classes on both left and right are as angry as boiled owls. So yes, rebellion if not revolution is in the air.

18th century France had little by way of "middle class", which was largely an American creation. The mob and the Jacobins killed aristocrats, clergy, scientists, rich, poor, and generally anyone who they just didn't like at the moment, finally killing the leader of the mob (Robespiere), shortly after he created his own deity mythology for followers to worship.

If there is a revolution model to follow, I'm going with the American.

 

[mheslep]

The eminent British historian Paul Johnson has written a brief essay on Trump, why the alternatives are not satisfactory, making an interesting argument with which I am sympathetic. Too bad The Donald can't go forth and speak likewise.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2016/03/23/when-excess-is-a-virtue/#10173ff34b5f

THE MENTAL INFECTION known as “political correctness” is one of the most dangerous intellectual afflictions ever to attack mankind. The fact that we began by laughing at it–and to some extent, still do–doesn’t diminish its venom one bit...

The insidious thing about PC is that it wasn’t–and isn’t–the creation of anyone in particular. It’s usually the anonymous work of such Kafkaesque figures as civil servants, municipal librarians, post office sorters and employees at similar levels. It penetrates the interstices of society, especially those where the hierarchies of privilege and property are growing. ...

Nowhere has PC been more triumphant than in the U.S. This is remarkable, because America has traditionally been the home of vigorous, outspoken, raw and raucous speech. From the early 17th century, when the clerical discipline the Pilgrim Fathers sought to impose broke down and those who had things to say struck out westward or southward for the freedom to say them, America has been a land of unrestricted comment on anything–until recently. Now the U.S. has been inundated with PC inquisitors, and PC poison is spreading worldwide in the Anglo zone.

For these reasons it’s good news that Donald Trump is doing so well in the American political primaries. He is vulgar, abusive, nasty, rude, boorish and outrageous. He is also saying what he thinks and, more important, teaching Americans how to think for themselves again...

 

[Astronuc]

Sanders looking for a win in WV.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-dreams-fade-sanders-seeks-west-virginia-181344516--election.html

However,

Among those voting in the West Virginia Democratic primary, about a third said they would support Trump over either Clinton or Sanders in November. An additional 2 in 10 say they wouldn't vote for either candidate. But 4 in 10 said also said they consider themselves to be independents or Republicans, and not Democrats, according to exit polls.

Jobs and the coal industry are the big issues in WV and other parts of the Appalachian Mountain area

Trump has been declared winner of the GOP primary in WV with about 76% of the vote with 72% of precincts reporting. Cruz is barely ahead of Kasich.

Trump has about 62% of the vote in the Nebraska GOP primary with about 61% of precincts reporting. Cruz is a distant second, and Kasich an even more distant third.

 

[Samy_A]

Sanders looking for a win in WV.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-dreams-fade-sanders-seeks-west-virginia-181344516--election.html

However:

About your quote:

Among those voting in the West Virginia Democratic primary, about a third said they would support Trump over either Clinton or Sanders in November. An additional 2 in 10 say they wouldn't vote for either candidate. But 4 in 10 said also said they consider themselves to be independents or Republicans, and not Democrats, according to exit polls.

Doesn't that indicate that the concept of open primaries becomes problematic once one of the parties has chosen a candidate?

 

[Hornbein]

The eminent British historian Paul Johnson has written a brief essay on Trump, why the alternatives are not satisfactory, making an interesting argument with which I am sympathetic. Too bad The Donald can't go forth and speak likewise.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2016/03/23/when-excess-is-a-virtue/#10173ff34b5f

Later in that article Paul Johnson claims that post office sorters are fostering political correctness. ?

 

[jim hardy]

The eminent British historian Paul Johnson has written a brief essay on Trump and why the alternatives are not satisfactory.

Replace "Hail to the Chief " with "Fanfare for the Common Man" ?

Later in that article Paul Johnson claims that post office sorters are fostering political correctness. ?

I had to search the article for "sorters"

The insidious thing about PC is that it wasn’t–and isn’t–the creation of anyone in particular. It’s usually the anonymous work of such Kafkaesque figures as civil servants, municipal librarians, post office sorters and employees at similar levels. It penetrates the interstices of society, especially those where the hierarchies of privilege and property are growing. To a great extent PC is the revenge of the resentful underdog.

Quite a good paragraph i thought.
Self appointed "PC Police" wouldn't mind your business if theirs was worth minding.

 

[Astronuc]

The one big problem none of the [remaining] candidates are talking about
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/national-debt-trump-clinton-171558058.html

The debt, at $19.3 trillion, is four times larger, adjusting for inflation, than when Ronald Reagan lamented its size in his 1989 farewell address. Yet only one of this year’s presidential candidates, Republican John Kasich, had a plan for doing anything about it, and he left the race after winning a grand total of one state. The two front-runners – Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton – have said little about the debt, except for Trump’s jarring suggestion that maybe Uncle Sam can save a few bucks by renegotiating the debt and paying back less than 100 cents on the dollar.

 

[Hornbein]

Replace "Hail to the Chief " with "Fanfare for the Common Man" ?
I had to search the article for "sorters"

Quite a good paragraph i thought.
Self appointed "PC Police" wouldn't mind your business if theirs was worth minding.

Perhaps you can explain to me how post office sorters foster political correctness.

 

[jim hardy]

Perhaps you can explain to me how post office sorters foster political correctness.

Not to demean hourly workers as non-thinkers (because i don't believe that's true),
but I think his point was PC is a trivial pursuit . See Melvile's Sub-Sub Librarian and Consumptive Usher, and Eric Hoffer's thoughts on a society run by clerks & scribes.

 

[russ_watters]

Perhaps you can explain to me how post office sorters foster political correctness.

There may have been a specific incident of individual misconduct the writer was referring to, but rather than speculate we may have to just let it go.