Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[RonL]

I remember comments of LBJ and Nixon, and we all know of Clinton's scandals, but they are all in the past. Trump is the current candidate and GOP nominee.

This tape is a bit from the past as well, ( I feel he hasn't changed) I'm not likely to vote for him, I just don't think I agree with the standard of judgement.

 

[Astronuc]

This tape is a bit from the past as well, ( I feel he hasn't changed) I'm not likely to vote for him, I just don't think I agree with the standard of judgement.

Yes, the tape and comments are 11 years old, but it there is no indication that Trump has changed for the better. I don't believe Trump or Roger Ailes represent the majority of republicans. It is just sad.

Wasn't the same standard applied to Bill Clinton?

 

[Kevin McHugh]

It might be a challenge, but through positive and constructive engagement. If one wishes to change the hearts and minds of someone, then one has to find a positive way, knowing that it may not work in all cases. One can address the issues without denigrating the other.

One would hope. If only it were true for our "deplorable" candidates. The level of professionalism of these two is on par with the 4th grade school yard.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

http://www.businessinsider.com/will-donald-trump-quit-republican-party-2016-10

GOP leaders want Trump to step down. Isn't this unprecedented?

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/p...kened-by-Donald-Trumps-comments-in-video.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aviksar...ally-get-gop-elites-to-drop-him/#1fab0379ef6e
I wonder if Trump will lose Utah?
Will republicans turn to Pence? Ryan? Who else?

And I thought it was the Democrats who were going to have to replace their candidate at the last moment

 

[StevieTNZ]

If this leaked video with his disgraceful remarks makes Trump lose the election, I'll be happy. He shouldn't even be running in the first place; a complete embarrassment.

 

[jtbell]

The stuff keeps on coming...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/trump-on-howard-stern/index.html

 

[Astronuc]

RNC staffers 'defying orders' to keep working for Trump, source says
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/rebellion-rnc-staffers-defying-orders-175422202.html

Some staffers inside the Republican National Committee are rebelling and “defying orders” to continue working for Donald Trump, according to a source familiar with the situation.

"They’re dropping their duties to the campaign," the source told Business Insider. "Turning their attention to Senate/House."

"Folks at the RNC are disgusted," the source said.

"Expect RNC [staffers] to start leaving if Reince doesn't act," the source added, referring to party chairman Reince Priebus.

Just unbelievable. This is just awful. My sympathies to the GOP, RNC, and republican voters.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Just unbelievable. This is just awful. My sympathies to the GOP, RNC, and republican voters.

From "Business Insider," :

Donald Trump is on the verge of poisoning the Republican Party's brand for years, decades, even a generation — and the party knows it.

"Entirely possible. That has been the risk all along," said Matt Mackowiak, a GOP strategist and the founder of the Potomac Strategy Group. "... Picking up after the wreckage from potentially devastating losses in the Senate, House and governorships may take several election cycles."

The party is at an unthinkable reckoning point.

Every single Republican candidate for a generation will (rightly) be asked about his or her endorsement of Trump in 2016.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-2005-women-video-billy-bush-gop-ramifications-2016-10

 

[russ_watters]

Does this "revelation" really come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to Trump?

Nope. Not even a little bit. But then again, I spent a year in high school with Donnie...

Just unbelievable. This is just awful. My sympathies to the GOP, RNC, and republican voters.

It's not like we didn't see it coming (at least once he got the nomination...). But look on the bright side: we'll be (hopefully) rebooting our party into something in touch with modern reality before the Democrats do. I wonder if Hillary will finally divorce Bill when she leaves office in 2021?

From "Business Insider," :
"Donald Trump is on the verge of poisoning the Republican Party's brand for years, decades, even a generation — and the party knows it."

That's nonsense - really bad nonsense, and probably just wishful thinking from a Democrat. Conservatives aren't going to stop being conservative because of Trump. Trump elbowed his way into the Republican brand in less than a year and he'll flame out and be gone even faster. In 2016 any random ordinary Republican could have beaten Hillary and in 2021 any random ordinary Republican will.

 

[Astronuc]

I wonder if Hillary will finally divorce Bill when she leaves office in 2021?.

I was wondering the same.

Interesting analysis:

One of the side effects of having the two least-popular candidates in modern history is that a lot of people plan to vote simply because they want the other person to lose. Given that Donald Trump is viewed less favorably than Hillary Clinton — last among equals — polls consistently show that more of his base of support is motivated by wanting Clinton to lose than wanting him to succeed.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/bce003ff-5bf8-3683-b7f6-d36383fc7f95/why-all-the-%E2%80%98but-clinton-is.html

Not sure where this election is going, but it would be interesting if Johnson and Weld won a few states, a blue, a red, and perhaps a battleground state.

 

[Astronuc]

From "Business Insider," :

I think the GOP will recover, but Trump has certainly tarnished himself and his brand.

Tic Tac, mentioned in Trump’s hot mic video, condemns lewd comments
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tic-tac-statement-204211499.html

Tic Tac USA — the maker of the iconic breath mints Donald Trump referred to while bragging about kissing and groping women in a lewd 2005 conversation published Friday — has condemned the Republican nominee’s comments.

“Tic Tac respects all women,” the Somerset, N.J.-based company said in a statement posted on its Twitter feed Saturday. “We find the recent statements and behavior completely inappropriate and unacceptable.”

Going forward, it does seem we need a credible third party alternative, since clearly the two party system is not working.

 

[olivermsun]

Conservatives aren't going to stop being conservative because of Trump. Trump elbowed his way into the Republican brand in less than a year and he'll flame out and be gone even faster. In 2016 any random ordinary Republican could have beaten Hillary and in 2021 any random ordinary Republican will.

In 2016, Trump basically showed that the Republican voter base likes his politics better than those of the random rest. The difficulty for conservatives moving ahead is that "conservatism," in any coherent sense, was not a central part of those politics.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think the GOP will recover, but Trump has certainly tarnished himself and his brand.

Tic Tac, mentioned in Trump’s hot mic video, condemns lewd comments
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tic-tac-statement-204211499.html

The Tic Tac repudiation underscores the truth of my quotes. How long will it be before GOP candidates are not examined with respect to whether or not they supported Trump in 2016?

 

[russ_watters]

In 2016 any random ordinary Republican could have beaten Hillary and in 2021 any random ordinary Republican will.

Er - It's worth noting that Trump only got 45% of the Republican primary vote, even including the states that held primaries after it was already clinched. Any random Republican probably would have beaten Trump and then Hillary in 2016 had a dozen random Republicans not run instead of one.

 

[russ_watters]

Not sure where this election is going, but it would be interesting if Johnson and Weld won a few states, a blue, a red, and perhaps a battleground state...
Going forward, it does seem we need a credible third party alternative, since clearly the two party system is not working.

I think @StatGuy2000 posted something about us having a 2-party system last week that I never got around to replying to; near as I can tell, there is nothing about our "system" that makes it 2-party and it is only a de facto 2-party system because people choose to only vote for one of the two major parties. Despite not having a great 3rd party option right now, breaking the "system" would be a nice consolation prize for all of us in this mess. And it would be Hillaryous if two Clintons in four elections failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote!

...Trump has certainly tarnished himself and his brand.

I'm not sure I agree. Probably the biggest celebrity on the planet today is Kim Kardashian, a woman who rose to fame by producing and "leaking" a sex tape with a rapper. How's that for branding?

 

[russ_watters]

In 2016, Trump basically showed that the Republican voter base likes his politics better than those of the random rest.

That would be at face value true if Trump had gotten the majority of the Republican vote in the primaries, but he didn't.

The difficulty for conservatives moving ahead is that "conservatism," in any coherent sense, was not a central part of those politics.

On that I agree.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm not sure I agree. Probably the biggest celebrity on the planet today is Kim Kardashian, a woman who rose to fame by producing and "leaking" a sex tape with a rapper. How's that for branding?

I tend to ignore pop culture celebrities, particularly anyone name Kardashian or Jenner. It's sad that they get so much publicity.

In 2016, Trump basically showed that the Republican voter base likes his politics better than those of the random rest. The difficulty for conservatives moving ahead is that "conservatism," in any coherent sense, was not a central part of those politics.

I thought it was because he was not GOP establishment. Jeb Bush wasn't exactly random, but he labeled as a Bush. Rubio and Cruz were/are Senators, so it makes sense they'd have presidential aspirations, and Kasich was a congressman and now governor in Ohio, and apparently thought it was his time.

 

[russ_watters]

I tend to ignore pop culture celebrities...

Wait, what is this thread about again?

 

[Astronuc]

Wait, what is this thread about again?

Brand Trump vs Brand Clinton?

I think the issues are MIA.

 

[zoobyshoe]

A handful of top operatives involved in GOP Senate races said the guidance from the Republican leadership in Washington is to do whatever it takes to insulate those campaigns from the Trump fallout.

"This comes from the top and it couldn't be more clear: Repudiate him, repudiate the remarks, and if you need to go beyond that, then don't hesitate and don't worry," said one Republican strategist working a difficult race for a GOP Senate incumbent.

"The presidential race is over," said a second GOP strategist working a key Senate race.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/donald-trump-gop-chaos/

Brand Trump vs Brand Clinton?

If Clinton weren't seen by Democrats as representing (however unhappily) the mainstream of their party, support for her would crumble. No so with Trump. He has his own core of supporters who are going to stick with him despite any mainstream Republican abandonment.

Through it all, Trump seems determined not to be fazed by the crisis enveloping his campaign.
"I'd never withdraw. I've never withdrawn in my life," Trump told The Washington Post. "No, I'm not quitting. I have tremendous support."

He told The Wall Street Journal there is "zero chance I'll quit."

The GOP nominee enjoys a strong base of support among disaffected Republican voters, and there are no immediate signs that his most loyal backers will split with a man they view as their champion in confronting a hated political establishment. In fact, the revolt of the establishment wing of the party against the GOP nominee could further embolden Trump's supporters.

Trump briefly emerged from Trump Tower Saturday afternoon to greet his supporters, who cheered "USA! USA!"

 

[Orodruin]

near as I can tell, there is nothing about our "system" that makes it 2-party and it is only a de facto 2-party system because people choose to only vote for one of the two major parties.

From a European perspective this surprises me to hear. I think the American electoral system is strongly biased to be a two party system due to the way that electorate votes are distributed in a winner-takes-all fashion. Many European countries employ a voting system where seats in the parliament are distributed in proportion to the vote in each district. In European countries where this does not happen, such as Great Britain, you also have an effective two party system.

As soon as you distribute seats in a winner-takes-all fashion or have districts so small that only a high percentage of votes will net you any seats at all (eg, Spain), it will be prohibitively difficult for a new party to enter or a third party to stay. The Spanish situation where two new parties have actually been able to enter the parliament with a significant representation, the result has been a dead-lock for almost a year and they are heading for a third election, likely to diminish at least one of the new parties.

In the end, a lot falls under the category of utility of the vote. If you vote for a candidate that does not win your state in the US, you get nothing for your vote. If you vote for a candidate of a smaller party in Sweden, you may help that party win a seat in parliament even though only 6% of the people in your district votes the same way, thus increasing the political power of that party in the parliament.

I am not going to go into pros and cons of having a multi party vs two party system because there are cons also with having several parties in parliament.

 

[vela]

I think @StatGuy2000 posted something about us having a 2-party system last week that I never got around to replying to; near as I can tell, there is nothing about our "system" that makes it 2-party and it is only a de facto 2-party system because people choose to only vote for one of the two major parties. Despite not having a great 3rd party option right now, breaking the "system" would be a nice consolation prize for all of us in this mess. And it would be Hillaryous if two Clintons in four elections failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote!

The way the electoral college works tends to favor a two-party system. People don't vote for third parties because you're effectively wasting your vote. Both Sanders, an independent, and Trump, not really a Republican, ran as candidates of the major parties because if they didn't, they'd be shut out of process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system#Causes

Then there's the fact that the Democratic and Republican party have a tacit agreement to keep everybody else out. Third parties face higher barriers to getting on ballots and raising money, and the debate commission, run by the two major parties, designed rules to keep third parties out as well.

 

[vela]

If this leaked video with his disgraceful remarks makes Trump lose the election, I'll be happy. He shouldn't even be running in the first place; a complete embarrassment.

I doubt it will. I'm sure many Trump supporters are fully aware of his BS. They just don't care.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

I'm not sure I agree. Probably the biggest celebrity on the planet today is Kim Kardashian, a woman who rose to fame by producing and "leaking" a sex tape with a rapper. How's that for branding?

Oh, that's why she's famous? I thought it had something to do with her curvature. What is a rapper? Do I need to google this video?

How to really get under Trump's skin? Have Kim Kardashian reject him on camera after he expresses his admiration for her to the world. This man is actually very insecure with confident women that love themselves. He feels inferior to women. Does a man really have any confidence if he has to resort to bribing women with furniture to even hang out with him? Come on now. He knew there was a chance she would reject him, hence, the furniture ploy. If he were really interesting, or since 'stars can get any woman', then offering conversation and coffee would have done it. Boring as a piece of furniture, I say.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

From a European perspective this surprises me to hear. I think the American electoral system is strongly biased to be a two party system due to the way that electorate votes are distributed in a winner-takes-all fashion. Many European countries employ a voting system where seats in the parliament are distributed in proportion to the vote in each district. In European countries where this does not happen, such as Great Britain, you also have an effective two party system.

As soon as you distribute seats in a winner-takes-all fashion or have districts so small that only a high percentage of votes will net you any seats at all (eg, Spain), it will be prohibitively difficult for a new party to enter or a third party to stay. The Spanish situation where two new parties have actually been able to enter the parliament with a significant representation, the result has been a dead-lock for almost a year and they are heading for a third election, likely to diminish at least one of the new parties.

In the end, a lot falls under the category of utility of the vote. If you vote for a candidate that does not win your state in the US, you get nothing for your vote. If you vote for a candidate of a smaller party in Sweden, you may help that party win a seat in parliament even though only 6% of the people in your district votes the same way, thus increasing the political power of that party in the parliament.

I am not going to go into pros and cons of having a multi party vs two party system because there are cons also with having several parties in parliament.

The US is not a two party system. We have the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Constitution Party, and the Communist (Socialist) Party. However, it is a defacto two party system because the media won't give any coverage to the other parties. Any candidate without the blessings of the elite never gain any traction. Gov Kasich is a perfect example. He was the best candidate in the Rep primary field, but he never got a lick of support from the media.

 

[jtbell]

However, it is a defacto two party system because the media won't give any coverage to the other parties.

We've been a defacto two-party system since the beginning, starting with the Federalists versus the Democratic-Republicans, long before "the media" had anything like its current form.

 

[Orodruin]

The US is not a two party system.

It is a de facto two party system. For practical purposes, I would equate this with a two party system - much like the British and previous Spanish (even though lots of smaller regional parties entered the parliament).

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Probably one of the most disturbing Trump supporters I've come across https://twitter.com/southern_mayers

Within the last 24 hours has tweeted:

I am personally donating $20,000 to Hurricane Matthew relief in South Carolina. I hope the white coastal homeowners can rebuild and prosper

Before any of the blacks can get emergency food stamps they should be required to perform hurricane clean up. That will stop them. Leeches

Let me be clear. I am a proud minority woman who will support President Trump until my dying breath! @realDonaldTrump stay strong!

Makes me sick. Such hate shouldn't be allowed on the internet.

 

[BillTre]

Makes me sick. Such hate shouldn't be allowed on the internet.

Its just the reprobates that have always been around, speaking out, because people like Donald Trump empower them with their media presence and support.

 

[vela]

However, it is a defacto two party system because the media won't give any coverage to the other parties. Any candidate without the blessings of the elite never gain any traction. Gov Kasich is a perfect example. He was the best candidate in the Rep primary field, but he never got a lick of support from the media.

Kasich isn't a good example of the media ignoring third-party candidates because he is a Republican and ran as a Republican.

I do agree with your point that the media play a major role in marginalizing third parties and even major party candidates, like Kasich. They're driven by what gets ratings, so Trump ends up getting a lot of attention while more qualified but boring candidates get ignored. Stories are spun to provoke outrage. Hillary's comment about Sanders supporters, for example, was taken out of context to make it sound like she was insulting them. While you might expect the candidates to distort and willfully misinterpret facts, that's exactly what you don't want journalists to do, yet they do.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Kasich isn't a good example of the media ignoring third-party candidates because he is a Republican and ran as a Republican.

I do agree with your point that the media play a major role in marginalizing third parties and even major party candidates, like Kasich. They're driven by what gets ratings, so Trump ends up getting a lot of attention while more qualified but boring candidates get ignored. Stories are spun to provoke outrage. Hillary's comment about Sanders supporters, for example, was taken out of context to make it sound like she was insulting them. While you might expect the candidates to distort and willfully misinterpret facts, that's exactly what you don't want journalists to do, yet they do.

Smaller parties often play a constructive role in parliamentary systems, but in a presidential system like the US they can bring about results contrary to the desires of those voting for these parties. The classic example is the 2000 election where votes for Ralph Nader diverted enough votes from Al Gore in Florida to create an ugly fight over the the final count in that state. After the Supreme Court ruling, Bush was ahead by 537 votes and captured Florida's electoral votes and victory in the general election. People have a right, but not necessarily a duty, to vote their conscience. It's very likely that most people who voted for Nader (over 90,000) would have voted for Gore or not voted at all if Nader wasn't on the ballot..

Whether it's the role of the media to marginalize third parties in US elections is another matter.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think @StatGuy2000 posted something about us having a 2-party system last week that I never got around to replying to; near as I can tell, there is nothing about our "system" that makes it 2-party and it is only a de facto 2-party system because people choose to only vote for one of the two major parties. Despite not having a great 3rd party option right now, breaking the "system" would be a nice consolation prize for all of us in this mess. And it would be Hillaryous if two Clintons in four elections failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote!

russ, since you mentioned me in this particular thread, I do recall the thread about the US having a de facto 2-party system. You are partially correct that the US has a de facto 2-party system because people choose to vote only for one of the two major parties. But part of the reason why that is the case is that various institutions in place make it that much easier for the 2 major parties to dominate the political landscape.

At the congressional level, both the Democratic and Republican parties rely heavily on both fundraising and large donations to effectively campaign for the House of Representatives and the Senate, given the high expense of campaigning, and it is very difficult for 3rd or 4th parties to raise the level of capital to mount effective campaigns to get their voices heard.

Furthermore, political scientists such as Maurice Duverger have argued in a winner-takes-all electoral system as in the United States (48 states have a winner-takes-all system for the electoral college vote), there is a tendency (not absolute, but a tendency) to gravitate toward a two-party political system. See the following links below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system#Causes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

 

[Kevin McHugh]

It is a de facto two party system.

I said as much almost ver batum.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

Kasich isn't a good example of the media ignoring third-party candidates because he is a Republican and ran as a Republican.

I do agree with your point that the media play a major role in marginalizing third parties and even major party candidates, like Kasich. They're driven by what gets ratings, so Trump ends up getting a lot of attention while more qualified but boring candidates get ignored. Stories are spun to provoke outrage. Hillary's comment about Sanders supporters, for example, was taken out of context to make it sound like she was insulting them. While you might expect the candidates to distort and willfully misinterpret facts, that's exactly what you don't want journalists to do, yet they do.

You missed point about Kasich. My point was he wasn't blessed by the elites, so he was marginalized, even though he is a member of a mainstream party.

 

[phinds]

I said as much almost ver batum.

The word is "verbatim". It is not, as you seem to think, one of those Latin phrase things like "de facto".