The 2016 US General Election

[tantalus]

Hispanics are clustered in non-competitive states. Working-class whites against immigration are clustered in more competitive states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, etc.

A lot of those states are getting a double-whammy because black vote turnout will be lower (probably).

In an ideal world you guys really should really ditch the electoral college, creates these unhealthy imbalances with a small number of states deciding every election and reduces reasons for many in other states to get involved with politics.

[Mihais]

Which would destroy the federation.

[Parihaka]

''Build the yuuuuge wall'' and legalization are mutually exclusive.The right is in full swing civil war.Fact is Donald started a movement.It may be a minority,it is hugely despised be the left and most of the GOP,but is there.
From this pov,there is no difference between Reps and Dems.

Precisely. Both parties have been heavily invested in importing unskilled labour for the last two decades, both parties are now heavily invested in amnesty and Zuckerbergs H1B expansion. Cheap labour in the middle class/knowledge economy and rights reduction are the only areas left for increasing profit.

[GVChamp]

Most of the people against the Electoral College are people who think Bernie Sanders is awesome. As a general rule, everything they support is a bad idea. ;)

Thinking more about the nomination:
Rubio put out some big numbers and re-created the Romney map...almost. That's not over-performing. There were no other establishment candidates, so he should perform at least as well as Romney did in 08 and 12.

He actually under-performed Romney, though. Cruz and Trump both ate into his margins, in different ways. Cruz captured some of the Paul protest vote, Trump captured some of the establishment vote and pumped out some lower-class whites.

The evangelical candidate rarely does well outside of Iowa and a few Southern states...see Santorum and Huckabee. For all the talk of Romney being the conservative alternative to McCain, McCain seemed to have performed better in those Southern states, and actually did better among establishment candidates as well.

We're looking at a 2008-type election, with Rubio playing the part of McCain and Trump playing the part of Romney.
BUT:
1. Rubio is substantially weaker than McCain, and Trump is substantially stronger than Romney.
2. The establishment vote is still divided among a lot of different candidates (Jeb, Kasich, Christie).

All the establishment candidates need to drop out after Super Tuesday. March 15 is when some big, more establishment-friendly states like Ohio, Florida, and Illinois vote.

On the other hand, Cruz has really good ground game and makes really good tactical choices.

It's quite possible that no candidate has enough delegates to clinch the nomination...

[Parihaka]

oh and Im serious about Bernie. You now have massive corporate welfare and no tax burden placed upon the corporatists, all costs of govt and welfare are born by private citizens. This is the exact reverse of the original market places as embraced and formalised by the Staedtholders and HRH parliament. Its taken 300 years but investors have transferred themselves from high risk/high profit to no risk/high profit and private self employed to no profit/high risk. This election in itself is irrelevant, Saunders shows the most inclination to adjust that balance back to some semblance of the original. Citizen welfare levels are irrelevant to the balance and can be addressed independently.

[gunnut]

In an ideal world you guys really should really ditch the electoral college, creates these unhealthy imbalances with a small number of states deciding every election and reduces reasons for many in other states to get involved with politics.

Our president is not the president of the people. He is the president of the states. The states elect him, not the people.

The original system was set up as a federation of nations, not a single nation.

The people send their representatives to the House of Representatives in the Congress. The states send their representatives to the Senate. But over the years our system changed so that the people send both to the Congress.

Let's not change to a popular vote for the president. It looks good on paper, but it will have unintended consequences.

[GVChamp]

I think you're right. Bernie Sanders supports the middle class. I am listening to NPR now, which is NPR central. NPR economics says "middle-out" is right. If you give the middle class more money, that increases the incentive for innovation.

Bernie says $15/hour minimum wage, but he's inefficient. The middle class needs more money, then we need to do it efficiently.

That's why I support printing lots of money and increasing the middle class. This will jump start the economy and we will finally become a powerhouse like Zimbabwe.


FEEL THE BERN!!!!!!!

[snapper]

Frankly it seems to me like none of know what the hell they are doing, but then I have seen thankfully little. I reckon though the 'establishment' now get's on the Rubio game to stop the farce that is Trump. Honestly if I were a Yank and it ended Trump vs. Hilary I'd have to vote Hilary and hope she had learned her security lessons.

[bonehead]

Clarification on my part, the parts highlighted in red are, more than any other part of the article, what I've been thinking, especially this:

"The public — for good reasons — no longer trusts Washington. Trump is a hack who can’t fix anything, but people make bad decisions when they’re anxious or angry, and Trump is offering them an alternative to the status quo. This is what demagogues do, and it usually works."

Of course, all of that is true Barack Obama in 2008 and it most definitely worked for him.

I don't think it'll work for Trump of course, he doesn't have the broad appeal that reaches enough Moderates like Obama did. He's reaching a loud minority of the Right that appears far larger than it is.

I dont see Trump as much of a problem solver either. He is good at saying what people want to hear without throwing around specifics that will corner him later. People are lost on the audacity of it all so they are not yet wondering the hows and whys. I see one of the biggest differences between him and those he is running with is that everyone else NEEDS the nomination and presidency. For many of the candidates this is a do or die moment. For Trump, the presidency is actually a few steps down as far a status symbol/ life objective, and aside from his ego absolutely no harm done if he fails to win.

[tantalus]

Our president is not the president of the people. He is the president of the states. The states elect him, not the people.

The original system was set up as a federation of nations, not a single nation.

The people send their representatives to the House of Representatives in the Congress. The states send their representatives to the Senate. But over the years our system changed so that the people send both to the Congress.

Let's not change to a popular vote for the president. It looks good on paper, but it will have unintended consequences.

The states don't have the same historical significance as they once did, if there are unintended negative consequences then they need to be considered against the positives, but holding onto an outdated idea is not a good reason.

Reality is electoral change is rarely ever possible as any change is bound to favour one party over the other, dead from the get-go.

[tantalus]

Rubio looks electable to me, I guess we should expect the republican party to get behind him, Hilary lacks charisma and maybe the email scandals will really hurt her.

But don't the republicans have the same problem currently as last few elections, there are more blue states and any eventual democrat nominee has a significant head start?

[gunnut]

I think you're right. Bernie Sanders supports the middle class. I am listening to NPR now, which is NPR central. NPR economics says "middle-out" is right. If you give the middle class more money, that increases the incentive for innovation.

Bernie says $15/hour minimum wage, but he's inefficient. The middle class needs more money, then we need to do it efficiently.

That's why I support printing lots of money and increasing the middle class. This will jump start the economy and we will finally become a powerhouse like Zimbabwe.


FEEL THE BERN!!!!!!!

Minimum wage should be $400k per year. That's how much the president makes.

[gunnut]

The states don't have the same historical significance as they once did, if there are unintended negative consequences then they need to be considered against the positives, but holding onto an outdated idea is not a good reason.

Reality is electoral change is rarely ever possible as any change is bound to favour one party over the other, dead from the get-go.

The idea is not outdated. The federal government should be trimmed and the power returned to the states. Are you seriously telling me that a bureaucrat in DC knows which math text book is the right one for a 5th grader in Inyo County, California, better than a teacher from Inyo County?

[tantalus]

The idea is not outdated. The federal government should be trimmed and the power returned to the states. Are you seriously telling me that a bureaucrat in DC knows which math text book is the right one for a 5th grader in Inyo County, California, better than a teacher from Inyo County?

I was referring to the method you elect your president. Not to the distribution of decision making...

[astralis]

pari,

oh and Im serious about Bernie. You now have massive corporate welfare and no tax burden placed upon the corporatists, all costs of govt and welfare are born by private citizens. This is the exact reverse of the original market places as embraced and formalised by the Staedtholders and HRH parliament. Its taken 300 years but investors have transferred themselves from high risk/high profit to no risk/high profit and private self employed to no profit/high risk. This election in itself is irrelevant, Saunders shows the most inclination to adjust that balance back to some semblance of the original. Citizen welfare levels are irrelevant to the balance and can be addressed independently.

i used to not think that way back in the 90s, but the financial crisis has since made this so obviously true that one has to be dumb to ignore it...or a republican. ;-) i kid, i kid. sort of.

BTW this even holds true for businesses that are NOT, for the most part, sucking on the corporate welfare teat. look at Uber, for instance. it smashes one rigidly held, poorly operated monopoly (taxi cabs/medallion system), yet the means by which they do so is a private contractor system that by definition places a significantly increased amount of risk on the individual. and hell, with economic success, most companies WILL look into corporate welfare anyways.

on a larger scale, our stock system now emphasizes significantly increased risk due to former investment vehicles not having the earning power that they used to (bonds).

current technological growth has slowed down (iPads are nice, they're just not half as powerful as the advent of internal combustion engines or radio) and the type of technological growth we do have is extremely capital intensive, giving capitalists vice workers far greater leverage than they used to.

there are promising technological trends that may reverse some of this (3-d printing, AI driving, bioengineering/medicine) but 1. they're still on the horizon, 2. they -still- won't have the technological impact of the discoveries of the early/mid-20th centuries, and 3. they're only somewhat less capital intensive than the technological growth we have today.

given these factors, there's much to be said about accepting a slightly elevated amount of economic inefficiency in return for re-legitimatizing the democratic experiment.