2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I've seen of Kasich I quite like him (I mean, relatively). It's a shame that he won't really have a chance to win the nomination though. There was another I thought was pretty decent from the first debate... Maybe Rand Paul, or Scott Walker.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
He also once touted his good NRA rating immediately following a mass shooting.
 
From what I've seen of Kasich I quite like him (I mean, relatively). It's a shame that he won't really have a chance to win the nomination though. There was another I thought was pretty decent from the first debate... Maybe Rand Paul, or Scott Walker.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


I'm a huge Rand Paul fan, sadly he dropped out. Very sane and levelheaded (much like his father), that's why he didn't make it very far. He could've kept hanging in there for a while, but he ran out of $$$$.
Kasich is also level headed and sane, but more on the moderate side of the spectrum. I don't necessarily always agree with Kasich and he looks like he's on drugs, but I like him.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Looks like Christie is throwing in the towel...we'll be down to five actual candidates since Fiorina, Carson and Gilmore are just in this for as long as they want to continue their ego trip.

Remaining Chances (in my mind):

Cruz - 40%
Rubio - 35%
Trump - 25%
Bush - 0%
Kasich - 0%
 
Save us Michael Bloomberg, you're our only hope.



Except Bloomburg would hurt the D's like the unconscionable, unforgivable Nader in 2000. Too much risk.

President Trump or Cruz would make W look like Lincoln. And W was by far the worst president of the modern era.

The GOP would go into meltdown.
 
Last edited:
I'm a huge Rand Paul fan, sadly he dropped out. Very sane and levelheaded (much like his father), that's why he didn't make it very far. He could've kept hanging in there for a while, but he ran out of $$$$.
Kasich is also level headed and sane, but more on the moderate side of the spectrum. I don't necessarily always agree with Kasich and he looks like he's on drugs, but I like him.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


You should do some research on the Pauls. Ron published white supremacy bs in his biographies and then made up a lie about how he never knew that was in his book until years later when he ran for presidency.

He was also bought out by big tobacco to create the first "tea party", there's still a group of libertarians that believe smoking has no link to cancer.

Do your research.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
On one hand, I want Bloomberg to run because I line up pretty well with him (I think). On the other hand, I don't, because him running is the best chance we have of getting President Trump or President Cruz.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Interesting to me is that Bernie did well in blue collar areas -- this suggest his message appeals beyond white college kids.

We'll see.
 
You should do some research on the Pauls. Ron published white supremacy bs in his biographies and then made up a lie about how he never knew that was in his book until years later when he ran for presidency.

He was also bought out by big tobacco to create the first "tea party", there's still a group of libertarians that believe smoking has no link to cancer.

Do your research.

And I wouldn't use "very sane and levelheaded" to describe anybody who is either libertarian or anti-vax.

On one hand, I want Bloomberg to run because I line up pretty well with him (I think). On the other hand, I don't, because him running is the best chance we have of getting President Trump or President Cruz.

Hey America, let me introduce you to a wild concept: preferential voting.

There may be a lot of things wrong with Australia, but one thing we've done really well is our electoral system.
 
On one hand, I want Bloomberg to run because I line up pretty well with him (I think). On the other hand, I don't, because him running is the best chance we have of getting President Trump or President Cruz.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


I would be very happy with a President Cruz. I hope Bloomberg runs.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I would be very happy with a President Cruz. I hope Bloomberg runs.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

GOP could come in a distant second but still become president.



Say, Bloomberg wins NY, NJ, Conn, that is 50 electoral colleg votes. Hillary or Bernie get 268 electoral college votes. Cruz or Trump gets 220 votes, who is President?

ANSWER, Trump or Cruz. 220 beats 268 this time.
 
Last edited:
Hey America, let me introduce you to a wild concept: preferential voting.



There may be a lot of things wrong with Australia, but one thing we've done really well is our electoral system.


Yeah, I know. It's ridiculous that we have to make these sorts of strategic decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
GOP could come in a distant second but still become president.



Say, Bloomberg wins NY, NJ, Conn, that is 50 electoral colleg votes. Hillary or Bernie get 268 electoral college votes. Cruz or Trump gets 220 votes, who is President?

ANSWER, Trump or Cruz. 220 beats 268 this time.


I don't think Bloomberg would wreck the election by winning any EVs. I don't think he'd win any EVs at all. Rather, I can see him drawing mainly from DNC voters. And drawing enough from DNC voters in purple states such that Cruz/Trump > Hillary/Bernie, even if Cruz/Trump < Hillary/Bernie + Bloomberg.

The Electoral College system is insane, especially when you only need a plurality to win a state's EVs.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Yeah, I know. It's ridiculous that we have to make these sorts of strategic decisions.

It amazes me how many countries stick with first-past-the-post systems. Who on earth wants a system where it's piddlingly easy for someone to get elected despite 60% of the electorate hating their guts?

Though actually, it's interesting how New Zealand's system - which retains FPTP for the election of local members but not for what we call list members - produces a parliament more broadly representative than Australia's. In Australia, the House and Senate have somewhat different methods of preferential election but the end result is that preferences (especially in the House) flow to the two largest parties and we get a result not that dissimilar to what would occur under FPTP. There's about 20-25% of the national vote not reflected in the House, while the Senate system has produced bizarre cases of parties with below 1% of the vote sneaking a seat ahead of parties with 10%. In New Zealand, you get two ticks: one for your local member and one for your favoured party (the party list). Any party that gets at least 5% of the national vote gets the equivalent proportion of seats in parliament whether or not they have any local members. 15% of the country likes you the most? Here's 15% of the seats. Done.

I can vote in both countries, and voting in Australia is more satisfying but the outcome in New Zealand feels more reflective of first preferences. But there is an element of strategic voting in New Zealand - almost anywhere in the country you're wasting the local member half of your vote if you don't tick the Labour or National candidate. The sensible thing to do, I think, would be to take the New Zealand system but have instant runoff voting for local members (or do away with local members entirely, but that's not a popular proposal). I also think it's a shame most state and federal parliaments, at least in the Anglosphere, have done away with the multi-member electorates that were popular in the nineteenth century.

I put too much thought into electoral systems.
 
I think Bloomberg hurts the Dems more than GOP. He probably wouldn't carry a state. He's not a known figure outside the NY-DC power corridor. His pro gun control, climate stance, nanny state controls will not endear him to any republicans barring spurned Rockefellerian Bush Donors bent on payback.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Sanders is raising $1,000 a second at the moment looking at the donations coming in to his campaign. That would be $3.6 million in an hour and $86.4 million if that held for an entire day.

If everybody quadrupled the amount they've already given to his campaign (by giving $108 more dollars on average compared to the $27 they've received from the average donor), the Sanders campaign would raise four times more than what they have in the entirety of their campaign...and asking people to pony up $100 isn't that big of an ask, really.

He already out raised Clinton by $5 million in January and is now outspending her heavily on advertisements in Nevada. Clinton's campaign has a higher burn rate and spent almost half its money in Iowa alone, so she could be looking at some empty bank accounts real soon...just like in 2008.




And just in the time it took me to write that comment, Sanders is now getting about $2,000 a second.
 
Last edited:
Also Clinton won 65+ yr old demo

Clinton gets old people that are barely informed.

Clinton gets rich people that call themselves Democrats but don't want to pay higher taxes.

Clinton supposedly also has black people in her camp thanks to being associated with the Obama administration, but we'll see what happens when South Carolina rolls around.

That's it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom