2016 US Presidential Election Pt. IV

[Vlad n U 2]

I thought The Sand would be right up your alley politically, Cobbler.

[Mack_Again]

I am biased about evaluation of FDR as he.......kinda destroyed my country long ago. Sure it was becoming fascist but.

[Kieran McConville]

Mack_Again: Japan, is that right? Not a debate I really want to wade into at this point, but didn't the military/imperial government that ruled Japanese politics through the thirties more or less destroy itself? By its actions? No, that does not justify every thing that America subsequently did during the Second World War (which was not all FDR, btw; Truman made the final call on the Bomb).

[KhanadaRhodes]

the primaries are always in the same order. iowa is so special because it's the first one, and inevitably those who have the poorest showing drop out after it. it's why people like o'malley were hanging on even though the writing was on the wall long ago. after new hampshire, there will be one or two more republicans dropping out. it's just how it works.

not every state gets a caucus, most don't. most just do a primary, where you just vote. although even that is complicated as there are open and closed primaries... but that only determines which party you can vote for: basically if you wanna vote in the primaries and your state does closed primaries, you gotta register republican or democrat. you have to pick. those of us in states with open primaries, i could walk in that day and decide to vote in the republican primary if i wanted.

my state (tennessee) is also part of super tuesday, one day in a month where there's a while bunch of primaries on the same day.

don't even get me started on the coin tosses. or cruz.

sanders is awesome. he tells it like it is. i've heard him speak in person, went to the rally in birmingham on mlk day. i agree with a lot of his values, far more than anyone else running. he's not much older than trump, btw.

the term limits you're talking about is just presidential. there's term limits on other government positions too but yeah. basically fdr got elected FOUR TIMES and after he died in office, they passed legislation to enact term limits, i think it goes back to washington, our first president. he served two terms and didn't run for a third so it's very important™. but i'd rather have sanders anyway, and term limits helped ensure people like reagan and dubya got out so it's not always a bad thing.

from now, the primaries and caucuses in the remaining 49 states. everyone will continue to campaign, there will be more debates, they will focus on specific areas as the primaries near there to drum up votes.

the reason the process takes so long really is first we have to get to know everyone before the first primary even happens. i agree it takes too long, but considering even on election day there will still be undecided voters, the more information the better i guess.

and hopefully more emphasis on those emails.

[Mack_Again]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

Mack_Again: Japan, is that right? Not a debate I really want to wade into at this point, but didn't the military/imperial government that ruled Japanese politics through the thirties more or less destroy itself? By its actions? No, that does not justify every thing that America subsequently did during the Second World War (which was not all FDR, btw; Truman made the final call on the Bomb).

it was ruled by military and i know it was hugely wrong for them to start ruling countries like crazy in unethical way. it was somewhat global trend to have some fascist movement (I have heard that there were British fascist movement in 30s somehow) so I guess Japan kinda hopped onto the red of military ruling country forcefully to solve economic crisis. it's just me being irrational; although he also did internment camp thing so.... it may not be FDR's direct decision, so i wont blame him for it too much. and I don't know why I'm talking about events from 70 years ago. I'd like to talk about how awesome Bernie is at this point rather than WW2 talk.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by Mack_Again

it was ruled by military and i know it was hugely wrong for them to start ruling countries like crazy in unethical way. it was somewhat global trend to have some fascist movement (I have heard that there were British fascist movement in 30s somehow) so I guess Japan kinda hopped onto the red of military ruling country forcefully to solve economic crisis. it's just me being irrational; although he also did internment camp thing so.... it may not be FDR's direct decision, so i wont blame him for it too much. and I don't know why I'm talking about events from 70 years ago. I'd like to talk about how awesome Bernie is at this point rather than WW2 talk.

Ah yes, Oswald Mosley and his blackshirts.

[Mack_Again]

so is it time to talk about Bernie again?

[Kieran McConville]

Britain absolutely had a bona fide fascist movement in the thirties. Probably the only ones in Europe to survive that era were Spain and Portugal, who had the sense to stay semi-neutral.

Absolutely the internment of Japanese-Americans during the second world war was wrong and immoral. As was the internment of Italian-Australians during those same years. Let us hope it is not repeated, this time as farce.

[Mack_Again]

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

Britain absolutely had a bona fide fascist movement in the thirties. Probably the only ones in Europe to survive that era were Spain and Portugal, who had the sense to stay semi-neutral.

Absolutely the internment of Japanese-Americans during the second world war was wrong and immoral. As was the internment of Italian-Australians during those same years. Let us hope it is not repeated, this time as farce.

something inside me died a bit though when SOMEONE said that Mexican people are mostly criminals and rapists or whatever.

but that someone isn't looking good, so...........

[Kieran McConville]

Yeah well. That alone disqualified Donald Trump from holding any responsible elected office in my opinion. But hey, he's 'interesting'. He's 'telling it like it is'. He amplifies white supremacists on Twitter. I don't (entirely) blame all of his supporters, who come to this thing for many varied and tangled cultural reasons. I do blame him. Donald J Trump can burn in hell for all I care.

[cobl04]

Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes

the primaries are always in the same order. iowa is so special because it's the first one, and inevitably those who have the poorest showing drop out after it. it's why people like o'malley were hanging on even though the writing was on the wall long ago. after new hampshire, there will be one or two more republicans dropping out. it's just how it works.

What's a primary? (sorry, I should also have asked that.) Why is Iowa the first one? Why not NY or Cali or Illinois or Texas or Florida? Has it always been that way?

not every state gets a caucus, most don't. most just do a primary, where you just vote. although even that is complicated as there are open and closed primaries... but that only determines which party you can vote for: basically if you wanna vote in the primaries and your state does closed primaries, you gotta register republican or democrat. you have to pick. those of us in states with open primaries, i could walk in that day and decide to vote in the republican primary if i wanted.

What's the difference between a primary and a caucus? Do not all states have some sort of vote? How do states decided if you have an open or closed primary? Who decides it? Can that change? The idea of closed primaries sounds super fucked to Australian me, but I suppose in Australia you have more control over your vote in that you can vote below the line, carefully choosing your preferences and where they flow. I just think it's fucked because if I was forced to vote for one of only the ALP or Liberal I'd be very angry, because I don't much like either. So the idea of being forced to vote for one of two parties if you want to vote at all is heinous to me. (Ax can talk about this a lot better.)

very important™.

this made me laugh.

but i'd rather have sanders anyway, and term limits helped ensure people like reagan and dubya got out so it's not always a bad thing.

this is a good point, it works both ways! (I'm also interested to learn more about Reagan. He's very big in popular culture, but I'll ask another time.)

from now, the primaries and caucuses in the remaining 49 states.

But you said above not all states have them...? Or do some have primaries and some caucuses? Why is that? Is one of them more important/relevant than the other?

and hopefully more emphasis on those emails.

I would also love a for-idiots run-down on this scandal, but again I'll ask another time.

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

I thought The Sand would be right up your alley politically, Cobbler.

I'm sure he is. I haven't really looked into him because I've just been put off by the look of him, which is dumb, I know. But I just can't shake this feeling that I have that it comes off disingenuous. You like him?

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

If he was silly enough, Bill Clinton could legally run for president now.)

I suspect an old president would not get a great deal of momentum after years in the wilderness, though.

[cobl04]

A friend sent this article to me on Twitter Ta-Nehisi Coates on Bernie Sanders and Reparations - The Atlantic

after I sought clarification over this tweet

And I thought it was a really, really thought-provoking read

[Kieran McConville]

^Of course not. He'd have no hope. And the days of second comings, and third and fourth comings, that characterised political life in the UK, Australia and (to an extent) the US in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, are long gone. In Bill Clinton's case, I'm not exactly shedding any tears. The sooner the Clintons, and the triangulating right wing of the Democratic Party that they represent, shuffle off into the long goodnight, the better.

[Axver]

AH FUCK I didn't notice there was an extra page when I replied. OH WELL. Enjoy the post anyway, even if this shit's now been covered.

The two terms thing as a norm (rather than something legally blinding) dates back to George Washington retiring after two and America's subsequent deification of basically everything he ever did.

I'm sure the Americans here can field good answers for all those questions, but I'll reply to some that I think I know. (And perhaps get found out for a lack of knowledge, but let's see.)

Originally Posted by cobl04

- I feel like this campaign has been going for fucking ever. Why the FUCK is an election that won't take place until November starting like 18+ months out. What the fuck.

Keep in mind this sort of thing happens here too, it's just that with less money in the system and the fact that we don't know the date of the election until ~6 weeks out, it limits the potential for the campaign to sprawl. But basically all of this year's politics in Australia will be the "campaign before the campaign" until Turnbull announces the date.

But the ridiculously long process of primaries drags it out in the US much longer than ours. At least we simply have the party room/caucus (see below!) elect its leader from among the parliamentary representatives. I've been following US elections since 2000 and I feel like the months of campaigning in the preceding year, to get pole position at the start of primaries, has dragged out longer and longer each cycle, but I could be wrong in that assessment.

- Are the Democrats in a better place than the Republicans? (kinda hard question to answer given everyone will be biased.) Like the Republican race is 10000000x more interesting and entertaining than the Democratic race, but is that a good thing for the Dems? That it's between two of them instead of five or seven or ten like the GOP?

Well that's the big debate isn't it? I don't think you'll get an answer that isn't disputed by at least some folks. My view: the Democrats will walk it in, no matter who the Republicans nominate from their field of narrow-appeal clowns.

- What is the difference between the last 12 months and today? Why was today so special?

Because it was the first primary, i.e. where state delegates are chosen (by varying means in the different states) for each party's national conference, at which the delegates elect the candidate. I think this answers your delegate question below too.

Who can participate in a primary varies from state to state too. I understand that in most you need to be a member of the party, but in some you can change that affiliation on the day. Our American posters can clarify more broadly, but I read that's the case in Iowa. I think this answers another question below - and no, your participation or party affiliation here doesn't affect your participation in the general election.

- What the fuck is a caucus?

It's not what it means in Australia - the parliamentary representatives of a particular party, although here only the ALP uses the term, with the other major parties calling it the party room (in New Zealand and South Africa all parties use "caucus"). The term here was introduced by the American-born King O'Malley, the same wanker who stole the U from Labor's name. Anyway, in some American states, instead of just having a straight vote, they have a caucus to choose the delegates - and in Iowa this only applied to the Democrats. Watch this video from 2008 to see the madness (making people declare their votes in public is absurdly undemocratic):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnh-136QqO8

- Why is Iowa, a state that I had never given thought to in 25-and-a-half years of existence, the most important fucking thing in the world? Why has Trump et al been banging on constantly about Iowa for fucking months?

Iowa managed to snare the first primary back in 1972 (which is when today's system emerged, more or less) and have held onto it. Basically, although Iowa is unrepresentative of the US as a whole, and not a particularly large number of people participate, since it's the first actual result - rather than just an opinion poll - it gives a new and better guide to how a candidate is trending. If they perform as expected, cool. If they perform above expectations, they can attract more endorsements and money (which is obviously crucial in a system awash with cash). If they perform below expectations, they can lose supporters and dollars. I found this a decent read: Why do the Iowa caucuses matter? Because everyone thinks they do. - Vox

- Does every single state get a 'caucus'? How are they going to pack 49 more of these things in? Is it always the same order? If so, why, and how did they arrive at said order

There is a primary in every state, and although they're spaced out over the next few months, on some days there will be primaries in multiple states. Look out for Super Tuesday next month when a whole bunch happen at once.

- Does Trump actually want to be president? Would he even like it? Surely this is just all a show for his ego?

Clive Palmer eat your fucking heart out.

On second thoughts, Clive, put the fork down and pay Queensland Nickel's debts.

[cobl04]

Also, (and I'm coming from a state of ignorance about him here) but people say that the Bern is A SOCIALIST, so I'm a little surprised he's done so well? I'd have thought his ~extremism~ would have counted him out a long time ago? Again, ignorant, but I'm surprised there's a large enough groundswell supporting him.

[Axver]

Oh and Cobbler, if you want a for-dummies rundown of primary vs caucus in the US meaning, guess what I bumped into while Googling to confirm my memory that King O'Malley introduced the term "caucus" to Australia:

What Is the Difference between a Primary Election and a Caucus? - For Dummies

[Kieran McConville]

Well he's not so much a socialist, as a democratic socialist (if that). After 2008, I'm amazed someone like him isn't doing even better than he is. America might, stereotypically, run scared at the S word, but come on. There is unfinished business. And there is a native populist tradition, that isn't wholly owned by the Right.

[cobl04]

Got more questions I'll ask tomorrow. Bed time now. Thanks Ax and all!

Originally Posted by Kieran McConville

Well he's not so much a socialist, as a democratic socialist (if that). After 2008, I'm amazed someone like him isn't doing even better than he is. America might, stereotypically, run scared at the S word, but come on. There is unfinished business. And there is a native populist tradition, that isn't wholly owned by the Right.

Hmm, maybe it's because I've been so entertained/interested in the GOP race, I'm just surprised, because it seems like such a dirty word, socialism. Like, I think it's fair to say that most left-wing politicians with a chance of office try to distance themselves from the term to appeal to centre/swing voters.

[Axver]

And before I turn in for the night, here's something for the American posters - an introduction to one of your more colourful ex-pats:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_O'Malley

Landing at Port Alma [in Queensland], O'Malley [who was ill with tuberculosis] apparently took up residence in a cave at Emu Park, where he befriended an aborigine, Coowonga, who cared for him until he recovered. Once healthy, O'Malley decided to walk the 2,100 km from Emu Park to Adelaide in South Australia, arriving in 1893. In South Australia he again worked as an itinerant insurance salesman, also preaching evangelical Christianity and temperance.

...

O'Malley's narrow win in 1896 has been credited to his popularity among religious leaders and conservatives for his extreme puritan views, but it seems his popularity with women voters was a bigger factor. Women were much taken by his appearance and O'Malley's "oratorial buffoonery" was the popular topic of discussion throughout South Australia. He called hotels "drunkeries", alcohol was "stagger juice", opponents were "diabolical rapscallions" and he referred to himself as the "bald headed Eagle from the Rocky Mountains".

...

O'Malley became Minister for Home Affairs, and played a prominent role in selecting the site of the future capital of Australia, Canberra. He declared American architect Walter Burley Griffin winner of the town planning competition. On 20 February 1913, O'Malley drove in the first peg marking the start of the development of the city. He was also present at the ceremony for the naming of Canberra on 12 March 1913.

As a teetotaller he was responsible for the highly unpopular ban on alcohol in the Australian Capital Territory. He could also claim credit for beginning the building of the Trans-Australian Railway from Port Augusta to Perth.

O'Malley also agitated for the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, a state-owned savings and investment bank although, contrary to his later claims, he was not the bank's sole creator.

...

O'Malley's other legacy was the spelling of "Labor" in the Australian Labor Party's title in the American style. He was a spelling reform enthusiast and persuaded the party that "Labor" was a more "modern" spelling than "Labour". Although the American spelling has still not become established in Australia, the Labor Party has preserved the spelling.

[Mack_Again]

Originally Posted by cobl04

- Are the Democrats in a better place than the Republicans? (kinda hard question to answer given everyone will be biased.)

that's like ultimate question that US is trying to answer over 200 years.