2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VIII

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

'There is no them there's only us, only us. There is no them, there's only us'


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Oregoropa 'rocking' BEAL to sleep...

'You're gonna sleep like a baby tonight...'

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Yeah, Republican primary turnout is much higher in 2016 than in 2012, so Trump getting more votes than Romney isn't a huge deal.

Generated by 4 more years of Obama. Generated by a tea party movement. Generated by a far more loathed Clinton. By failure of the Repubes to put forward a winner. Also the mere fact that both primaries are ongoing -- elections tend to be more intense. Population growth probably tends to have each primary equal to or larger than the last primary. Plus, the ever so evolving world of social media.

I would also say that 3-4 candidates is a happy medium for maximizing voter turnout.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Scott Brown.

You mean Democrats losing a super low-turnout off-year election that didn't even occur in November and had the Democratic nominee deciding not to campaign? Sorry, but that's not representative at all.

It's a Presidential election year. Turnout is high, Clinton has hundreds of millions backing her campaign and she's not going to just go on a vacation in the middle of the home stretch. There is no mathematical way that Trump can suddenly make up that deficit of 5,000,000 plus votes that he will trail her behind if he suddenly becomes as popular as Mitt Romney.

There will never be another Republican President unless the right combination of major scandals or pointless foreign military intervention comes to fruition. And even then, the timing has to be just right. A Democratic President that resigns a mid a scandal as is replaced far enough out from an election will just result in the new Democratic President being handily re-elected. The win is literally now baked into the American fabric thanks to the changing demographics and it's only going to get easier.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

it's the limitation of Sanders' view of the problems that gets me. i don't see any of his solutions as either realistic, in concept, or detailed, in execution. not even he knows how to "break up the banks." heavy taxation sounds nice, to some, but get that through Congress and not suffer heavy losses in the 2018 midterms.

If Clinton's approval rating were sitting at 60% by November 2018, she'll still get drubbed in the mid-terms. Sitting party is the one that takes congressional losses nearly always (only avoiding it twice since World War II) and it doesn't help that Republicans are more reliable voters.

Americans overwhelmingly support tax raises on the rich including a majority of Republicans in various polls. It's not a losing issue whatsoever.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Yeah, Republican primary turnout is much higher in 2016 than in 2012, so Trump getting more votes than Romney isn't a huge deal.

So let me see if I have this straight, more Republicans voting in 2016 primaries than 2012, and more of them voting for the presumptive nominee in 2016 than the 2012 nominee automatically equates to less of them voting for said nominee in the general than 2012?

Just want to be sure I understand how the math works.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Hewson

So let me see if I have this straight, more Republicans voting in 2016 primaries than 2012, and more of them voting for the presumptive nominee in 2016 than the 2012 nominee automatically equates to less of them voting for said nominee in the general than 2012?

Just want to be sure I understand how the math works.

I think it goes something like this; and I'll use very round numbers so everyone can keep up.

Candidate A received 10,000,000 primary votes in 2012. Okay we can all agree here.

Candidate B received 10,000,000 primary votes in 2016. Low balling just so everyone is on the same page.

Candidate A received 60,000,000 in the general, SOOOOOOO it's probably fair to say that Candidate B can get about that correct?

BUT, now you're saying there is a higher turn out, AND Candidate B was up against a lot more competition in the beginning of his race. SO it's probably fair to say he'll get a few more votes.

So where's the "case closed"?

Keep in mind NONE of this matter depending on which states are carried.



In all fairness they have changed math since our day Hewson, so maybe this new Common Core math would give us different results.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by BVS

In all fairness they have changed math since our day Hewson, so maybe this new Common Core math would give us different results.

2 + 2 = 7 nowadays.

[LuckyNumber7]

Everything equals me these days.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Everything equals me these days.

[deep]

Is it too late for Biden???

Vice President Joe Biden says he “would have been the best president” if he had mounted a successful campaign in the 2016 election, but that forgoing the race was the right decision for his family.

Speaking with “Good Morning America” co-anchor Robin Roberts in an exclusive interview that aired today, Biden said he had planned to run but changed course only after his eldest son Beau died last May.

“No one should ever seek the presidency unless they're able to devote their whole heart and soul and passion into just doing that,” he said. “And, Beau was my soul. I just wasn't ready to be able to do that. But, so, my one regret is my Beau's not here. I don't have any other regrets.”

Joe Biden: ‘I Would Have Been the Best President’ - ABC News

[BVS]

He and Trump trying to out best each other would have been entertaining at least.

[deep]

He already has a nick name, "honest Joe"
not as catchy as, well you know

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by deep

Is it too late for Biden???







Joe Biden: ‘I Would Have Been the Best President’ - ABC News

Let the man grieve, deep.

[Oregoropa]

Amtrak Joe

[BVS]

Well technically speaking he could just remain VP and then run in 8 years on the most experienced ticket in history.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by Axver

Paging Vlad...

I know you're trying to get a rise out of me, but Sanders' evoking of a 'political revolution' is somewhat laughable given how mild he generally is. It's a bit of a bastardisation of the term, he's hardly proposing to make a serious structural overhaul.

[deep]

Originally Posted by BVS

Well technically speaking he could just remain VP and then run in 8 years on the most experienced ticket in history.

I was thinking similar, there is nothing about term limits for a VP,
he would balance the ticket,
Crooked Hillary / Honest Joe
(she's crook-ed, he's honest)

[Axver]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

I know you're trying to get a rise out of me, but Sanders' evoking of a 'political revolution' is somewhat laughable given how mild he generally is. It's a bit of a bastardisation of the term, he's hardly proposing to make a serious structural overhaul.

Actually this time I wasn't trying to rile you! I was just waiting for you to take objection to the claim.

[Vlad n U 2]

I actually would have ignored it if you hadn't brought attention to it. I had just woken up and not in the mood to read long bodies of text.

[bono_212]

I tried to catch up with this thread yesterday on my way home from the airport, but ended up still about three or four days behind. Somewhere, Irvine, you posted a really great article about the climate of this election cycle, how someone like Trump could get elected, and just generally it was really a great article, voiced a lot of my feelings well, etc. and I didn't really see anyone comment on it, so I just wanted to say, hey, thanks for posting that.