Jump to content
270soft Forum

  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. Who do you think will be the 2016 Democratic nominee?

    • Hillary Clinton
      9
    • Bernie Sanders
      2
    • Martin O'Malley
      2
  2. 2. Who do you think will be the 2016 Republican nominee?

    • Donald Trump
      2
    • Ben Carson
      1
    • Marco Rubio
      4
    • Ted Cruz
      2
    • Jeb Bush
      1
    • Carly Fiorina
      1
    • Mike Huckabee
      0
    • Rand Paul
      0
    • John Kasich
      0
    • Chris Christie
      0
    • Linsdey Ghrahm
      0
    • Bobby Jindal
      0
    • Rick Santorum
      0
    • George Pataki
      0
    • Jim Gilmore
      2
  3. 3. Which party do you think will win the 2016 Presidential Elction?

    • Democratic
      5
    • Republican
      6
    • Libertarian
      0
    • Green
      0
    • Constitution
      2


Recommended Posts

Clinton/Rubio/Republicans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see Fiorina or Bush gaining the nomination. It's really down to Rubio or Cruz or someone winning a surprise in Iowa or New Hampshire and running with that momentum. I don't see Fiorina getting either of these, and I don't think she'll even be in the race by Iowa. I think as sane of a pick as Bush is for Republicans, I think the party is determined to move away from moderates like Romney and McCain and compromise with a Rubio.

There was a recent poll among those who watched the 3rd debate. The Republicans and leaning Republicans that responded to the question, "Did the candidate's performance improve your your chances of voting for the candidate or did it hurt their chances?" (I'm paraphrasing) turned sharply against all moderates except for Chris Christie. Only two candidates had an overwhelming number of respondents disapprove of their performance. These are Bush (Decisively dead last) and Kasich (Who I think did well, but Republicans don't agree). Fiorina barely broke even. The top 4 candidates were Rubio, Cruz, Carson and Trump, in that order. Rubio had the most positive responses, but he had a token few that disliked him. Cruz, surprisingly, had zero negative responses.

If this data has any truth on what we can expect, we can see Fiorina and Kasich falling to near 0 in the polls, Bush plummeting. Rubio and Cruz rising. Christie possibly becoming the choice of moderates unwilling to compromise on Rubio.

I don't expect Carson or Trump to get the nominee, for the same reason Fiorina won't get the nomination: They aren't credible.

Bush and Kasich are sad stories. The party is moving away from them in this election.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd just leave off the candidates and the parties that don't have any shot at winning. Keep the two major parties and then take out all the under card debaters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find effectively unbreakable two-parties duopolies in a countries democratic institutions, a bit saddening to be honest. Not nearly as bad as a one-party system, either in a legal sense (various Communist and Fascist countries and Third-World Revolutionary dictatorships), or in where other parties are allowed, but there's still effectively a very powerful and dominant one party that always wins handily (Uganda, Zimbabwe, South Africa (both Apartheid and post-Apartheid, just with a different party in each case), Belarus, Russia, and pre-2000 Mexico). I personally believe, even if it doesn't lead to clean, simple elections and exchanges of power in all cases and requires run-off-elections for presidential elections (which are, also, far more democratic the Electoral College and the "going to the House" in the US, as the 1824 election proved in the latter point) and coalitions and agreements on a case-for-case basis in a legislative branch are in essence more democratic and representative of the population than everyone with any realistic chance of winning being shoehorned into two parties with often melodramatic primaries. Also, direct presidential elections as opposed to the outdated Electoral College would be far more of the population's will too. Americans often say they're the "freest and most democratic nation on Earth," but I think they're only half right. The US does indeed have probably the most personal freedoms and liberties (on paper, not always enforced, notably for certain demographics in certain parts of the country, but in theory) of any recognized nation on the planet (so not including Sealand or anything), but I personally believe US democratic institutions could use a bit of work and are below some other nations in the election and choice of leaders and their representation of their constituents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the US is not a democracy. It is a republic. The electoral college is to appease the small states because a person in a smaller state has more represenation than a person in a bigger state. That is also the same with the Senate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Republics that predated the US, like Pre-Imperial Rome, the United Netherlands, and Venice, as famous examples, also ended up bogged down in inefficiency, impracticality, and, at times, the machinery of governance practically grinding to a halt to appease unrepresentative factions. Perhaps not the best form of government, overall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm always conflicted in whether we should be more democratic or not. I generally favor anything that makes us more democratic, getting rid of the electoral college, getting rid of the senate or reforming it to make it proportional, but at the same time, I think so much of the populous isn't learned enough to select competent representatives. In my perfect government, someone like Palin, Bachmann and Carson would be able to get 1% of the vote. The people would elect someone with superior intellect, superior judgment, superior vision and superior work ethic and a global understanding of all social classes, and science and technology and the cultures of other people. In short, no simpletons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just that, Patine, the US has very rigorous and open primary system. Most of the "steam" so to speak is let off in the primary system, and the Republican Party especially has a very, very broad coalition. It's all about geographics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Carly Fiorina winning. She is not a moderate. Not extreme to some. And she can beat Hillary Clinton in a debate and the general election. Anyone that knows what I leans towards politically, knows that I am a Tea Party conservative. A committed one at that. And I have endorsed and donated to her campaign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

her current poll numbers suggest differently

Polls also predicted that Matt Bevin would not win, yet, he won by a near landslide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dallas

I think Matt Bevins's win, despite the poll sometimes suggesting otherwise, is not a good analogy for a hypothetical Fiorina win for her party's nomination.

1) She's facing way more people, including people eminently more qualified than her.

2) She's collapsed since her surge after the 2nd debate.

3) According to politifact she's not telling the truth most of the time.

4) According to Nate Silver, the moderate/establishment politicians control the nomination through the delegate count, primarily because blue states (which generally have moderate Republicans) are disproportionately strong. For instance, Massachusetts has 0 Republican Congressmen, but a lot of Republican delegates.

5) As you say, she's not moderate, but not so extremely conservative as to turn away voters, but the Republicans have a more credible version of that in Marco Rubio

Overall, I don't think she'll be in the race by Iowa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bevin also had the Obama factor. He is hated so much in Ketucky because he has been a terrible President for the state and has made repeated attempts to destroy Kentucky's coal industry(which hurts the economy and really hurts Eastern Kentucky, where coal is one of the few jobs available).

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was also helped by the strange phenomenon that Democrats vote less in non-presidential election years than Republicans. This would explain why the polls would show a close election, potentially a win for the Democrat. If voting were mandatory, then the Democrats might have won (I'm not encouraging mandatory voting--although, I think election day should be a holiday to encourage voting). If I were a Republican, I could feel comfortable that I know registered voters of my party would show up to the polls. The more annoying thing about being someone that votes Democrat is that I get the anxiety that many registered Democrats are going to be distracted to vote.

My theory is that a Republican is more likely to vote for a candidate that they really don't want, because they want the party to win. I think a lot of Democrats will not vote unless the candidate they voted for in the primaries is nominated. I could be totally wrong. I have numerous friends that are Bernie Sanders supporters who say they won't vote for Hillary Clinton (thus, won't vote at all) if she is nominated. That's a fatal decisions. People make the error that a presidential election should be based on the election of a single individual. People forget that individual brings in thousands of people to fill offices and court rooms. The presidential nominee is just the representative of a thousand or more people of that party. Kasich, as likable as he is, will bring in a range of Republicans, even the Cruz-types. Likewise, Clinton as unsatisfactory she may be to some Democrats, will bring in a range of Democrats, even the Warren-Sanders types.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are Republicans like that. There were many Republicans that did not vote for Romney because he was a Mormon, which I think is just stupid. Also, if a person is too liberal, there are Conservatives that do not vote or vote third party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...