133 replies to this topic

[Cait]

OK, here it is.. a threrad to discuss primaries, debates, what have you.  This is getting real now, we have the first two states already making decisions.  Iowa and new Hampshire have begun the season, so we should pay attention and discuss the future of the country.

Once we have nominations, I'll begin a thread for the actual election.

[sierraleone]

From Wall Street Journal I got an Election schedule and have put the dates going forward to the conventions below:


Feb. 20: Nevada Democratic caucus, South Carolina Republican primary

Feb. 23: Nevada Republican caucus

Feb. 27: South Carolina Democratic primary

March 1 (Super Tuesday): Alabama primary, Alaska Republican caucus, American Samoa Democratic caucuses, Arkansas primary, Colorado caucuses (Republicans won't vote), Georgia primary, Massachusetts primary, Minnesota primary, Oklahoma primary, Tennessee primary, Texas primary, Vermont primary, Virginia primary, Wyoming Republican caucus, abroad Democratic primary

March 3: Republican debate in Detroit

March 5: Kansas caucuses, Kentucky Republican caucus, Louisiana primary, Maine Republican caucus, Nebraska Democratic caucus

March 6: Democratic debate in Flint, Michigan; Maine Democratic caucus, Puerto Rico Republican primary

March 8: Hawaii Republican caucus, Idaho Republican primary, Michigan primary, Mississippi primary

March 9: Democratic debate in Miami

March 10: Republican debate in Florida, Virgin Islands Republican caucus

March 12: District of Columbia Republican convention, Guam Republican convention, Northern Mariana Islands Democratic caucus

March 15: Florida primary, Illinois primary, Missouri primary, North Carolina primary, Northern Mariana Islands Republican caucus, Ohio primary

March 22: American Samoa Republican convention, Arizona primary, Idaho Democratic caucus, Utah caucus

March 26: Alaska Democratic caucus, Hawaii Democratic caucus, Washington Democratic caucus

April 1: North Dakota Republican convention

April 5: Wisconsin primary

April 9: Wyoming Democratic caucus

April 19: New York primary

April 26: Connecticut primary, Delaware primary, Maryland primary, Pennsylvania primary, Rhode Island primary

May 3: Indiana primary

May 7: Guam Democratic caucus

May 10: Nebraska Republican primary, West Virginia primary

May 17: Kentucky Democratic primary, Oregon primary

May 24: Washington Republican primary

June 4: Virgin Islands Democratic caucus

June 5: Puerto Rico Democratic caucus

June 7: California primary, Montana primary, New Jersey primary, New Mexico primary, North Dakota Democratic caucus, South Dakota primary

June 14: District of Columbia Democratic primary

July 18-21: Republican National Convention in Cleveland

July 25-28: Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia

[Omega]

Here we have the predictions of Nate Silver and company, which are historically dead-f'ing-nuts accurate.
https://projects.fiv...ina-republican/

They're projecting Hillary to walk away with the Carolinas and Michigan, and Bernie to put up more of a fight in other states. I still think she'll end up with enough delegates that we don't have a contested convention, but she can't take that for granted.

Trump is projected winner in every state so far except Texas, where it's Cruz. But I don't think he's projected winner by enough to get a majority of the delegates. Which means after the first round of voting at the convention, utter chaos may be unleashed. Because there's no way Cruz will ever back out of this race, even if it destroys the party. Trump doesn't care about destroying the party either, but I'm not sure that's not exactly the leverage he wants, so he can get... some other end I don't understand.

Tennessee is open primary, early voting is already on, but I'm waiting to see if anyone else drops out. I'll probably vote March 1. Not sure which party I'll vote in yet. If it's Democrat, it's definitely Bernie. If it's Republican... I'm not sure.

I can't vote for Cruz, because his entire message is anger, hate, and fear. It's so anti-Christian I almost have to vote against him on religious grounds; he's making us look bad.

I can't vote for Carson, because his platform is utterly disconnected from reality. A 10% flat tax because it was good enough for God in the Old Testament? Seriously? Also makes Christians look bad, though more because it's stupid than because it's evil.

I can't vote for Bush, because... well, he's Bush. He still thinks invading Iraq was just fine. And he uses W as one of his chief advisers on middle-east policy! And the rest of W's advisers as well! The Iraq war was the biggest policy disaster in my lifetime, and I can't vote for someone who doesn't see that.

So among Rubio, Trump, and Kasich...

Rubio is trying to look like an experienced politician when he's not. He's trying to be Obama, but he can't pull it off. He's trying to look like a mainstream candidate when he's really a right-wing extremist, except by comparison to Cruz! In short, he's a bozo.

Trump is frightening, though not nearly to the same degree as Cruz. He can't possibly win; his net favorability is something like negative 23%. But what scares me the most is that I honestly don't know what the man wants. Is he insane? Or brilliantly doing... something else?

Kasich is clearly the least offensive. In a sane year he'd make a very strong candidate. He'd be the candidate of the Republican party I wish existed. So he'd be the one I'd pick, out of the six.

So yeah. Probably voting for Bernie.

[Nonny]

Omega, on 16 February 2016 - 09:36 PM, said:

Kasich is clearly the least offensive. In a sane year he'd make a very strong candidate. He'd be the candidate of the Republican party I wish existed. So he'd be the one I'd pick, out of the six.

Kasich expects folks to see him as a moderate. Check his record as governor of Ohio. He's bad news.

[Omega]

I'm not saying he's great. I'm saying he's better than the rest. If only for admitting that, you know, taxes are kinda necessary, and implementing the ACA in Ohio because he wanted his people to not die. In short, I think he might be the only one of the six left that I have intellectual disagreements with, because the other five are just outright insane. That's how low my standards are in the Republican party right now.

Looking back at whose dropped out, I don't know there was ever anyone better. Santorum wants to legislate his personal religious beliefs, as does Huckabee. Perry, Walker, and Jindal are all the same brand of tea-party crazy. Christie is I think more grounded in reality, but blatantly corrupt and consciously self-serving. And I never understood why Fiorina was running at all.

Who's that even leave? Graham somewhat, but his foreign policy ideas have been a disaster for decades, and he doesn't seem to learn. Maybe Pataki, but he never got any traction. Paul, who's an odd amalgam of the craziest and sanest person on any given stage...

So yeah. I'd pick Kasich as the best of an extremely broad, extremely bad field.

Edited by Omega, 17 February 2016 - 09:07 AM.

[Cait]

Omega, on 17 February 2016 - 09:01 AM, said:

I'm not saying he's great. I'm saying he's better than the rest. If only for admitting that, you know, taxes are kinda necessary, and implementing the ACA in Ohio because he wanted his people to not die. In short, I think he might be the only one of the six left that I have intellectual disagreements with, because the other five are just outright insane. That's how low my standards are in the Republican party right now.

Looking back at whose dropped out, I don't know there was ever anyone better. Santorum wants to legislate his personal religious beliefs, as does Huckabee. Perry, Walker, and Jindal are all the same brand of tea-party crazy. Christie is I think more grounded in reality, but blatantly corrupt and consciously self-serving. And I never understood why Fiorina was running at all.

Who's that even leave? Graham somewhat, but his foreign policy ideas have been a disaster for decades, and he doesn't seem to learn. Maybe Pataki, but he never got any traction. Paul, who's an odd amalgam of the craziest and sanest person on any given stage...

So yeah. I'd pick Kasich as the best of an extremely broad, extremely bad field.

Exactly.  If I had to choose a Republican, Kasich is the only choice I could live with.  He isn't insane.  He's just a Republican.

[Cait]

Here's an interesting piece on the state of the GOP this election cycle.

http://www.salon.com...dium=socialflow

[Cait]

Nonny, on 17 February 2016 - 08:51 AM, said:

Kasich expects folks to see him as a moderate. Check his record as governor of Ohio. He's bad news.

Kasich is a moderate Republican.  Stack him up against the other alleged Republican and he is left of center in this particular incarnation of the GOP.  You're looking at him from the left, where he is still right of center on a broad political spectrum, [and that is fine btw, we all look at candidates from our own perspective.], which makes him unacceptable to you.  But Nonny, I doubt you would ever vote for any Republican.  And, that too is OK.  You are a Democrat and that's where you live.  So, do a lot of people btw.

My mother is a Republican.  I mean a Barry Goldwater, gun toting, Republican.  She is mystified this election cycle.  She says if Trump gets the nomination, she will NOT vote at all.  She can't bring herself to vote for any Democrat--ever.. but she will stay home if Trump gets the nod.  She says she will vote if it is Kasich, or Jeb.  My mother has never missed voting in any election for her entire life, and the GOP field is so bad, she is considering staying home.  That's how insane the candidates are to a staunch Republican.  

So compared to that, Kasich is Reagan reincarnated this election cycle.  But, he will never get the delegates.  i doubt he can stay in much past Super Tuesday, if that long.  He doesn't have the $$ for the long haul.

[Cait]

*sigh* Nevermind.  Kasich is crazy too...

http://www.addicting...stianity-video/

[Themis]

OMG.  And yet Kasich is still less crazy than the rest of them.  But they're all certifiable. I don't know who scares me most, Trump or Cruz.

I'm wavering between Clinton and Sanders and will probably go with Clinton, but I want Sanders as Secretary of Something.

As I'm in Tennessee, I wonder if I should vote in the Democratic or Republican primary.  I'm definitely a Democrat, but I'd love to do something (more) to screw up the Republicans.

Guam?  Puerto Rico?  American Samoa?  I didn't realize they could even vote.  Re-education needed every cycle. Frankly I would doubt most Republicans would accept that they could vote!

[Cait]

Cruz and Trump are equally dangerous, but for different reasons.  Trump has no ideology.  No one knows what he will do, and I don't think he even knows what he would do.  He certainly has no policy positions others than campaign slogans.  But, Cruz is an ideologue.  While Trump is just unpredictable and a bi-polar bully, Cruz is a dedicated ideologue with delusions of grandeur.  Both believe they are "chosen" to lead.  Both are dangerous to the world and the the US.

[Cait]

I'm not sure where I stand on this.  The circumstances are NOT the same as President Obama.  Obama was born in Hawaii, that's definitely a "natural born citizen.  But Cruz????  He was born in Canada, and NOT like McCain, who was born on a US Military base in a foreign land [as I recall].  Is being born of one US parent, automatically make you natural born?  Or, just a citizen? According to the article, there's no ruling on this.

Interesting, tho, so it's going to court.  Let's see how far it goes, or if it is just a stunt prior to the NC primary.

http://www.vox.com/2.../ted-cruz-court

Quote

The Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago has agreed to hear a lawsuit on Sen. Ted Cruz's eligibility for president — virtually ensuring that the issue dominates the news in the runup to the South Carolina primary.

[sierraleone]

Cait, on 19 February 2016 - 05:29 PM, said:

http://www.vox.com/2.../ted-cruz-court

Quote

The Circuit Court of Cook County in Chicago has agreed to hear a lawsuit on Sen. Ted Cruz's eligibility for president — virtually ensuring that the issue dominates the news in the runup to the South Carolina primary.

I can't imagine this not going up to the Supreme Court... unless the filer of the lawsuit drops it, or Cruz drops out of the race.

Edited by sierraleone, 19 February 2016 - 05:39 PM.

[Cait]

sierraleone, on 19 February 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

I can't imagine this not going up to the Supreme Court... unless the filer of the lawsuit drops it, or Cruz drops out of the race.

Well, from what I can find, there really is no legal definition concerning Cruz's situation and whether or not he is "natural born".  What I found is...

1. Everyone born in the US regardless of the state of the parents citizenship, is in fact a natural born citizen.
2. Everyone born of a citizen of the US, regardless of location is a citizen [note the lack of "natural born" there.]
3. Everyone born of non-US parents, not in the US is not a citizen and not natural born.

There is that gray area in #2, which is the Cruz situation.

I jaded and cynical self thinks this has less to do with Cruz, and more with the court right now, given that it is an 8-member court.  

As a matter of law, I'd like this definition to be resolved as soon as possible.  I'd like to reduce the time politicians take in debating this kind of thing and return us to actual policy.  But, what do I know.

How quickly it could make it through the courts is questionable, and meanwhile it is a political football, polarizing the nation yet again.

[Cait]

http://fivethirtyeig...bernie-sanders/

Quote

Consider the following. We’ll start with some of the more superficial differences between Sanders and Trump and work our way to the more important ones.
1. Trump is “winning” (for now), and Sanders isn’t. There are lots of reasons to suspect that Trump will fall from his position atop the GOP polls sooner or later, but he’d be a favorite to win a hypothetical national primary held today. Sanders, by contrast, trails Hillary Clinton by about 20 percentage points in national polls that include Joe Biden, and by 30 points in polls that don’t.
2. Sanders is campaigning on substantive policy positions, and Trump is largely campaigning on the force of his personality. I’m not sure this assertion requires a lot of proof, but if you need some, check out the candidates’ websites. Sanders’s lists dozens of specific policy proposalsacross a wide range of issues; Trump’s details his position on just one, immigration.

[Themis]

Cait, on 19 February 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

There is that gray area in #2, which is the Cruz situation.

I jaded and cynical self thinks this has less to do with Cruz, and more with the court right now, given that it is an 8-member court.  

As a matter of law, I'd like this definition to be resolved as soon as possible.  I'd like to reduce the time politicians take in debating this kind of thing and return us to actual policy.  But, what do I know.

How quickly it could make it through the courts is questionable, and meanwhile it is a political football, polarizing the nation yet again.

Indeed.  Part of me wishes this would do in Cruz' candidacy.  It's shallow of me, but policies aside, I can't stand his face.  But I do think there should be a legal rulling - at the highest level - on this asap.  It could come up again and the country needs precedent.  (And no, "birthers," it doesn't apply to Obama - he was born in Hawaii which is a U.S. state.  See #1 above.)

[Omega]

Bush just dropped out.

[Lord of the Sword]

This is the first time I've ever really paid attention to the Democratic Primaries, I usually focus on the main election. I have to say though, what I'm seeing on the Democratic side is down right frightening. Coin tosses in Iowa to pick the winner, a card game in Nevada, all the while it's mainly so called "Super Delegates" that really matter, since apparently their vote counts more then others for some reason. I mean it's looking like something straight out of a Communist/Socialist country almost. Where Super delegates can over ride the will of the people, all because their vote is somehow more important. Down right scary. I mean what's next? A game of Hop Scotch to determine the winner? Or a game of Go Fish?

[Lord of the Sword]

I'm also not understanding how Nevada, which is 3 hours behind the East Coast, was able to call the projected winner early in the afternoon. I mean what, did they just play the game of cards to determine the winner? and skip the entire primary voting process? Or did the so called Super Delegates get together and go "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe"?

[BklnScott]

Caucuses are strange to those of us who didn't grow up in that system, but I've always kinda wished I could do just one cycle in a caucus state. It seems like  so much fun and individual people are way more involved in the selection process than if they just go into a booth and vote.

That said, the way the GOP selects its nominee is no more straight-forward. There are republican caucus states, republican super-delegates who can change their vote at the convention if need be, et al.

Stay tuned for the contested Republican convention -  first one in recent decades. I'm sure lotsa arcane rules and procedures that we've never had any reason to know about will come up. I'm excited!