US General Election 2016

Hopefully Biden will announce soon to make up for this. Can you imagine a Trump vs Biden debate? It's not gonna get to that point (thankfully) but the I love the idea of it.

I think Christie going up against Trump would be even better.

That has a lot of potential as well. Hopefully Christie will hold on long enough in the primaries to have a chance to really engage with the Donald in one of the debates.

Can't stump the Trump.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/252825-poll-trump-beats-hillary-head-to-head

I cant figure out, the longer this goes on, if its funny, terrifying, or terrifyingly funny!

I, for one, welcome our new real estate overlord.

But did they factor in Deez Nuts' support?

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/09/13/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-cbs-battleground-poll/



Looks good for Bernie, but I think including Biden in this is a little dishonest, because he hasn't even announced that he's running. And it sounds like he's not going to.

Bernie Sanders versus Trump?

CAGE MATCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sanders is as far left as Trump is...whatever he is. I don't see crossover votes happening. I see people refusing to vote either out of disgust at Trump or lack of inspiration from Sanders.

This is assuming the republicans actually let Trump in. Party procedure seems a little hazy here: how exactly do they keep him out if the popular vote is so strongly for him? Eldo, can you jump in here?

Trying to get Eldo's attention again. To repeat the above question: what mechanism does the republican party have in place to avoid nominating someone who has dominated the popular primary vote? Is it that delegates are not obligated to follow the votes of their constituents?

Since party conventions started to be broadcast on TV it seems they have been all show with no dealmaking evident. I don't remember anyone shouting out the name of rivals to the apparent choice. How will it be handled if Trump is still in the lead but they can't bring themselves to nominate him?

halfwise wrote: How will it be handled if Trump is still in the lead but they can't bring themselves to nominate him?

As I understand it, if he's got more than 50% of the delegate votes coming out of the primary elections then he'll be the GOP candidate, end of subject. But if he's in the lead with less than 50% of the vote, then that's when the horsetrading begins.

Who knows, Trump might be able to negotiate a cabinet position out of the deal.

Secretary of State perhaps

Eldo, your thoughts?

Does their come a point where Americans realise a jokes a joke but enough is enough?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/21/scott-walker-said-to-be-quitting-presidential-race/

Another one bites the dust.

And then there were ... 15.

The latest CNN poll did him in I think.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/20/politics/carly-fiorina-donald-trump-republican-2016-poll/index.html

Fiorina's star continues to rise for now. She's at least as batshit insane on foreign policy as Trump, though.

halfwise wrote:Trying to get Eldo's attention again.  To repeat the above question: what mechanism does the republican party have in place to avoid nominating someone who has dominated the popular primary vote?  Is it that delegates are not obligated to follow the votes of their constituents?

Since party conventions started to be broadcast on TV it seems they have been all show with no dealmaking evident.  I don't remember anyone shouting out the name of rivals to the apparent choice.  How will it be handled if Trump is still in the lead but they can't bring themselves to nominate him?

Sorry I missed your previous post, halfy.  RL engagements been eating into my forum time lately (not that I'm complaining).

The party conventions operate on the same general principles as the electoral college.  Technically the nominee is chosen by a vote of delegates at the convention.  The vast majority of delegates are chosen by voters during primaries (caucuses can be a little weird but still result in delegates).  It's a little different in that the territories get to vote too and most states allocate delegates proportionally (eg, if someone wins 50% of the vote in a given state primary, he only gets 50% of the delegates from that state).  The important bit is that, like with the EC, the delegates are (mostly) all pledged to specific candidates.  Every now and then someone proposes a delegate revolt in exchange for some favor or compromise, but the shitstorm this would set off would be so massive and toxic that it would likely split the party, at least for that election.  The only potential exception is if no candidate wins a majority of delegates and so deal-making between the top remaining candidates is necessary, but this is unlikely.

Basically, the parties have handed over responsibility for nominating the candidate to the voters, so the insiders/establishment don't really get a say once all the votes are cast (though obviously they're in a position to influence many of those votes).  Trump's still not going to win the nomination, though.

David H wrote:As I understand it, if he's got more than 50% of the delegate votes coming out of the primary elections then he'll be the GOP candidate, end of subject. But if he's in the lead with less than 50% of the vote, then that's when the horsetrading begins.

Pretty much.  It's also worth noting that candidates who win delegates in early primaries and later drop out will often direct their delegates to support the front-runner, bumping up emerging minorities, though there are exceptions and some candidates might prefer to support someone they're closer to (either personally or ideologically) rather than trying to foster party unity.

Who knows, Trump might be able to negotiate a cabinet position out of the deal.

Secretary of State perhaps

Eldo, your thoughts?

I can't really see Trump wanting a Cabinet position.  He only seems interested in the Presidency for the ego trip in the first place.  There's only a handful of Cabinet positions that most people are even vaguely aware of (State, Defense, Treasury, and Attorney General; the others are nothing to 99% of people) but they're not the kind of offices to keep you in the news day in and day out except in relevant cases of emergency, like a war or the financial crisis.

Still, Trump isn't really melting down yet, is he Eldo?  I honestly can't believe the GOP can consider him as a viable candidate, but since they've put the delegates in the hands of the primary voters, I don't know what they can do to stop him (if he doesn't stop himself.)  

I honestly don't know much about how primaries are handled in the various states. Can the State parties throw up roadblocks to keep Trump off the primary ballot? That would certainly be effective in the sort term, but it would just fuel the fires of mistrust among all the voters who are disillusioned by insider games as it is.

Also, just looking at the stats, what about a Rubio/Fiorina ticket? Hypothetically anyway, it might just be viable to Republicans in both the west and the south.  Other than some kind of coalition like that, I'm not really seeing anybody who could appeal on the national level right now. And if they're going to lose anyway, what's wrong with sticking with Trump and doing it in style?

The state parties can be penalized by the national committee if they muck things up too much and there is precedent (from the Dems in 2008) for throwing out an entire state's results if they ignore national rules. I don't see the RNC letting individual states start a clusterfuck of controversy and infighting by trying to sabotage Trump.

It's possible that states with open primaries (where you don't have to be registered as a member of a party to vote in their primary) will see Democrats crossing over to vote for Trump with an eye towards hurting the GOP's general election prospects, but I'm skeptical. This possibility gets mentioned every cycle (and even came up in the UK with the recent Labour leadership election which for the first time was open to ordinary voters for a nominal party registration fee), but I'm not sure if any research has been done as to how prevalent this tactic actually is.

David H wrote:Also, just looking at the stats, what about a Rubio/Fiorina ticket? Hypothetically anyway, it might just be viable to Republicans in both the west and the south.  Other than some kind of coalition like that, I'm not really seeing anybody who could appeal on the national level right now. And if they're going to lose anyway, what's wrong with sticking with Trump and doing it in style?

Current leaderboard from the most recent (post-debate) CNN poll that I linked to above.

Trump: 24%
Fiorina: 15%
Carson: 14%
Rubio: 11%
Bush: 9%
Cruz: 6%
Huckabee 6%
Paul: 4%
Christie: 3%
Kasich: 2%
Santorum: 1%

With the next debate probably not going to include an "undercard", I don't think anyone outside of the current Top 10-11 has even an outside chance (they're all polling at under 1% anyway, according to this poll). Paul, Christie, Kasich, and Santorum were never serious contenders for a variety of reasons. It's certainly significant that the top three spots are held by non-politicians, but I don't think Trump, Fiorina, or Carson will hold up to scrutiny once more casual Republicans start paying attention and of course actually voting. Cruz and Huckabee are fringe as well; Cruz is popular with the Tea Party but I think his iconoclasm towards fellow Republicans will come back to bite him. That really leaves Bush and Rubio. I was fairly confident in Bush early in this race but he's not conducted himself in an impressive or Presidential manner thus far. Rubio at least does a good job projecting intelligence and competence, and despite his age is someone I could envision filling the role of President. Not to say that Bush couldn't do this either, but unless he really turns things around and overcomes his charisma problem, I think Rubio is the more attractive candidate. Not sure which one the Hispanic vote and the mixed baggage of the Bush name will swing the electorate towards, but if I were a betting man, my money would be on Rubio at this point.

It's important to remember that we're still in the early days though, so the above could be totally wrong.