The Next President of the United States

[Mike from Boston]

Figure it is time to start the topic. So, in the interest of equal opportunity (before I start ranting the Hillary is one despicable liar), I am really starting to get creeped out by Ted Cruz. God, what a wuss. Has to cancel an ad because the actress (wow, you mean they aren't real voters) Amy Lindsay did soft core porn?? You just lost the male vote dude!!
Plus she also did Star Trek, I imagine this is unacceptable if you believe the Earth is flat and the center of the universe!!

[NewJerseyRich]

Good job Mike. Isn't it funny how the left in 2008 used the term "old white people" over and over and now the only two candidates the can manage fit their description to a T? The R's have quite a cornucopia of choices since that appears to be what the left had sought.

How disgusting is HC putting people on her stage to claim "there's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for a women". Talk about lame brained, idiotic ideas. Who the hell falls for that nonsense? As if having the chromosome some how makes you an automatic for another woman's vote. The disgusting HC should be in prison, do not pass go don't collect $200.

[soulfinger]

Strikes me the choice is limited on both sides, but on balance, the republicans seem to have more dickheads from which to choose.

Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards.

[Sportin' Life]

Strikes me the choice is limited on both sides, but on balance, the republicans seem to have more dickheads from which to choose.

Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards.

The problem is that they are doubly encouraged when we don't vote. The Republicans deserve Trump -- they have built that kind of demagoguery and now they have it. The guy is an absolute racist piece of dirt and if the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate him, they will be soundly defeated.

[DzM]

Good job Mike. Isn't it funny how the left in 2008 used the term "old white people" over and over and now the only two candidates the can manage fit their description to a T? The R's have quite a cornucopia of choices since that appears to be what the left had sought.

I seem to recall that the Republicans were (and largely are) cal;led the party of Old White Men. And to their credit at least 1/3 of the candidates this year are not Old White Men. Credit where it's due.

It's a shame, of course, that in the giant field of options put forth the reasonable ones that would actually be capable of governing are getting zero traction with the electorate, and instead the highly divisive candidates are the ones pushing forward. If Misters Trump, Cruz, or Rubio gets elected they stand zero chance of getting their agendas pushed though (and the Democrats in both houses of Congress will get tarred as the obstructionist party in the same way the Republicans have over the last eight years).

How disgusting is HC putting people on her stage to claim "there's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for a women". Talk about lame brained, idiotic ideas. Who the hell falls for that nonsense? As if having the chromosome some how makes you an automatic for another woman's vote. The disgusting HC should be in prison, do not pass go don't collect $200.

Actually, I agree that it's repugnant that ANY candidate should imply that people should vote for them based on gender or ethnicity or any other inherited trait that has absolutely nothing at all to do with their ability to govern. Women, men, african-americans, native americans, gays, whites, etc - all should vote for candidates that espouse policies that most overlap with the voter's. Voting on a birds-of-a-feather-flock-together rationale is servile and stupid.

Are you suggesting that Mdme. Secretary should be in prison for making a cynical pitch like this?

[Sportin' Life]

It is actually worse case against Clinton than that, I think. Clinton didn't say the words he was describing but rather it was either Gloria Steinem or Madeline Albright that actually said those words (I think the latter). I do agree that Clinton should have a better idea of what her campaigners are going to say, but I don't really see how she actually controls what Albright says.

[Clash Cadillac]

BERNIE SANDERS

[Sportin' Life]

NJ Rich and Mike from Boston: What do you guys make of Trump? Do you guys think he is hijacking your party or is he what the people are looking for? I am not keen on disparaging whatever you answer, but fair play if you don't. Probably someone will have a go however you answer. I am just trying to understand the Trump thing because from my vantage it makes no sense, and it seems to make little sense to other Republicans also. But apparently it does make sense to some.

[Low D]

NJ Rich and Mike from Boston: What do you guys make of Trump? Do you guys think he is hijacking your party or is he what the people are looking for? ..

it seems to make little sense to other Republicans also. But apparently it does make sense to some.

OK fine I'm Canadian AND a lefty to boot, but I'm gonna come in. I think Trump is the candidate the Repubs deserve. Sure he's a blatent populist, but remember it's voting members of the GOP he's popular with. He's taken the sectarian, more-right(ous)-than-thou trend of the last 10, 20 years to its logical extreme.

[DzM]

NJ Rich and Mike from Boston: What do you guys make of Trump? Do you guys think he is hijacking your party or is he what the people are looking for? ..

it seems to make little sense to other Republicans also. But apparently it does make sense to some.

OK fine I'm Canadian AND a lefty to boot, but I'm gonna come in. I think Trump is the candidate the Repubs deserve. Sure he's a blatent populist, but remember it's voting members of the GOP he's popular with. He's taken the sectarian, more-right(ous)-than-thou trend of the last 10, 20 years to its logical extreme.

I'm not sure I agree, actually. This primary season hasn't just been about a left-leaning centrist on one side and a fear mongering demagogue on the other.

The last two elections have favored candidates that are promising fundamental change to the system. Obama had what what Gov. Palin dismissed as "that hopey-changey stuff," (yes, god forbid the electorate should want to have hope and desire change), the TEA party candidates have been swept in on an equally passionate, though ideologically different, message of change. This election cycle Sen. Sanders has done far better than anyone ever thought he would by pushing a message of wealth redistribution and entitlements programs. And Mr. Trump has done far better than anyone thought he would despite being ... well ... Donald Trump.

My take away so far is that the electorate is desperate for change. Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders are doing well because they are both unequivocal in their agreement on that position. And they are both pushing a populist message that appeals to the extremes of their respective ideologies.

My prediction: Barring a colossal gaff from Mr. Trump ("Every morning I have my illegal man-slaves send concentrated aborted fetus-chow to my best friend, Kim Jong-Un, to elevate the glory of the Juche philosophy."), and presuming the RNC doesn't justs declare "the electorate are a bunch of idiots; we're throwing out the candidate they selected and putting up ${SmokeyBackRoomCandidate}. Stupid yokels," that in the general election there will be a Clinton v Trump contest. It'll be interesting to see which poison pill the RNC takes - the one where they let a candidate that they believe will do real, lasting harm to their brand and chances as well as has no real loyalty to the party also be their standard bearer, or if they'll alienate all the angry voters they've been fighting to keep in their tent these last several decades. Both options are pretty nihilistic.

What will also be interesting to see out of that is whether Mdme. Sec. Clinton, very much a centrist and establishment candidate, will adjust her campaign to try to appeal to angry, we're-not-going-to-take-it leftist side of the Democrat base (while pushing the conservative voter base farther away), or if she will tack toward the right even more in an attempt to lure over moderate conservatives that are disenfranchised by whatever poison the RNC chooses to quaff.

Put another way - I'm less interested in what happens on the Republican side of things right now (other than how the RNC chooses to deal with a Trump nominee) and more interested in how the Clinton campaign will attempt to make Mdme. Sec. Clinton be the centrist, I-know-how-this-town-works candidate while ALSO being the revolutionary I-agree-with-Bernie-let's-change-everything candidate. Both those paths have promise, both are risky, and no matter what happens there will be a very large semi-conservative electorate that feels as though they are completely disenfranchised and have no candidate at all to vote for. That group of voters will be the most in-play this year, and they will be making this calculous: "Well, Gozer the Destroyer makes some good points but really has no plan at all other than destroying the universe. And at least Cthulhu has a proven track record of eating the souls of all humanity, so at least I know what to expect."

[Mike from Boston]

NJ Rich and Mike from Boston: What do you guys make of Trump? Do you guys think he is hijacking your party or is he what the people are looking for? I am not keen on disparaging whatever you answer, but fair play if you don't. Probably someone will have a go however you answer. I am just trying to understand the Trump thing because from my vantage it makes no sense, and it seems to make little sense to other Republicans also. But apparently it does make sense to some.

I am actually a registered Democrat but tend to vote Republican. I guess at 53, I am an old white male at this point in my life. I guess I would be considered a Reagan Democrat. I take voting seriously, and if both candidates suck I will submit a ballot with a blank (just a futile protest, but it makes me feel good). When Obama and McCain ran against each other submitted a blank.

So this coming Tuesday, I actually will be getting a Democratic primary ballot, and will be voting against Hillary by voting for Bernie. Bernie is completely clueless and although his free everything for everyone platform sounds good, I think he means well and his honest, two traits that Mrs. Clinton doesn't have.

With the Republicans, before I spent anytime studying too hard, I was waiting until the candidates thinned out a bit.
Their is a huge base of support for Trump. I live near New Hampshire, and can honestly say I saw five Trump signs for every one sign of the rests of the candidates combined. My belief is that whatever Trump is polling, add 10 points to it, as I believe many people keep their (positive) opinions about Trump to themselves-i.e you are racist, you are anti-Latino, etc. Being anti-Trump is PC.

This is why people support Trump (right or wrong).

He is not a politician. He really isn't a Republican -so he owes no allegience to the party. He doesn't owe anything to anyone. I guess in that sense he has "hijacked" the Republican Party and the party regulars (and their national columnists) are not happy about it. People who work for a living and pay the taxes are sick of all the freebies and handouts, whether it is welfare recipients or big banks. Still waiting for the big shakeup at the SEC after all these years!!

He is anti-Illegal Immigration. Neither party has addressed this and this resonates with taxpayers and small business owners. The big joke in our state "just treat me like an illegal alien-everything is free!!" He isn't afraid to say the Iraq War was a waste-something no Republicans would say and a war that Hillary supported. He isn't PC-people are so sick of the Political Correctness in this country. I think his outbursts resonate with a great number of the public that believe that they are being ignored.

In a way, his campaign is a combination of Jimmy Carter (after Watergate, a total outsider with no ties to DC gets elected) and Reagan (Make America Great again).

Can any Republican beat him? Doubtful, people like Ted Cruz are toxic to me (I hate religious nuts) and those who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Kasich?? HIs record is pretty solid, would have some crossover support from Democrats (he gets an F from the NRA), but I wonder if he can survive the Southern primaries. Carson should quit.
Rubio seems to be the favorite among the party faithful but (at least to me) everything about him screams phony politician.

So, let's say it looks like Trump would win the nomination, what would the Republicans do? Could Trump beat HIllary?
Possibly- without Obama running, the minority turnout will be much lower and have less effect on the race. But again, Trump's support is pretty rock solid and the people who support him (older, white) are the people who always vote. Could the Republicans try to give the nod to Rubio? If so, what is gained? Cuts into the Latino vote for Clinton, but I just don't see any great enthusiasm for Rubio outside of Republican regulars. Who else is available? Romney-was a good governor, but is a lousy politician, McCain (too old), Bueller?

I think in the end it could be Trump vs. Hillary. IMO, things that Hillary has done should put in her jail rather than the White House. However, with the D's, if Sanders stays close and Hillary suffers more damage or get indicted, I could see them turning to Mayor Bloomberg to run. He has money, no scandals (outside of being rich and being an anti-soda-ite).

While Trump vs. HIllary would be the most interesting election ever, whoever is elected the nation would become more polarized than ever, and considering it is already pretty bad, that is sad.

Please forgive the longwinded answer (it is times like these where my envy of Mr. Chevron's writing abilities come to the fore!)

[Mike from Boston]

NJ Rich and Mike from Boston: What do you guys make of Trump? Do you guys think he is hijacking your party or is he what the people are looking for? ..

it seems to make little sense to other Republicans also. But apparently it does make sense to some.

OK fine I'm Canadian AND a lefty to boot, but I'm gonna come in. I think Trump is the candidate the Repubs deserve. Sure he's a blatent populist, but remember it's voting members of the GOP he's popular with. He's taken the sectarian, more-right(ous)-than-thou trend of the last 10, 20 years to its logical extreme.

Low D, I have to disagree, just on premise, on a couple of counts. Not going to argue with your sentiment that he is the candidate the Repubs deserve. First, Trump isn't a Republican. The Republican Party doesn't want him. In most states, if you are an Indepedant or Unenrolled Voter you can choose either party's ballot. While not exact, say in NH, 40% are Independent, 35% Dems and 25% Repubs, the rank and file can easily be overwhelmed by voters turning out for a specific candidate.
In many New Hampshire towns, there was record turnout and polls had to be kept open later than scheduled in order to accomodate the huge numbers. It was the highest total ever for a Republican primary.

Also, did you know that even though Bernie Sanders won the NH primary, he didn't win? That is right, NH awards their delegates porportionally, giving Bern 15 and Hillary 9. However there are also 6 "Super" Delegates that all support Hillary. So 15-15 tie. I guess that is a big FU to democracy.

[Sportin' Life]

Hey thanks for the thoughtful response, Mike. I will read it again tomorrow (it deserves a second read) and get back to you on that. Sorry for assuming you were a Republican, not that I think you took offense.

[DzM]

Also, did you know that even though Bernie Sanders won the NH primary, he didn't win? That is right, NH awards their delegates porportionally, giving Bern 15 and Hillary 9. However there are also 6 "Super" Delegates that all support Hillary. So 15-15 tie. I guess that is a big FU to democracy.

Fun fact - the USofA is not actually a democracy (at least at the national level). It's a representative democracy, meaning that the electorate vote for representatives/proxies/stand-ins and then take various actions on behalf of the voters. Meaning that the voters themselves don't actually vote for the final outcome, but rather for an intermediary that (usually) does what the voter wanted.

Examples:
Laws
President

Voters elect Congresspersons. Thos eCongresspersons then enact legislation on behalf of the voters, but without direct input from the voters. Once my Congressman or Congresswoman is in office they can (and do) enact all kinds of legislation that I flat out disagree with. My only recourse is to write to them a whole lot telling them my opinion, and to vote for someone else during the next election cycle. The Congressperson is not at all obligated to heed my opinion or give two craps about my vote.

Voters don't actually vote for a presidential candidate, but are instead are telling their states' members of the Electoral College how to cast Presidential votes. Those members of the Electoral College aren't actually obligated to vote they way their state's electorate indicated (though it's rare for them to ignore the popular outcome of their state). The Electoral College has a second "FU" to true democracy. The number of EC votes a state gets is based on that stat's population (so California, Texas, Florida, New York etc get a lot of them), but ALL states are guaranteed a minimum of three votes even when their population is very, very tiny. That means that the vote of a single person in Alaska or the Dakotas counts more toward the EC vote count than my vote in California does.

To your point specifically - did you know that the primary system we enjoy (?) today comes as a result of the brokered conventions of the 1960s and 70s, and is largely a result of the anger and resentment that came about from the so-called "smokey back-room deals" that the party leaders arranged without any rank-and-file consent? It's only in the last 50 years that the general electorate began having a (semi-direct) voice in who the national candidate for the party would be.

FURTHER fun fact - Both Iowa and New Hampshire get to claim "first in the land" status because one is a caucus and one is a poll.

ADDITIONAL FUN FACT - "Super Tuesday" was originally conceived of as a way to give the front-runner for each party a solid "Fine, I'm winning now" push that would clear the way for them to begin assembling their national campaign apparatus rather than having to have a bloody fight all the way through to the convention. This year, because of Trump's surprising success, it is looking as though Super Tuesday won't definitively end the primary runs though and that the likely establishment candidate (probably Rubio) will get full party backing to keep fighting Trump straight through to the convention.


But I digress. This is one of the more interesting Presidential elections in a while.

[Mike from Boston]

Great point DzM. I believe at least a few Presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote. However, I don't seem to remember any real effort to abolish the Electoral College, at least in my lifetime.