2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[zoobernut]

Watch Trump somehow convince Bernie to be his running mate and the world will implode.

[Blubbartron]

Trump/Sanders 2016!

[notorious bum]

Trump wants Bernie to run Indy because the majority of neocon elites support Hillary.

[Xantavia]

I think many Berniebros might vote Trump just because they see any anti-establishment candidate as better than Hilary, no matter how bad the platform or policies involved.

Well, it certainly doesn't help when you are constantly being told "If you don't vote for Clinton, you are actively voting for Trump".

You can either support Hillary or take any number of possible actions where you don't support her (be it staying home, voting Stein, writing in Bernie, or however you want to help Trump). At the end of the day the action most likely to actually lead to the most good being done is supporting her. And it doesn't matter if you say NO IT ISN'T in an angrier more defiant tone, that won't change reality.

Yes, change happens slowly, which is why Bernie supporters are being told to vote for Clinton. But it seems to be ignoring it in other aspects. For as long as I can remember, it has always been said that a third party vote is wasting your vote, because the support isn't there. And that is where slow change happens. People may look at what kind of support a certain candidate had in the past. Say they only got 1 million votes because people were convinced they were wasting their votes, then next cycle it still won't look good. But if they instead got 5 million, then a voter could look and think "You know, they got a fair chunk. It isn't a waste." Might be able to start thinking that breaking out of a two party system is possible down the line.

[zoobernut]

Well, it certainly doesn't help when you are constantly being told "If you don't vote for Clinton, you are actively voting for Trump".



Yes, change happens slowly, which is why Bernie supporters are being told to vote for Clinton. But it seems to be ignoring it in other aspects. For as long as I can remember, it has always been said that a third party vote is wasting your vote, because the support isn't there. And that is where slow change happens. People may look at what kind of support a certain candidate had in the past. Say they only got 1 million votes because people were convinced they were wasting their votes, then next cycle it still won't look good. But if they instead got 5 million, then a voter could look and think "You know, they got a fair chunk. It isn't a waste." Might be able to start thinking that breaking out of a two party system is possible down the line.

Maybe someone can help me out with this but I am pretty sure they showed mathematically that a two party system is the only way it will work. There may be other parties but a third party will only rise long enough to cannibalize and destroy one of the other parties. The system will eventually equalize back to two parties.

[Greatguardian]

The two party system isn't some construct of the corporate Illuminati meant to suppress minority opinions. It's a natural and logical consequence of the way our system of government was laid out in our Constitution. Moving away from it would require a significant restructuring of our electoral process, which itself would require massive bilateral support from the existing parties.

No amount of votes for Ross Perot will "end" the two party system in the US. None. Don't kid yourself. If you want to solve a perceived problem, first identify the causes and the obstacles then search for the most realistically achievable solution. That is problem solving 101.

[Gredival]

Maybe someone can help me out with this but I am pretty sure they showed mathematically that a two party system is the only way it will work. There may be other parties but a third party will only rise long enough to cannibalize and destroy one of the other parties. The system will eventually equalize back to two parties.

Basically this. This is what I am talking about when I refer to how the GOP realigned back to the center under Reagan to become competitive again, or how the Democrats moved back to the center under Bill Clinton. The parties respond to electoral troubles by broadening their tent to become viable again.

The GOP is basically on the verge of that right now. The extreme ends have gotten too much power and refuse to fall in line? You don't enable them to have the reins; you replace them. It's a particularly painful cycle of rebirth for the GOP right now given how much they used the anger they sowed among the Tea Party and the birthers to stonewall Obama (which is why they aren't going down quietly) and with how much they turned off moderates with the red meat the were feeding the extremists. But it will happen.

Of course Emperor Trump may change the rules about this with his Taco Bowl when he makes America and the GOP Great Again.

[Zealot]

Congratulations Gred, you have banished another BernieBro for however long it takes that post to vanish behind 3 or 4 other pages.

[Xantavia]

The two party system isn't some construct of the corporate Illuminati meant to suppress minority opinions. It's a natural and logical consequence of the way our system of government was laid out in our Constitution. Moving away from it would require a significant restructuring of our electoral process, which itself would require massive bilateral support from the existing parties.

No amount of votes for Ross Perot will "end" the two party system in the US. None. Don't kid yourself. If you want to solve a perceived problem, first identify the causes and the obstacles then search for the most realistically achievable solution. That is problem solving 101.

I would say part of the problem is they way candidates run. Instead of focusing on why you should vote for them, it seems it is all about why you shouldn't vote for the other guy. Us vs. Them really only works when there are two sides. I think that would be one of the largest obstacles to overcome, the shift in mentality with campaign strategies. Convince voters you offer the best representation of what they want, instead of telling them the other guy is worse.

[BerenTebogo]

I would say part of the problem is they way candidates run. Instead of focusing on why you should vote for them, it seems it is all about why you shouldn't vote for the other guy. Us vs. Them really only works when there are two sides. I think that would be one of the largest obstacles to overcome, the shift in mentality with campaign strategies. Convince voters you offer the best representation of what they want, instead of telling them the other guy is worse.

Part of the problem is that the electorate isn't educated enough as a whole to know what they need, let alone what they want. It is much easier to prop someone up as the entirety of what they do not want. Everyone knows things they don't like and don't want, even if it's based on baseless preconceived notions. Like, I hate mayo. I mean, I've never actually had it, but I fucking tell you what I hate mayo. What do I actually like on my sandwich? Depends on day, time, mood, hunger, price, blah blah blah.

[Greatguardian]

I would say part of the problem is they way candidates run. Instead of focusing on why you should vote for them, it seems it is all about why you shouldn't vote for the other guy. Us vs. Them really only works when there are two sides. I think that would be one of the largest obstacles to overcome, the shift in mentality with campaign strategies. Convince voters you offer the best representation of what they want, instead of telling them the other guy is worse.

Changing the tone of our political discourse would be nice, sure. It doesn't do anything to address the two party system though. Having multiple options immediately gums up the system. The US isn't built like the UK or Canada where you can form a government with only 30% of the votes.

Fun Fact: If no single presidential candidate wins a majority of electoral votes in November, the House of Representatives gets to pick the president from anyone in the top 3. Whichever they want. There is no plurality. There is no medal for finishing first. You either get 51% or you go home. There simply isn't room for more than 2 realistic options unless you want to rewrite the US Constitution.

This naturally leads to a broad "Left" party and a broad "Right" party with specifics lost in the shuffle. It's a lot easier to point out why the other guy is bad because figuring out which shade of Blue your candidate corresponds to generally does more harm than good when there are only 2 options anyways.

[Andalusian girls]

do we really want a system where a president will get elected with the most disciplined and/or most passionate 30% of the American populace

is not a President Trump assured under such conditions

does anyone really believe in-group out-group electoral dynamics aren't visceral in Israeli or Australian or French campaigns

will the fetishization of the parliamentary (read European) system ever end among the American left

tune in next time on Dragon Ball Zzzzzzzzzz

[thetruepandagod]

do we really want a system where a president will get elected with the most disciplined and/or most passionate 30% of the American populace

is not a President Trump assured under such conditions

does anyone really believe in-group out-group dynamics aren't visceral in Israeli or Australian or French electoral struggles

will the fetishization of the parliamentary (read European) system ever end among the American left

tune in next time on Dragon Ball Zzzzzzzzzz

But i'm not the left and I have a fetish for the parliamentary system as a segway into easy fascism.

[Greatguardian]

I like our system. It's nice and slow. Strong opposition leads to lower chances of large scale domestic fuckery in a particularly bad election cycle. Not everyone has the patience for it, though. I can certainly see the appeal of being able to steamroll over the most determined opposition with a decent coalition. People tend to forget that it's just as easy for the "other side" to do that as well, though.

[Gredival]

Congratulations Gred, you have banished another BernieBro for however long it takes that post to vanish behind 3 or 4 other pages.

[Gredival]

I like our system. It's nice and slow. Strong opposition leads to lower chances of large scale domestic fuckery in a particularly bad election cycle. Not everyone has the patience for it, though. I can certainly see the appeal of being able to steamroll over the most determined opposition with a decent coalition. People tend to forget that it's just as easy for the "other side" to do that as well, though.

This is pretty much why, as much as they hate each other, the Dems' and the GOP's Senate leadership have never really given real thought to going nuclear. They'll feign starting the process just enough to make the other side consider real hard if this is a hill they want to die on, but both sides are scared of what happens when the other side inherits the weapon.

[Minions]

lol; Best article of the day goes to

Tow truck driver says he thinks God told him not to help disabled Sanders supporter
http://abc7chicago.com/news/tow-truc...orter/1324951/

"He goes around back and comes back and says 'I can't tow you.' My first instinct was there must be something wrong with the car," McWade told WLOS on Wednesday. "And he says, 'No, you're a Bernie supporter.' And I was like wait, really? And he says, 'Yes ma'am,' and just walks away."

[GoggleHead]

Trump/Sanders 2016!

Finally, a campaign I can get behind.

[Rooney]

Campaign we can all get behind???
I think so


(found this on my facebook feed, had a chuckle)

[Gabai]

Part of the problem is that the electorate isn't educated enough as a whole to know what they need, let alone what they want. It is much easier to prop someone up as the entirety of what they do not want. Everyone knows things they don't like and don't want, even if it's based on baseless preconceived notions. Like, I hate mayo. I mean, I've never actually had it, but I fucking tell you what I hate mayo. What do I actually like on my sandwich? Depends on day, time, mood, hunger, price, blah blah blah.

Make sandwiches great again.