Election 2016

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Thu Apr 21, 2016 3:54 pm

Ancient History wrote:

In a just world, having Art Laffer on your campaign staff would be a knock-out: http://www.salon.com/2016/04/18/ted_cru ... l_laugher/

I'd assume that tax cuts for the wealthy are accompanies by proportional windfalls to the prostitution and drug industries.

Blade · Post by **Blade** » Fri Apr 22, 2016 9:10 am

But these industries have a tendency to redistribute most of the benefits to the rich people in top management.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:24 pm

Which they then spend in those industries. It's a beautiful cycle.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:22 am

name_here wrote:Which they then spend in those industries. It's a beautiful cycle.

I think that cycle has a few leaks here and there.

Almaz · Post by **Almaz** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:21 pm

FrankTrollman, abbreviated slightly wrote:Caucuses take a long time... Caucuses involve a lot of standing and shouting... Caucuses have no secret ballot... Basically Caucuses are all bad and if you think that getting people involved in their government is an abstract good you should be opposed to them in all circumstances. -Username17

This is all very true and I'd just like to underscore the "standing and shouting is bad" point, because a lot of people who are not usually having a problem with living in society can find the potentially very high escalating noise and such of a caucus to be very disturbing and painful to them. And this covers all the people who are in most need of representation, like, y'know, anyone who's still a bit rattled by being in a constantly loud and violent situation, which America has no shortage of supply, but also just anyone who was born that way.

Even people who are just shy loner nerds shouldn't have to deal with that shit if they don't have to (and they don't -- as it turns out, primary ballot stations and even vote-by-mail work fine), and we do that to people who have real tangible issues with it? It's ridiculous.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:15 pm

So it looks like Trump took all five states last night. Between that and New York, it sounds like he has overperformed people's expectations. Is he getting close to a real chance at walking into the convention with 1,237 votes?

I did some real quick gorilla math (which anyone is free to shred) looking at RealClearPolitics delegate counts. It looks like Trump has 950 delegates to date. I looked at the remaining races and added 50% of the delegates to Trump if it was proportional or a direct election and all of them if it was winner-take-all. If I were less lazy, I would have checked out polling in each of those states to better weight the proportions, and he obviously isn't going to take all of those winner-take-all states. A lot of them are in places more favorable to Cruz. California, however, is a huge WTA state, and he's polling ahead there, pretty well.

Anyway, if I add that all up, he ends up with 1,387, which is 150 above the target of 1,237. That seems that he could lose less than that many worth of WTA states and still walk in with the 1,237. So if we add up Nebraska, South Dakota, and Montana, we get 92 of those 150. If we throw in Indiana (57), it brings the total to 149. Right now, Trump is (barely) leading in Indiana, but I heard something about an alliance between Cruz and Kasich to split up the states, so we'll see how that affects things.

The other WTA states are California and New Jersey (and Trump is killing it in Jersey). So, I don't know what percentage of the proportional delegates he'll take (again, my gorilla math assumed 50%), but it seems like he has a very real chance of actually flat-out getting 1,237 votes before the convention. Is there anything else obvious I'm missing?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:42 pm

There's no way Trump loses New Jersey. California is going to split its votes and it's hard to see Trump getting to the magic number before California and New Jersey vote (302 delegates in five primaries are awarded on June 7th). California is one of those states where each district appoints 3 delegates, and it's a big and diverse enough state that it's hard to imagine all the districts voting the same way. New Jersey is simply winner-take-all, so Trump gets all 51 of those. Remember also that while Trump has many pledged delegates who hate him and are eager to turn on him in the 2nd round if there is one, there are also a lot of unpledged delegates who would vote for Trump.

So first of all, if Trump gets to about 1150 before the June winnowing, the result of the election is preordained. Trump couldn't lose it if he tried. He will definitely get to 1237. If he doesn't pick up a single delegate in May, he's still in the running to get to 1237 on June 7th, because so many delegates are handed out on the last day that he is in striking distance just with the delegates he already has.

Secondly, even if the neverTrumpers get their fucking acts together and keep him from 1237, he'd still probably have enough unpledged support to push him over the line. Trump is a virtual certainty to get sufficient votes to earn the nomination.

But... shenanigans and skullduggery continue. It is entirely possible for anti-Trumpers to contest the seating of delegates from Trump bound or Trump leaning delegations. And those contests are handled by floor votes regardless of how obviously bullshit the pretenses for unseating are. The NeverTrumpers could still force a second ballot even if Trump wins convincingly, because right now Trump does not have the actual loyalty of many of his pledged delegates.

The most likely result at this point is that the NeverTrump movement is routed and disorganized because Kasich can't even get his ego out of the way long enough to tell people that they should vote for Cruz in Indiana. People will try half assed ratfuckings and they will fail because it is still unbelievable to me how shit the Republican establishment is at rigging their own system. But there are still several hurdles where a more organized GOP could stop Trump.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:10 pm

PA has the dumbest possible non cacaus system for Republican Delegates.

Apparently, what happens is that 17 delegates are pledged to the state winner, but then 54 unpledged delegates are elected. But these guys are specifically elected without the ballot showing which candidate they actually are going to vote for.

On the other hand, word from people I know who vote in philadelphia is that there was a giant sign out from saying "vote X for Trump."

So bottom line, of the 54 unpledged delegates in PA, probably 100% have a specific candidate they intended to vote for anyway, and given how Trump won PA, chances are good that most of them are voting for him.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:51 pm

PA's system is indeed probably the worst non-caucus system. Illinois is also bad - you vote for specific delegates and Trump lost a few delegates because too many of his supporters refused to vote for people with foreign sounding names. Among caucus systems, the worst is the Republican side of the American Virgin Islands where... a guy who literally wrote a book about ratfucking the Republican convention by becoming unpledged delegates for minor island territories moved out to the islands and the Republicans made him the leader of their delegation. And then the head of the local Republican Committee declared a special meeting in his private gun range where he announced that the agreed upon delegation didn't count for reasons and declared that they were actually sending a slate of people he made up himself and waved a gun around instead of a gavel and a dissenting woman was beaten up. Then a group of the local Republican Committee members had a separate group meeting at a different house where they declared no confidence in the Committee Chair and declared that the original slate "was too" valid. I have no idea how that is going to end up, but it's straight up Junta territory over there.

Anyway, there are a lot of "unpledged" delegates that are actually Trump delegates in every way that matters. So him getting close to 1237 means he actually has got it unless the NeverTrumpers have the balls and the cohesion to actually unseat delegations on... sorry... trumped up charges on the convention floor. Since Trump only needs about a third of the remaining delegates to be "close enough" for that kind of narrow win, he has the nomination sewn up. Subject to convention floor shenanigans. Trump's real target is to get enough delegates that the Ryanists won't dare trying to disqualify him with floor votes. And nobody knows how many that is.

Bizarrely, I think a Trump nomination might be safer with 1230 delegates than with 1240, since at 1230 a lot of anti-Trumpers would think they would have it won and not realize that Trump gets 50+ delegates from the unpledged pool. While at 1240 they'd know he'd win a fair nomination ballot and they'd have a whole month to plot some way to not give him one.

The Democratic side is so much less bullshit. Hillary Clinton has won all the large states and because all the delegates are handed out proportionately she has a virtually unassailable lead. In every future contest she'll pick up some non-zero number of delegates even if she underperforms badly, so she'll pass various marks of winning outright even before June 7th. She'll probably lose Oregon almost as badly as she lost Washington, but it'll still be enough gains in absolute delegates that her pledged plus unpledged totals will give her the magic number. That actual inevitability will make the kinds of theoretical June 7th blowout that could keep her from having an absolute majority of pledged delegates only from being a thing that has essentially no chance of happening. So going on to the convention she'll have a lead in pledged delegates, super delegates, states won, and popular vote. The nomination itself will be a formality and there will be no convention floor shenanigans.

-Username17

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:25 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:There's no way Trump loses New Jersey. California is going to split its votes and it's hard to see Trump getting to the magic number before California and New Jersey vote (302 delegates in five primaries are awarded on June 7th). California is one of those states where each district appoints 3 delegates, and it's a big and diverse enough state that it's hard to imagine all the districts voting the same way. New Jersey is simply winner-take-all, so Trump gets all 51 of those. Remember also that while Trump has many pledged delegates who hate him and are eager to turn on him in the 2nd round if there is one, there are also a lot of unpledged delegates who would vote for Trump.

Ah. I missed the little triangle notation by "Winner take all" in California. That explains why I haven't been hearing more about it and its huge number of delegates up for grabs.

FrankTrollman wrote: The most likely result at this point is that the NeverTrump movement is routed and disorganized because Kasich can't even get his ego out of the way long enough to tell people that they should vote for Cruz in Indiana. People will try half assed ratfuckings and they will fail because it is still unbelievable to me how shit the Republican establishment is at rigging their own system. But there are still several hurdles where a more organized GOP could stop Trump.

They've certainly given the Trump supporters every bit of ammunition they've ever wanted for their "the system is rigged" narrative. From what I've read, this narrative has actually been helping Trump a few points in the polls.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:50 pm

They did officially reject the "fuck the primary, we nominate who we want!" option.

Since it was given sufficient serious consideration they had to actually take a position on it.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:00 pm

Could they pull a Trump and not pledge one way or the other?

DrPraetor · Post by **DrPraetor** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:19 pm

It is highly unlikely, but not impossible. for something to happen on the Dem side. The independent e-mail investigation could pull a Kenneth Starr and actually try to indict Hillary, that sort of thing. She could have a stroke. It would be pretty outlandish, chances are less than 1%, Hillary would *probably* be the nominee *anyway*, but stranger things have happened. Even in such an outlandish turns of events, the nominee isn't going to be Sanders, though.

On the Republican side, Trump is clearly going to win on the first ballot, with about the same probability. An electoral collapse by Trump is somewhat more likely than the even-larger-required-magnitude collapse by Clinton, but neither of those events is the favored type of black sawn at this point. Certain neoconservatives - who have a unique physiology where they endogenously synthesize cocaine - fantasize about pulling off one or another upset along the lines of their Iraq fantasies. Trump has been amazingly inept at playing the partisan games with the delegate selection and the rules committee staff and so on, but anyone who votes to unbind delegates faces a real risk of being shot in the night by a brownshirt. Meanwhile, again, if Trump is indicted or dies of a heart attack, his replacement will be a Trump:Cruz compromise crazy, whomever that would be.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 6:33 pm

RobbyPants wrote:Could they pull a Trump and not pledge one way or the other?

Not really. You have to get a conspiracy of 1237 delegates from all over the country and its overseas territories to go lock step if you want to actually push any shenanigans at all. Now, if you can do that, you can pull any shenanigans at all, since you can have them vote in a new rule that says they can do something and then vote to do that thing.

Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead. One thousand, two hundred, and thirty seven people can't keep a secret at all. Worse, we're talking about Republicans, so the idea of getting over a thousand of them to sign on to a conspiracy and have none of them betray the group is laughable and absurd. For fuck's sake, Kasich can't stop betraying Cruz over the whole Indiana thing and neither Kasich nor Cruz were able to stop themselves from trying to sink Rubio's boat in Florida. Realistically, to get skullduggery accomplished you're going to need to get like 1400 or more delegates in on it and simply accept that your apostles are like 10% Judas by volume.

So basically the chances of whipping out any really good surprise on the floor of the convention is close to nil. The only last minute option that has any chance of working is to have people stand up and shout "I Object!" to various delegations giving votes and carry those objections with a bunch of angry mutterings. Anything more complicated than that would have to be telegraphed a month in advance and still probably wouldn't work.

The Republicans are fiercely tribal and hold democracy in open contempt. But they are also allergic to good government and individually dishonorable.

-Username17

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:08 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/po ... orina.html

Schleiermacher · Post by **Schleiermacher** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:22 pm

So Trump actually gets to run against Clinton then?

Fuck.

Just to put the cherry on the shit sundae, is there any chance he might actually win? I mean I'm hoping and expecting that she'll wipe the floor with him but I was also hoping and expecting that he'd be stopped cold without ever getting close to the nomination, so... and as insane as it seems to me, some people I've talked to seem to believe (which I can't bring myself to) that the American electorate is so hidebound that they'd rather vote for Trump than a woman.

Covent · Post by **Covent** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:25 pm

The thought of a Trump victory for that reason terrifies me.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:26 pm

Hillary polls extremely well against Trump. It's like a 60/40 landslide. If we end up with Clinton vs. Trump, it will probably be the most decisive election since George Washington.

On the other hand, I was pretty confident the Republicans would get their act together in time to stop Trump from winning the candidacy with like 40% of the Republican vote, but that didn't happen. I'm starting to wonder if I should begin making plans to actually flee the country, just in case.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:30 pm

Chamomile wrote:Hillary polls extremely well against Trump. It's like a 60/40 landslide. If we end up with Clinton vs. Trump, it will probably be the most decisive election since George Washington.

Well, no. It probably won't even approach Reagan's numbers. But it'll be a solid win, especially if the Republican base fractures.

[/edit] The long, bloody GOP primary is, believe it or not, played with kid gloves. The policy differences between the original 17 Republican candidates were so slight as to amount to technicalities; even Cruz and Trump's respective tax plans largely boil down to "Cut taxes on the rich + simplify the tax laws + massive military spending + ??? = $$$" - it's magic asterisks across the board and all the way down. So the majority of GOP primary debates haven't focused on policy details, because the various GOP candidates' policies are nearly identical talking points - all that's left are quirks and talking points.

So when it comes to the actual election vs. Clinton, the Wolverine-claws are tearing through the gloves. Because Hillary can rip into Trump or Cruz or Kasich or anybody that GOP puts up in a way the GOP candidates can't attack each other without being massive hypocrites that points out the flaws in their own policies. Maybe Kasich could try to pull a Romney and lean toward the center during the debates to gain wider appeal, but Cruz and Trump sure as fuck won't. So I predict a slaughter.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:36 pm

I don't understand why people are afraid of Trump at all. He's a stupid lazy shit who even if he won, wouldn't do shit. Cruz would work his hardest every day to fuck the country to hell and back. Trump would make some proclamations realize that making proclamations doesn't do a goddam thing, and then fuck off to 4 years of watching the country destroy itself.

I promise Cruz can kill the country faster than it falls apart. If you are actually worried about some completely unelectable shitbag beating Clinton and then destroying the country, it should be Cruz.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:18 pm

Kaelik wrote:I don't understand why people are afraid of Trump at all. He's a stupid lazy shit who even if he won, wouldn't do shit. Cruz would work his hardest every day to fuck the country to hell and back. Trump would make some proclamations realize that making proclamations doesn't do a goddam thing, and then fuck off to 4 years of watching the country destroy itself.

I promise Cruz can kill the country faster than it falls apart. If you are actually worried about some completely unelectable shitbag beating Clinton and then destroying the country, it should be Cruz.

I've said similar things to people and usually they say he's worse because he's embarrassing the entire country, is openly volatile instead of being subtle, encourages violence, and has no experience in politics. The last one is the thing I hear the most.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Wed Apr 27, 2016 11:18 pm

Trump is a wildcard, but his supporters are the Republican party's authoritarians. It's not clear how much he wants to actually give them what they want and how much he's just playing them. It's not clear how much the Republican party will work with him to give him the things he wants in exchange for the things they want (i.e. trickle up economics). But the parallels between Donald Trump's rise to power and... well... Hitler's are really fucking horrifying. The mainstream conservative movement makes a shaky alliance with a nationalist, xenophobic, anti-democratic shitbag in order to cling to power, and then gets betrayed and everything goes to hell.

Donald Trump is a lot like "what if Hitler were one of the three stooges?" Are we going to get a bunch of slapstick comedy from a funny dude with stupid hair, or are we going to spend the rest of our lives in fear of being sent to reeducation camps for political dissent? Who knows! It's all so exciting!

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:17 am

[quote="Schleiermacher]
Just to put the cherry on the shit sundae, is there any chance he might actually win? I mean I'm hoping and expecting that she'll wipe the floor with him but I was also hoping and expecting that he'd be stopped cold without ever getting close to the nomination, so... and as insane as it seems to me, some people I've talked to seem to believe (which I can't bring myself to) that the American electorate is so hidebound that they'd rather vote for Trump than a woman.[/quote]

The numbers people are basically cackling and putting their money on Clinton. It's still too early to actually call November, but the numbers would need to shift extremely drastically for Trump to win.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:19 am

The big thing that could actually hurt the Dems, so far as I can tell, is if a bunch of us decide "wah, my candidate isn't the nominee, I'm going home with my ball!" Hopefully there's no way we can wind up with one of the conservative shitbags if we don't do that.

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:02 am

There's always the possibility of a freak event. Remember, the democrats are currently in power, so they get blamed if something bad happens. If, god forbid, ISIS manages to launch a major terrorist attack, or if North Korea decides to throw a missile at Seoul, or an nutjob Chinese pilot launches a missile at a US destroyer in the South China Sea well...it could go very badly for the democrats in November.

In less apocalyptic terms, it is also possible that global events trigger a major recession between now and November. Mass political unrest in China would easily do that and that particular spark could explode at any time. It's not very likely, but it could happen. The same thing could be said, to a lesser degree, of India. Also Brazil's supposed to be holding the Olympics this summer and...yeah...anything could happen.

So, effectively the Donald has little to no chance if current conditions remain as they are, but they could easily change due to forces completely beyond US control, and that could open up a window of opportunity.

As for the negative consequences of Trump versus the negative consequences of Cruz, the terrifying thing is how little we can assume of what Trump would do. It seems that president Trump would pass less horrifying legislation than Cruz would, but probably not that much less - I suspect Trump would be quite happy to sign anything that Mitch McConnell sends across his desk if it doesn't apply to one of the handful of policy areas he actually cares about. Take transgender bathroom laws - to use a currently topical example. Cruz would absolutely go to town on that issue, while Trump clearly just doesn't care. However, would Trump sign a law almost exactly the same as Cruz would if it got through Congress- probably, signing bills is how Presidents look like they're winning, and Trump's all about that.

So domestic policy is probably a wash, whereas foreign policy, oh boy. President Cruz put the US on the hook for something Iraq War level stupid if not worse (most likely Iran). That's awful, really, really, awful, but it's not end of the modern world awful. Trump, who knows. He could absolutely trigger a war with China or Russia, at which point all bets are off.