Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

I always found it weird that you guys need to organise debates for your politicians. Shouldn't they be debating anyway?

Well sure, but how are they going to debate without collaborating on when and where the zog to do it? Th'US ain't exactly a tiny island nation. Pair/group of candidates just happening to be in comfortable talking distance innit that likely.

... does it work differently outside the US or somethin', though? I'm trying to think of how politicians would go about debating without some kind of coordination vis a vis location and time, and it's not working very well on any level besides a small (e.g. <1k population) town. Unless they're throwing soundbites at each other or whatev', but they do that far more than anyone sane likes in the US, too -- By november a significant portion of our population will probably be about ready to kill the people behind robocalls and political ads, tbh.

And I'm only exaggerating a little, though it's not quite as bad these days as it was a decade or two ago. Cell phone saturation has cut back on landlines getting clogged up with politics related bullshit to a fair degree. In compensation, most of our every media venue possible will be stuffed tighter than a pepper sodomized chihuahua with campaign noise. 'Tis the season for adblock and maybe storing TV(s) in a box for a few months, if you haven't already. Don't even bother with radio

[Orange Wizard]

... does it work differently outside the US or somethin', though?

We stick them all in a big room and make them argue about stuff every Tuesday and Thurday

They're also supposed to pass legislation and stuff, but that's mostly a side effect.

[mainiac]

Truly?  I think a deadlock actually requires fewer assumptions than a Johnson presidency because of the following: for it to hold, you need the same conditions as yours to force a House vote (Neither Clinton nor Trump receive an absolute majority of electoral votes; Johnson receives at least one electoral vote), but you do not actually need the House Republicans to go en masse to Johnson, and a Democrat wave is the one thing that would make both of these absolutely impossible (because, as you say, Hillary wins).  You only need enough Republicans to break ranks to deny Trump an absolute majority; if no one receives those 26 votes from the state delegations, the House decision cannot be made, and the balloting continues until someone does.  It's already tremendously unlikely, but I think the notion that the House Republicans will maintain party unity internally while simultaneously breaking with the Republican Presidential candidate is actually less likely than the notion that some House Republicans will back Trump while some will back Johnson in an acrimonious three-way break.  So, in other words, with the caveat that we're both discussing very unlikely events, what you argue that it is more probable that at least 26 of those 32 states will break ranks.  What I argue is that it's more likely that 7 might break ranks than 26.

Well two things things

1) if the first house vote doesn't produce a winner, the leader of the house (probably gonna be Paul Ryan, possibly Nancy Pelosi) is allowed to schedule additional votes immediately and keep trying for two months.  I'm thinking that if Johnson could get six or seven states to vote for him (again, assuming he surges in popularity and wins states on election) his faction in the congress would now have a chance to negotiate with whatever side doesn't want things going to the Senate (probably the republicans but possible the democrats)

2) I just realized that everything I said was wrong because we could always have faithless electors.  For example, if the electoral result were 260/260/20 then Clinton could always privately meet with 21 of her electors and say "please dont vote for me, please vote for Tim Kaine" and that way the top three candidates are Trump, Clinton, Kaine.

You guys have that "write your own name on the ballot" thing, or something, right?

Write in candidates do much worse for a variety of reasons, even when they are candidates who would otherwise be strong.

[Frumple]

... does it work differently outside the US or somethin', though?

We stick them all in a big room and make them argue about stuff every Tuesday and Thurday

They're also supposed to pass legislation and stuff, but that's mostly a side effect.

Um. Isn't that actually organizing debates, too? "Every tuesday and thursday" isn't exactly much different from "Day X, Y, and Z".

... but yeah, good luck with that in the states. It's a fair pain in the arse getting that to work for the people that basically have no job except to be in a big room and argue about stuff, and who only have to campaign in a small area/single state to keep their seat. For someone on a presidential campaign trail, and who only possibly is a congresscritter? Yeeeaaaah, no.

E: Though, on the other hand, locking all the candidates in the room for around a year almost sounds kinda' appealing. Downside being it'd basically be reality TV politico edition, and sod that.

[Sergarr]

I don't think there is literally anything on this Earth you could offer to Dubya to get him to be involved with this shit.

Ayup. If I were Bush, I definitely wouldn't poke the situation with a ten foot pole. I could vaguely see the Bush family wanting him to toe it against Trump to try to insulate Jeb's 2020 run, but that seems shaky.

Well, look at what I've got here: Bush fears "isolationism, nativism and protectionism":

Former President George W. Bush seemed to speak out against Donald Trump without mentioning him by name at a fundraising event Tuesday, warning against policies of "isolationism, nativism and protectionism" and urging the GOP to ensure that "everyone feels welcome"

Trump: so bad that even Bush speaks against his message.

EDIT: You can't make this shit up: GOP reaches ‘new level of panic’ over Trump’s candidacy.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, one of Trump’s most loyal defenders, warned that his friend was in danger of throwing away the election and helping to make Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton president unless he quickly changes course. “The current race is which of these two is the more unacceptable, because right now neither of them is acceptable,” Gingrich said in a Wednesday morning telephone interview. “Trump is helping her to win by proving he is more unacceptable than she is.”

Gingrich said Trump has only a matter of weeks to reverse course. “Anybody who is horrified by Hillary should hope that Trump will take a deep breath and learn some new skills,” he said. “He cannot win the presidency operating the way he is now. She can’t be bad enough to elect him if he’s determined to make this many mistakes.”Reed, who managed Bob Dole’s 1996 presidential campaign, recommended that Trump “stop doing silly interviews nine times a day that get you off message” and deliver a major address seeking to reset the campaign establishing himself as the change candidate.

“Trump needs to do a little message discipline 101 — give a reset speech on the stakes of the election, the weakness of the economy and take it to Hillary,” Reed said. “He needs to get back on offense.” Reed said such a pivot is “mandatory” for Trump to be successful, as is smoothing relations with Ryan, McCain and other GOP leaders. “If Trump decides he wants to go it alone, it is a lonely road,” he said.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I can't believe I'm saying it, but christ I miss Bush. Fuck, I even miss Cheney. They're both smooth operators compared to Trump.

I was young then, but I'm pretty sure they were the end of mainstream Republicans who weren't so...uh...rabid. Yes, even Dick "Buckshot" Cheney.

[scriver]

Um. Isn't that actually organizing debates, too? "Every tuesday and thursday" isn't exactly much different from "Day X, Y, and Z".

Nope.

OW, are you mistaking media debates with parliament debates?

[PTTG??]

Fivethirtyeight once more provides actual journalism.

[Playergamer]

Hey, it's Nate Bronze. I used to read 538, stopped after I realized he couldn't "predict" jack.

[PTTG??]

Show me someone who predicted both Donald Trump and Brexit, and I'll show you a psychic leprechaun with a crystal ball.

[smjjames]

The Republican Party has an emergency plan on how to deal with Trump suddenly quitting the race for president.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senior-gop-officials-exploring-options-trump-drops/story?id=41089609

It's all according to plan. Trump will drop out of the elections one week before election day. Republicans will immediatly elect a new candidate, who will enter the presidential race without the opponents having any time left to throw mud or dig up closet skeletons. Republican candidate will be elected president with slogan "I'm not Trump and I'm not Hillary".

According to this:

(d) No candidate shall be chosen to fill any such vacancy except upon receiving a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the election.

Ted Cruz would be next in line for candidacy if Trump were to drop out. While he is a little bit saner than Trump, I'm still convinced that he'll send the US into default the first chance he gets.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't know why Trump supporters are always on about Nate Sliver. He said that Trump winning the nomination was unlikely, and it was unlikely. If anything that should be taken as a compliment.

[Playergamer]

He's alright. I just like getting to call him Nate Bronze, that's all.

[mainiac]

I can't believe I'm saying it, but christ I miss Bush. Fuck, I even miss Cheney. They're both smooth operators compared to Trump.

I was young then, but I'm pretty sure they were the end of mainstream Republicans who weren't so...uh...rabid. Yes, even Dick "Buckshot" Cheney.

Bush deserves a HUGE share of the blame for the Trumpening.  He engaged in very dishonest very ugly behavior and then insisted that it was politics as usual.  His campaign attacked John Kerry, decorated war hero, as a man who fled from combat.  His campaign spread rumors that John McCain's adopted child was actually a bastard (born of a black mother OFC).  His lied about his tax platform being giveaways to the rich, he cynically exploited 9/11 and then of course there was the Iraq war...

He got away with it because he wasn't racist and wasn't hateful but he crossed a lot lines to win.  If you cross a lot of lines to win you open the door for less ethical people.  And he dragged everyone else down in the shit with him which was good for him but bad for the system.

Fuck George Bush.

[misko27]

Makes you wonder who Trump will make room for.

If Trump loses badly enough, maybe it'll force the Republican leadership to take action. Probably not, given they've done that in the past without it amounting to anything, but its a thought.