POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

On the other hand, given how many people from all places on the political spectrum I've seen claim that Trump won "a majority"of Republican primary votes--even when pressed with, "no, he won around 40%"--it's quite possible that much of the populous is just too stupid to react correctly to such a change.

44.9%, per Wiki.

And had the others dropped out as early as in recent memory, it seems likely that his numbers would have been right in line with theirs.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

More people would be willing to vote third party if they weren't worried about the spoiler effect. For example:

Under our system if it's (R) 45, (D) 40, (G) 15, then the (R) wins.
In the alternate setup, they would have to go to a runoff. (Or that could be an instant runoff like some places do).

I'm much more willing to vote third party if it's not going to help the Republican win.

And in that scenario, you end up with the exact same result. Adding marginal / fringe / lunatics to the mix changes nothing.

You can't [i]combine[i] the fringe parties now and have a truly meaningful number of votes. They've not only been rejected, they've been soundly rejected across the board.

It's not impossible for a third candidate to emerge in a meaningful fashion AND not be kicked to the curb on very legitimate merit. We've seen a few that were at least worthy of discussion in our lifetime for crying out loud, despite the supposed "inequities" of the basic setup.

What part of "you're total fucking failures that the vast majority of the voters want no part of" is so hard to get through to people about the current fringe options?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

44.9%, per Wiki.

And had the others dropped out as early as in recent memory, it seems likely that his numbers would have been right in line with theirs.

On the flip side, had they stayed, it would have been right around 40%. (I stopped checking when everyone quit, but I'm reasonably certain that it was between 39.0 and 41.0 shortly before Cruz and Kasich dropped.)

But the point holds: I've seen multiple nitwits try to claim that "majority means the person who got the most votes!"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

On the flip side, had they stayed, it would have been right around 40%. (I stopped checking when everyone quit, but I'm reasonably certain that it was between 39.0 and 41.0 before Cruz and Kasich dropped.)

But the point holds: I've seen multiple nitwits try to claim that "majority means the person who got the most votes!"

Just thinking back, I'm not sure I ever once heard the distinction between plurality and majority (never mind with regard to politics, I mean just in general) in all my years of school.

Hell, does even a plurality of the population know the meaning of the word? Or that it even exists?

I get your gripe on that broad point, I'm just saying that maybe we really can't reasonably expect the word to be used properly. As a nation, that's really not who we are, nor does it seem realistic to think we ever will be.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I get your gripe on that broad point, I'm just saying that maybe we really can't reasonably expect the word to be used properly. As a nation, that's really not who we are, nor does it seem realistic to think we ever will be.

Yeah. :sigh: The more I look around, the more I realize that I'd be all-in for having everyone take an intelligence test, then let the top 20% vote on what's best for the rest of these dummies.

#IAmNotADictatorSometimes #IAmAnOligarchSometimes

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by cartman

There was quite a bit of discussion back in 2008 about the track record for Senators being a millstone for running for POTUS.

The problem with having been a Senator (and to go back to Quik's point) is that there's always going to be something in your legislative record that can be spun as "bad". Obama avoided this mainly by being a Senator for such a short period. This problem isn't nearly as bad for Governors because of the difference in what they're called upon to do.

The other problem with Senators is that the amount of time required for them to fundraise borders on being a full-time job at this point. This, plus the demands of a 24-hour news cycle, result in candidates who are indistinguishable from salespeople/fundraisers, because that's basically who they are.

Thus you end up with a candidate like Marco Rubio, who's telegenic but also bland enough that he can be a cipher for voters to project what they want on him. That and money allows him to roll to electoral victory, at least at that level. It also means you get a guy who can't respond to complex questions on the fly.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Weld was able to name Merkel after thinking for a second.

Which is ironic, because identifying Merkel as a foreign leader you admire should more-or-less disqualify you from the Libertarian party, given the policies for which she stands (and implements).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Something that we are clearly seeing in this election -- it's really, really hard to run for President in any serious way. We set expectations at an absurdly high level - and invest very little in positive feelings about accomplishments, relative to perceived mistakes and missteps.

I don't think Gary Johnson is a dope. But as a guy who didn't have to go through the sort of deep vetting that a primary/caucus process offers, he's suddenly getting even this small degree of legitimate attention, and he's basically showing his ass. Not that he's actually terrible -- but that he's unpolished, unrestrained, and untrained. And in the bright lights of a serious campaign, all that will surely come to the fore, and (I guess) correctly so.

Lots of voters are wringing their hands with cries of "why don't any good people run?" this cycle. I wonder if the answer is that we hold candidates up to such rigor with deep scrutiny of every statement and position even offered, we prod at them throughout a 24 hour news cycle, and we pick apart every business dealing or unconventional experience... to the point where almost nobody could come through it without looking bad in some ways. And bad really sticks. Much more than good.

Makes me think that Obama, as a generally inexperienced candidate 8 years ago, might have fit the profile. He managed to leverage a Senate vote against the war, and just a thin resume, along with a gift as a speaker/presenter into a comfortable win. All that while people attacked him vaguely for being underqualified. Maybe if he had been in the Senate for 12 more years and had a much longer list of votes and public statements, he would have looked like another deeply flawed candidate to many of the people who liked him in 2008. Despite being far more "qualified" by a traditional measure.

Part of Johnson's problem is his lack of staff. He doesn't have any advisors, and it's showing.

[molson]

What are the libertarian-friendly world leaders? I can't think of any either. I guess that's how Johnson could have spun his answer if none came to mind. That his view of ideal government is a uniquely American one.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And in that scenario, you end up with the exact same result. Adding marginal / fringe / lunatics to the mix changes nothing.

I think the point that's being made is that with an instant runoff system you at least get a result that (theoretically) shows Johnson (as an example) got 20% on the first pass, even if that wasn't enough to make the runoff. Thus showing that there's 20% support for his ideas.

Which, you know, fine, but I think trying to address 3rd-party viability via the Presidential Election is a bit of a non-starter. A better vector would be to get rid of House districts and allot those seats based on a nationwide proportional representation vote. GOP gets 40% of the votes, they get 40% of the seats. Democrats get 35% of the votes, they get 35% of the seats. Libertarians get 10% of the votes, they get 10% of the seats, and so on and so forth.

At this point you get some 3rd party politicians to actually show up on the national stage, getting exposure that could actually translate into a meaningful Presidential run down the road (one could argue that Perot "purchased" this exposure in 1992 with his extensive infomercial buys).

[flere-imsaho]

“I hope the Trump campaign is gonna come forward and answer some questions about this because if what the article says is true -- and I’m not saying that it is, we don’t know with a hundred percent certainty -- I’d be deeply concerned about it, I would,” said Rubio in an interview on the ESPN/ABC “Capital Games” podcast.

“This is something they’re gonna have to give a response to. I mean, it was a violation of American law, if that’s how it happened,” said Rubio.

Strong take, Marco.

[flere-imsaho]

This is interesting:

Are you denying his company spent any money in Cuba? asked a panelist.

“They paid money, as I understand from the story, in 1998,” said Conway.

How does Trump's campaign manager go on national TV and clearly know nothing more about her candidate's background activities than what was in the national press? Going on TV to defuse a potential problem with a clear rebuttal is kind of campaign management 101, I would have thought.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Strong take, Marco.

And I will continue to support our nominee.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Which is ironic, because identifying Merkel as a foreign leader you admire should more-or-less disqualify you from the Libertarian party, given the policies for which she stands (and implements).

Weld isn't really liked by most rank and file Libertarians. He's considered way too big government for their tastes (he's basically a 'moderate Libertarian' - ie, Northeastern Republican).

At least he could name a person. And just about every foreign leader is far more big government than the Libertarian Party (if Johnson said that, it would have been a good answer).

[stevew]

I don't really like Rubio or his policies but he's looked/sounded a TON more presidential once he stopped running for president

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Oooooof.

Gary Johnson struggles to name a world leader he respects

The question was who is your favorite current world leader. I'll be honest, that's a tough question if you're a libertarian. New Zealand's John Key?

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Something that we are clearly seeing in this election -- it's really, really hard to run for President in any serious way. We set expectations at an absurdly high level - and invest very little in positive feelings about accomplishments, relative to perceived mistakes and missteps.

I don't think Gary Johnson is a dope. But as a guy who didn't have to go through the sort of deep vetting that a primary/caucus process offers, he's suddenly getting even this small degree of legitimate attention, and he's basically showing his ass. Not that he's actually terrible -- but that he's unpolished, unrestrained, and untrained. And in the bright lights of a serious campaign, all that will surely come to the fore, and (I guess) correctly so.

Lots of voters are wringing their hands with cries of "why don't any good people run?" this cycle. I wonder if the answer is that we hold candidates up to such rigor with deep scrutiny of every statement and position even offered, we prod at them throughout a 24 hour news cycle, and we pick apart every business dealing or unconventional experience... to the point where almost nobody could come through it without looking bad in some ways. And bad really sticks. Much more than good.

Makes me think that Obama, as a generally inexperienced candidate 8 years ago, might have fit the profile. He managed to leverage a Senate vote against the war, and just a thin resume, along with a gift as a speaker/presenter into a comfortable win. All that while people attacked him vaguely for being underqualified. Maybe if he had been in the Senate for 12 more years and had a much longer list of votes and public statements, he would have looked like another deeply flawed candidate to many of the people who liked him in 2008. Despite being far more "qualified" by a traditional measure.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Something that we are clearly seeing in this election -- it's really, really hard to run for President in any serious way. We set expectations at an absurdly high level - and invest very little in positive feelings about accomplishments, relative to perceived mistakes and missteps.

I don't think Gary Johnson is a dope. But as a guy who didn't have to go through the sort of deep vetting that a primary/caucus process offers, he's suddenly getting even this small degree of legitimate attention, and he's basically showing his ass. Not that he's actually terrible -- but that he's unpolished, unrestrained, and untrained. And in the bright lights of a serious campaign, all that will surely come to the fore, and (I guess) correctly so.

Lots of voters are wringing their hands with cries of "why don't any good people run?" this cycle. I wonder if the answer is that we hold candidates up to such rigor with deep scrutiny of every statement and position even offered, we prod at them throughout a 24 hour news cycle, and we pick apart every business dealing or unconventional experience... to the point where almost nobody could come through it without looking bad in some ways. And bad really sticks. Much more than good.

Makes me think that Obama, as a generally inexperienced candidate 8 years ago, might have fit the profile. He managed to leverage a Senate vote against the war, and just a thin resume, along with a gift as a speaker/presenter into a comfortable win. All that while people attacked him vaguely for being underqualified. Maybe if he had been in the Senate for 12 more years and had a much longer list of votes and public statements, he would have looked like another deeply flawed candidate to many of the people who liked him in 2008. Despite being far more "qualified" by a traditional measure.

I hate how Johnson makes very minor gaffes, and they're more "I need to think it about it first" than pure gaffes, it's the end of the world. Clinton and Trump just don't make gaffes, they just outright lie, have horrible track records, and are all around slimy, but Clinton doesn't get called out the way Johnson and Trump (rightfully so) do.

Such a weird election. I don't know why anyone smart, privately successful, and steady would want to run for the Presidency or office anymore. The standards of perfection are insanely high, and you're expected to know rehearsed answers to every question right off the bat (no thinking allowed!).
I want a leader that is smart and listens, surrounds himself or herself with talented people, processes the information and comes to the best--and tough--decisions.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I hear you, but not being able to name a single foreign leader is BAD... like, I'd be a bit like WTF if one of my friends couldn't do that.

The question wasn't to name a single foreign leader, which is the spin I'm seeing by some today.

[panerd]

Yes. Gary Johnson was on the front page of the St. Louis post-dispatch webpage today. Its quite clear what the agenda is of the media. He has not even been mentioned in most of their coverage. I won't go as far as defending not being able to name a favorite world leader or even saying he is the most qualified to be president of the nominees but the press does have an agenda and it doesn't involve anybody not named Hillary Clinton winning the election.

[JPhillips]

I'm so old I remember when the media was filling their time with emailgate, Benghazi, pneumoniagate, Clinton Foundation, DNCgate, blah blah blah.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm so old I remember when the media was filling their time with emailgate, Benghazi, pneumoniagate, Clinton Foundation, DNCgate, blah blah blah.

You can still watch Fox News and the other minor conservative cable news channel if you miss all that.

The other outlets seem to focus much more on Trump IMO.

[ISiddiqui]

Gary Johnson was on the front page of the St. Louis post-dispatch webpage today.

Maybe this morning, but not right now. It was pretty decent political news this morning, when both Trump and Clinton aren't really doing much.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The question wasn't to name a single foreign leader, which is the spin I'm seeing by some today.

Um, did you watch the video? I'd say you're the one spinning. Yes, it makes sense that a Libertarian would not like many foreign leaders. If he'd answered it like that, then this isn't a story. He looked completely lost and didn't know what to say, then admitted it was an "Aleppo" moment.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm so old I remember when the media was filling their time with emailgate, Benghazi, pneumoniagate, Clinton Foundation, DNCgate, blah blah blah.

Yes Benghazi = Doesn't name favorite world leader.

Listen I am all for Johnson getting called on it, I posted earlier today in the thread how I am growing tired of Johnson's "aw shucks" demeanor. "Above the fold" top story on St. Louis news site? A bit of a stretch.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um, did you watch the video? I'd say you're the one spinning. Yes, it makes sense that a Libertarian would not like many foreign leaders. If he'd answered it like that, then this isn't a story. He looked completely lost and didn't know what to say, then admitted it was an "Aleppo" moment.

Johnson is trying to spin it by going with saying that even after having time to think about it here still can't think of a leader he looks up to.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um, did you watch the video? I'd say you're the one spinning. Yes, it makes sense that a Libertarian would not like many foreign leaders. If he'd answered it like that, then this isn't a story. He looked completely lost and didn't know what to say, then admitted it was an "Aleppo" moment.

I watch the video (actually watched the townhall). Not sure how what he said and the question that was asked is any different than what I stated in my response to clarifying to what ISiddiqui stated. What leader would he look up? A honest question.

Johnson is far from being the polished, coached and robotic political we seem to expect, which people either love or hate.

I mean, Hillary Clinton told the Benghazi committee that was the boss of ambassadors in 270 countries. I don't see any outrage over that line.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Johnson is trying to spin it by going with saying that even after having time to think about it here still can't think of a leader he looks up to.

I have to agree with Johnson on this one.

[panerd]

Disclaimer: I'm not running for president but trying to think about what I would do.

I guess you have to go with a European leader or Canada right? Don't want to mispronounce any of the Asian leaders. Angela Merkel is the antitheses of him on foreign policy/economic policy as are most of the Western European leaders. The English lady (who I won't even google to act like I know her name) has been around like a month. His does seem like pure gaffe but really what is the correct answer?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Um, did you watch the video? I'd say you're the one spinning. Yes, it makes sense that a Libertarian would not like many foreign leaders. If he'd answered it like that, then this isn't a story. He looked completely lost and didn't know what to say, then admitted it was an "Aleppo" moment.

That doesn't change the fact that the media is changing the question from "Name your favorite foreign leader" to "Name a single foreign leader". CNN just did a segment on this and their on-screen headline repeated the lie.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

That doesn't change the fact that the media is changing the question from "Name your favorite foreign leader" to "Name a single foreign leader". CNN just did a segment on this and their on-screen headline repeated the lie.

Yeah he really missed an opportunity though to say how with his trade policies and foreign policy he would have lots of favorites instead of being at war with 1/3 of the world.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

That doesn't change the fact that the media is changing the question from "Name your favorite foreign leader" to "Name a single foreign leader". CNN just did a segment on this and their on-screen headline repeated the lie.

What did their on-screen headline say? Because from Johnson's response (and calling it "another Aleppo moment") it definitely appeared he couldn't name a single foreign leader.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

Disclaimer: I'm not running for president but trying to think about what I would do.

I guess you have to go with a European leader or Canada right? Don't want to mispronounce any of the Asian leaders. Angela Merkel is the antitheses of him on foreign policy/economic policy as are most of the Western European leaders. The English lady (who I won't even google to act like I know her name) has been around like a month. His does seem like pure gaffe but really what is the correct answer?

That's what you say then instead of looking like a deer in the headlights and then saying that Mexico guy, which Weld had to help him out ("Fox"). And also mentioning it was an Aleppo moment.

The competent way to answer the question if there isn't anyone you like is to say that most foreign leaders are into big government and therefore I can't really name anyone offhand that would appeal to me as a 'favorite'. However, I wish that with my election to the Presidency, voters in Europe, Asia, and Africa would see that a lower government policy is achievable and the best way to go and elect individuals who I may be able to point as a 'favorite' at some point in the future.

(Oh, and the British PM is Theresa May)

[larrymcg421]

Did you guys know that Hillary called some Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables"? It's too bad the media didn't cover that.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What did their on-screen headline say? Because from Johnson's response (and calling it "another Aleppo moment") it definitely appeared he couldn't name a single foreign leader.

That wasn't the question.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

That wasn't the question.

It's a necessary part of the question - you have to know a foreign leader before you can claim him or her as your favorite.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's a necessary part of the question - you have to know a foreign leader before you can claim him or her as your favorite.

He wasn't trying to name just any random foreign leader. He was asked to named one he liked and he couldn't think of any.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

He wasn't trying to name just any random foreign leader. He was asked to named one he liked and he couldn't think of any.

He said he was "having an Aleppo moment". That indicates that it's not just he knew of foreign leaders and couldn't think of one he liked.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by panerd

Disclaimer: I'm not running for president but trying to think about what I would do.

I guess you have to go with a European leader or Canada right? Don't want to mispronounce any of the Asian leaders. Angela Merkel is the antitheses of him on foreign policy/economic policy as are most of the Western European leaders. The English lady (who I won't even google to act like I know her name) has been around like a month. His does seem like pure gaffe but really what is the correct answer?

With the Libertarian party, I don't think there is one. Their foreign policy is basically isolationism.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by bronconick

With the Libertarian party, I don't think there is one. Their foreign policy is basically isolationism.

I would call it non-interventionism, which is much better then pissing away trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in places like Iraq.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

He said he was "having an Aleppo moment". That indicates that it's not just he knew of foreign leaders and couldn't think of one he liked.

That's kind of a leap in logic IMO. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[ISiddiqui]

I guess so. I just think it's spin to claim he knew loads foreign leaders, but just couldn't name a favorite. Nothing I've seen indicates Johnson knows anything about foreign policy.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

That's kind of a leap in logic IMO. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Watching him try to answer the question, you could tell he just couldn't think of any leader, not just one he liked. He tried Shimon Peres first, then he reached for the former Mexican president at the end., I'm pretty sure they are not a libertarian.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Watching him try to answer the question, you could tell he just couldn't think of any leader, not just one he liked. He tried Shimon Peres first, then he reached for the former Mexican president at the end., I'm pretty sure they are not a libertarian.

Like Quiksand and JPhillips said earlier he definitely needs some polishing and a team of handlers. A guy saying "World Leader question: Can't ever go wrong with Israel" "Can't answer a question... make a comment about Hillary or Trump while you think" Instead he acts like I would which isn't good when you want to be president.

[Ben E Lou]

[JPhillips]

Now Trump is claiming the debate was rigged.

A debate that until today he was claiming he had won because of polls.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Now Trump is claiming the debate was rigged.

A debate that until today he was claiming he had won because of polls.

He continued to claim he won in the statement saying it was rigged, I think he was just patting himself on the back for being able to win when put up against that much adversity.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I guess so. I just think it's spin to claim he knew loads foreign leaders, but just couldn't name a favorite. Nothing I've seen indicates Johnson knows anything about foreign policy.

And Hillary knows and has experience in foreign policy, but nothing indicates that with her long body of work that she makes good and ethically-free decisions on it, and likes seems to like war.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Yeah. :sigh: The more I look around, the more I realize that I'd be all-in for having everyone take an intelligence test, then let the top 20% vote on what's best for the rest of these dummies.

#IAmNotADictatorSometimes #IAmAnOligarchSometimes

I started saying it as a joke, but I'm all aboard a return to elitism. Start by repealing the direct election of Senator's!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I started saying it as a joke, but I'm all aboard a return to elitism. Start by repealing the direct election of Senator's!

your misuse of the apostrophe just disqualified you from the ranks of the voting elite, peasant.

[flere-imsaho]

Does that means smug liberals with multiple degrees and high IQs can run the country now? Asking for a friend.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Delete your account.

This made me LOL.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

your misuse of the apostrophe just disqualified you from the ranks of the voting elite, peasant.

Damn you autocorrect!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Does that means smug liberals with multiple degrees and high IQs can run the country now? Asking for a friend.

No liberal arts degrees qualify, I'm afraid. Sorry.