Miggs
Well-Known Member
Is that a bad thing?
Never Trump
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Is that a bad thing?
b_line
Well-Known Member
You're right. I thought sore loser laws were more generally applicable, but this website says that "sore loser laws apply to presidential candidates in only two states: South Dakota and Texas." https://ballotpedia.org/"Sore_loser"_laws_for_presidential_candidates
Edit: although it's the House of Reps in general that picks the president, not Paul Ryan in specific. I wonder if it's a secret ballot? Probably not.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I know we're all televisually trained to think we're seeing off-script/unprecedented stuff, but there really isn't much to see here. Hillary has a clear road to the White House -- after the masses are entertained by more of the best televisual electoral stunts evar. And, from many different perspectives, a Hillary presidency won't be very different from Bill, W, or Obama's.
That's a good point... but this ".gov" website says that the House would have to choose between the top three candidates, https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html. The third option would just have to win a single state in order to be considered... the third place finisher would likely be Bernie, though, in that scenario. But I could totally see someone like Romney or Gary Johnson winning one or two states and thus coming in fourth.
Do we have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt to find an election where the third place candidate even won a single state? I checked, and neither Ross Perot in the '90s or Anderson in the '70s won any states. That's as many third party/independent candidates as I can think of that got substantial votes, since the days of the Bull Moose party. And here we're considering a scenario where not only the third place but also the fourth place finisher would get some electoral votes.
Probably won't happen, but like you said this is a crazy year.
I agree, it's Hillary's to lose. If I were a betting man I'd give her about an 85% chance. The 15% chance she loses includes crazy scenarios like Bernie winning the Democratic nomination, someone (Bernie, Mitt, Bloomberg, other?) running a substantial 3rd party campaign, her getting indicted for the ongoing FBI probe, or Trump actually managing to pull a "fair win" against her out of his hat.
b_line
Well-Known Member
Ross perot could have won in the general had he not waffled. He also had the whole threat on his daughters wife thing going on, so that made a huge difference.
It probably won't happen, but a romney/kasich ticket could win utah and Ohio at the very least. And bernie would win Vermont and maybe new Hampshire.
Romney/kasich might even win idaho, Wyoming and Arizona.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using JazzFanz mobile app
And either Romney/Kasich or Bernie could very well take Wisconsin as well. (Trump lost massively there, and Bernie beat Hillary 57% to 43%.)
b_line
Well-Known Member
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Here is an interview that is an introduction to who he is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCS6PbtbGmA
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
aint multiple parties dope? I'm telling y'all. The best thing that could come out of this election is y'all moving away from the oligarchic 2-party gridlock. It hurts to think that I have to mention the benefits of having more than two parties competing.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
I think Jill Stein has said she'd join forces with Bernie on a ticket. Can you imagine?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
I think Bernie is more likely to be Clinton's VP than Stein's.
Thanks, that was informative. I agreed with many things, but disagreed with many things.
Interesting that he brought up isidewith.com... I went back and looked at my numbers and he was a worse match for me than everyone except for Sanders.
Miggs
Well-Known Member
Hurt to mention? Every single person on this board knows the two party system blows. No one's supporting it.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Johnson and Bernie were my top 2
NAOS
Well-Known Member
The Atlantic wrote a piece awhile back about the rise of the Working Families Party back east. In it, there's some fascinating discussion about the advantages of two-party politics over, say, three or four. If party politics is a problem, then adding more parties isn't necessarily the answer. Every party scene needs to be gamed; sometimes having fewer parties makes the game easier.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/working-families-party/422949/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/working-families-party/422949/
JimLes
Well-Known Member
See, the scary thing is that even positions you listed above aren't necessarily progressive in the traditional sense of the word. When majority of Americans support gay marriage(easily by a double digit margin according to recent polls), I'm not sure how you can argue that Hilary supporting gay marriage is anything but moderate and mainstream. I won't even get into how late she jumped on this bandwagon.
Same thing with abortion. According to a Gallup poll from mid-2015, 50% of Americans consider themselves pro-choice. 44% consider themselves pro-life. The rest are presumably people who have been living under a rock the last 40 years. Again, how are her views here not aligning with the majority?
Again from Gallup. 55% of Americans last year wanted stricter gun control laws, 33% wanted them kept the same, and 11% wanted less strict gun laws. How is Hilary not moderate here?