US Elections 2016 Part I: The Debates & Primaries/Caucus

[james0246]

Now that the first official Republican debate has been held, this seems like a good time to start our annual General election thread. Thirty-seven or so candidates have put forth their Presidential bid for nomination (and a few on both sides of the aisles have put forth their Gubernatorial or Congressional bids); and with the first "debate" out of the way, this seems like the opportune time to start the new United States Elections 2016 thread.

This thread is dedicated to discussion of the upcoming US Presidential, Gubernatorial and Congressional elections in November 2016 (as well as and ballot you might be interested in). The purpose of this thread is to discuss the various candidates, their positions, and the various other positions being voted on across the country. All news and discussion of the upcoming election will be placed in this thread, and once the results are in a possible new thread dedicated to the 115th Congress could be made.

The usual forum rules apply (be considerate of others and their opinions, no flaming or cyclical posting, try and provide sources when possible, etc), and try not to get too caught up in the News coverage of the elections (i.e., we all know the mainstream media is inherently biased (toward the right and the left), so try not to create too much discussion based on how bad you perceive the individual networks are skewing the various elections). To clarify further, you can post any clips or excerpts you feel will add to this thread (as so long as they are actual news clips and not simply talking heads), but do not get too focused on the source of the information (which is partially irrelevant to the discussion topic)...

I will update this OP with recent information as it is presented (e.g., Presidential Candidiates; various primary results; and then finally Hilary vs...?; etc)

This is the "sequel" to the US Election 2008 thread, US Elections 2012 Part I and US Elections 2012 Part II. Please visit that thread if you wish to learn how this discussion is held (or visit to read your old posts, and reminisce on happier times .)

This thread is technically a Part I. If the discussion is as robust and energetic as previous Election threads, a Part II will follow after the primaries.

---

Current Presidential Candidates:
Democratic Bids: Former Senator and Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb; former Senator and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton; former Republican Senator then former Democrat and Independent Governor Lincoln Chafee; former Governor Martin O'Malley; former Representative and current Senator Bernie Sanders; and probably (almost former) Vice-President Joe Biden...so far.

Republican Bids: former Governor Jim Gilmore; former Representative and current Governor John Kasich; Governor Scott Walker; Governor Chris Christie; Governor Bobby Jindal; Donald Trump ("businessman"?); former Governor Jeb Bush; former Governor Rick Perry; current Senator Lindsey Graham; former Governor George Pataki; former Senator Rick Santorum; former Fox News host (and also a former Governor) Mike Huckabee; neurosurgeon Ben Carson; Businesswoman Carly Fiorina; Senator Marco Rubio; Senator Rand Paul; Senator Ted Cruz;...so far.

3rd Party/Independent: former Commissioner of Internal Revenue Mark Everson (not declared yet); Jack Fellure (Prohibition Party); Dr. Jill Stein (Green Party); Darryl Cherney...supposedly (Green Party); Robert David Steele (Libertarian); Gloria La Riva (Socialist); James Hedges (Prohibition); Roseanne Barr (Peace and Freedom); and various - Dan Bilzerian, Zoltan Istvan, Terry Jones, Juaquin James Malphurs (Waka Flocka Flame), Vermin Supreme, Ted Williams, Deez Nuts...so far.

And here are the non-Presidential listings for the 2016 elections (as they currently stand by region, specifics will be added later):

2016 House of Representatives elections
2016 Senate elections
and
2016 Gubernatorial elections (technically there are still elections for Governor in Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi scheduled for later in 2015).

Also, here is a fun website that details local and federal ballots and initiatives.

[Ithekro]

Prohibition Party?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Prohibition Party?

It's the oldest existing third party still actually existing. They've actually had Presidential nominees since the 1870s and they were initially the most "progressive" party when it came to allowing female members - In fact, they were the first party to have a female candidate (for Vice President, I think) and I think the first female mayor in America was a member of the Party. Now, they're just extreme right wing conservatives...well, technically, they've always been extreme right wing conservatives, but once upon a time the country was closer to the Parties ideals than it is currently (obviously).

[Ithekro]

I thought it vanished in the 1930s. I'd not see anyone run for that party within my collected memory of the last two decades at least I've been voting.

Prohabition failed, hard. What's that party line now?
I mean if you think the War on Drug was bad, image the War on Booze. Again.

[SaintessHeart]

My psychic powers tell me we will have a female president. Hillary.

[Ithekro]

That would go against the general pattern since the 1950s with 8 years for each party in office, with only the bump of Carter lossing in 1980. Aside from that, it has been 8 years then switch considtantly for over half a century.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

That would go against the general pattern since the 1950s with 8 years for each party in office, with only the bump of Carter lossing in 1980. Aside from that, it has been 8 years then switch considtantly for over half a century.

Bush sr had 4yrs after regean.

and this isn't about patterns but demographics and which clown the Republicans come up with.

If Hillary wins the nomination i see pick one of the castro brothers as vp. Which would lineup the Hispanic vote for her.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I thought it vanished in the 1930s. I'd not see anyone run for that party within my collected memory of the last two decades at least I've been voting.

You've probably never seen them on your ticket because they do not meet most states requirements for even being allowed on the ballot.

And, yes, the Prohibition Party is 99% defunct. Their candidate only received 500 or so votes in the last election.

Still, they were a power in their day (late 1800s till the early 1900s), and if nothing else they helped give the world the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, which, despite its many faults, was a leading voice in women's suffrage and a variety of other powerful ideas concerning equality among the sexes.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

That would go against the general pattern since the 1950s with 8 years for each party in office, with only the bump of Carter lossing in 1980. Aside from that, it has been 8 years then switch considtantly for over half a century.

Technically, Johnson was only elected once, Nixon never served his second term, Ford was never officially elected, and Carter never won a second term. In other words, the 60s and 70s were a turbulent time .

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

If Hillary wins the nomination i see pick one of the castro brothers as vp. Which would lineup the Hispanic vote for her.

An "ethnicity" seems like a likely contender for her VP choice, but I also feel that a Republican VP could be quite beneficial to Clinton's run. I almost wish Rubio wasn't quite so anti-abortion and anti-women, because he would make a good VP choice for Clinton.

[Ithekro]

Pattern:

Eisenhower - Republican - eight years
Kennedy/Johnson - Democrat - eight years
Nixon/Ford - Republican - eight years
Carter - Democrat - four years
(oddity in pattern)
Reagan/Bush - Republican - twelve years
Clinton - Democrat - eight years
Bush - Republican - eight years
Obama - Democrat ~ eight years

This pattern was pointed out to me by a Democrat who doesn't want any of the current Republicans to win as they are anti-science.
He attributed the oddity to the Iran Hostage incident and the Carter backed rescue attempt failing to go due to a lack of helicopters. he figures if the attempt had been made, success or failure, that mean the hostages aren't a cloud over the election in 1980. He figures that the logical outcome of Carter winning in 1980 would be the Republicans running and winning with Bush in 1984 and 1988, the pattern continuing from there like nothing happened.

[Irenicus]

^Far, far too small a statistical sample to mean anything whatsoever. We need like two centuries of such a pattern to get a real starting point.

Political junkies like patterns the same way astrologists like patterns. They are fun. Otherwise, the pattern fetish obscures all sorts of important things like historical events, close calls, demographics, etc., including at least one very controversial election. Did Bush really deserve to win over Gore? If the Iranian Hostage Crisis was supposedly influential enough to break whatever underlying reason supposedly create the electoral pattern, then what about other elections that have even bigger defining events? The Democrats didn't lose 1968 because of some Byzantine prophecy, it's because of the chaos and division of the Vietnam war and the clashing aspirations and contradictions of modern liberalism. And it's not like Eisenhower's Republicans are the same as the Reaganites. Eisenhower didn't govern through an unholy soulless ruinous unorthodox coalition of racists evangelicals and business interests.

[IceHism]

I'm thinking it'll be a faceoff between Hilary and either Trump or Kasich. Which I think Hilary would easily win.

Though I want Bernie Sanders to win since his policies are a lot more sane. Too bad he would never get elected since he declared himself to be a socialist before. I'm afraid that congress wouldn't do anything if Hilary was elected either much like what we have now with Obama. Ahh, America feels like its in a shitty spot right now in terms of candidates for 2016

Donald trump is hilarious but I wouldn't be surprised if he got the nomination at all. He's a billionaire too so this time, instead of the politician being the middle man, you get the billionaire himself

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Pattern:

Eisenhower - Republican - eight years
Kennedy/Johnson - Democrat - eight years
Nixon/Ford - Republican - eight years
Carter - Democrat - four years
(oddity in pattern)
Reagan/Bush - Republican - twelve years
Clinton - Democrat - eight years
Bush - Republican - eight years
Obama - Democrat ~ eight years

All this pattern really shows is the powers of incumbency, which can be seen in both federal and state level election. Elections are not decided on some sub-conscious desire for/struggle between...I don't know what, the id and the superego (you decide who's who)?

That being said, each election and re-election can be explained quite reasonably on the personal level of the candidates (why they were elected and who voted for them)...well, besides Bush Jr. winning over Gore .

And the fact that a full fourth of the test group (Carter and Bush Sr.) does not adhere to the pattern is proof enough that there is not sufficient evidence to support any hypothesis. It's not a pattern so much as a coincidence.

[SeijiSensei]

When I heard Steve Kornacki raise the issue of the "two-term itch" back in April, I had the same reactions as Irenicus and James, that the sample is too small and too biased to make any real inferences. I decided to look at the entire span of Presidential Administrations and posted the results on my blog here: http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/...two-term-itch/

Historically it has been a toss-up whether the party of a two-term incumbent loses the Presidency in the following election, and even that calculation includes a couple of historical anomalies like Wilson's election in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt's decision to run as a third-party candidate on the "Bull Moose" ticket split the Republican vote. That event alone generates two cases in support of the thesis.

For most of American history one party or the other has held sway for long periods. However the postwar period has been much more competitive; the President's margin of victory is only about half what it was in elections prior to 1948. With a more competitive political environment comes a greater probability that parties will alternate in office. I think that is the more plausible explanation for the "two-term itch" we've seen since World War II.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by IceHism

I'm thinking it'll be a faceoff between Hilary and either Trump or Kasich. Which I think Hilary would easily win.

I wouldn't bet on Trump. He's the Republican Nutjob of the month, with an extra special helping of clownish lunacy. Rick Santorum once led the pack, too. Of course, Trump can always run as an independent (please do). Kasich's problem is...well, let's put it this way, who the hell is he?

Other candidates will likely gain momentum later in the campaign. Christy was once a sure bet -- can he redefine himself from the big bully to the old "action man"? Jeb Bush has the mighty Bush war...I mean, fundraising machine, of course. Oh, and Rand Paul is another candidate that has far broader crossover appeal.

Rand Paul is actually quite an interesting case. During the height of the Tea Party movement, he was one of their champions, and hated by anyone left of the far right, reviled as a sellout faux-populist and contrasted unfavorably with his genuinely maverick father. He rebranded himself quite dramatically since then as a maverick himself, defender of libertarianism willing to stand up to his own party on a number of key issues, and even his tone on Iran in the recent debate -- while still keeping on the Bash Obama, Strongarm Iran theme -- hints at a hidden sanity.

Clever bastard. Well, they (hopefully) all are, but you know. We'll see if Paul's gamble, which risks weakening the base early but repositions himself for broad appeal for the real election, succeeds.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I wouldn't bet on Trump. He's the Republican Nutjob of the month, with an extra special helping of clownish lunacy. Rick Santorum once led the pack, too. Of course, Trump can always run as an independent (please do). Kasich's problem is...well, let's put it this way, who the hell is he?

Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, and Herman Cain each led the Republican field during the early stages of the 2012 Republican nomination process. I suspect Trump's trajectory will follow theirs, but it may take longer for him to fall. I don't see him winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina at which point he may become irrelevant. A third-party run by Trump could spell death for the Republicans in the general election. Maybe he should renew Roosevelt's "Bull Moose Party" label; it would certainly fit his character.

I don't think Kasich's problem is his lack of visibility; that can change quickly in our media-saturated world. His bigger problem is the Republican primary electorate which won't take kindly to someone who accepted expanded Medicaid coverage for his state under Obamacare. He also doesn't strike me as devout enough to attract religious conservatives.

Nevertheless Kasich/Rubio looks to me like the strongest ticket the Republicans could field. It would put both Ohio and Florida in play, with the potential to move 47 electoral votes into the Republican column. Obama won both states in 2012 by slim margins. Romney won 206 EVs in 2012, so with Ohio and Florida the Republicans would be up to 255, just fifteen EVs short of victory.

Media coverage focuses on the candidates, but who the candidates are matters much less when you have a country so polarized with clear regional differences in party support. The outcome in the 2012 election hinged on the results in just nine states.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by IceHism

Though I want Bernie Sanders to win since his policies are a lot more sane. Too bad he would never get elected since he declared himself to be a socialist before.

I don't think his label is going to matter much. Bernie's biggest problem isn't his electibility by citizen vote, but his own party. The progressive wing will support him, but the moderate Dems and the DINOs are terrified of him.

The biggest upset is going to be when he starts winning primaries, which he will. What will the party do when he starts looking like another Obama? This guy has quadrupled rally attendances in a matter of months. His last rally had thirty thousand people. That's insane.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Solace

I don't think his label is going to matter much.

I'm not quite so willing to believe that. Gallup routinely asks people whether they would vote for someone for President with various characteristics. For a long time, "atheist" and "Muslim" occupied the bottom rungs of this lists, but in June, they were supplanted by "socialist." Only 47% told Gallup they would vote for a socialist, compared to 58% for atheists and 60% for Muslims.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/so...appealing.aspx

[Solace]

Perhaps, but I don't think the scary label is going to stick to him. Everything he says is ripped right from progressive era politics (which were heavily influenced by American socialist movements anyway). Still, your poll shows 47%. That's nearly half the pollers saying "yeah, I'd vote for a socialist". That's not so bad.

Still, he's packing stadiums and shooting up the polls at a point where Clinton is a household name and he's still a relative unknown nationally. If he's able to keep that going up to the debates, he's got a serious shot at the primaries.

[SeijiSensei]

Sanders is not even the most left-wing member of the Senate according to the scores reported by Poole and Rosenthal at voteview.com based on statistical analysis of roll-call voting. That position is reserved for Elizabeth Warren, who is dramatically to the left of even the next-most-liberal Senator, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin. Here are the scores:

Warren (MA) -0.714
Baldwin (WI) -0.555
Corey Booker (NJ) -0.526
Mazie Hirono (HI) -0.515
Sanders (VT) -0.510
Ed Markey (MA) -0.500

On the right, there are Republican Senators with scores greater in absolute value than Warren's. Mike Lee (UT) anchors that end of the spectrum at 0.928, followed by Rand Paul (KY) at 0.918, Ted Cruz (TX) at 0.879, and Jeff Flake (AZ) at 0.843.

[risingstar3110]

Honestly, what is the chance of Sanders winning?

I means I kinda likes him, but used to think he will pose no challenge at all. But he has been picked up a lot of support lately , despite the press pretty much ignored his rallies. So that was a pretty strong grassroots base that he built up. And I think he could avoid trivial scandals too. As this guy has been so consistent through his career that I have watched his interviews of a decade or even two decades ago, and his point still remained the same since.

His proposal for change could be too extreme and drastic through. So It could be difficult to get the support from neutral. The "socialist" label also does not help.


But wow, Elizabeth Warren is on the furthest left by a long shot? I actually quite like her actually. And apparently her base already throw supports in behind Sanders. Imagine if Warren actually endorse Sanders, it will be a huge challenge on Hillary.

The more I read about Sanders from outside of mainstream media, the more chance he seemed to pick up. Still fall way short atm through, but we never know