Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Hovey there is zero chance the GOP holds the Senate if Trump gets crushed. Worse yet and what I don't think you're considering is that Trump is going to drive up minority turnout to vote against him as well as anybody with an R next to their name. Already Hispanic voter registration is skyrocketing. Did you think that was happening in anticipation of a Rubio nomination?

Also, there is supposedly credible evidence that if a voter votes for the same party twice they are for all intents and purposes a lifelong voter for that party. Hispanic population is not just growing, it's very young, and as those new voters hit their first few elections with Drumpf and his rhetoric representing the GOP we could start to see Hispanics voting 75% or higher for the Dems. Those voters are clustered disproportionately in the west, the one part of the country that hasn't been locked into electoral stasis by the culture wars.

You basically have the fight over the extension of slavery to the west in the 1850s now being re-litigated as a fight over the extension of GOP influence, and demographics are closing the door on the GOP and containing them in the south and prairies.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

To quote Denethor: Flee! Flee for your lives!

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I saw this happen in the city of Boston over the years. For far longer than you'd expect, old white conservatives ran Boston (think the Good Will Hunting crowd) even as their % of the total population shrunk. These were the most conservatives Dems this side of Pennsylvania most likely. The trick was they were showing up regularly for city council and mayoral races, so their candidates kept winning. Eventually though the dam broke and one by one they all get swept out of office. Now, some have come to take their place, and its not like the city govt is all run by minority transgender illegal immigrants However, the anti integration, anti abortion people are done. They just don't have the numbers anymore as more liberal people, be it white, black, brown, or green have started to show up more at the polls.

This is the GOP's white privilege strategy catering to older people. It works for awhile when your people are most likely to show up. Eventually though if you can't attract new voters the dam breaks and you're sh it outta luck. We'll see if that happens with Trump.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

To quote Denethor: Flee! Flee for your lives!

One thing I'll say about Hillary is that she will govern well. She's just the worst candidate I've ever seen. She should send Bill around as a DH and just stick to policy work.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

If I were a movement conservative I'd run a third party candidate for this very reason. Assume the presidency is lost and concentrate on getting as many anti-Dems to the polls as possible to save the Senate. Stall the government for another 4 years and then blame it on Hillary for "being divisive." Come back with a strong, photogenic, competent conservative candidate in 2020.

Problem is that wont work. It is too late to register to be on the ballot in a bunch of states so such a run is meaningless. No one is going to throw money and time into a campaign this late that has no mathematical chance of winning. That means there will be no one going to the polls to vote out of spite because no one will care.

The conservatives lost their party and we all get to watch as the GOP crashes and burns.

 

[joecct]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Remember what happened to the animator in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I saw this happen in the city of Boston over the years. For far longer than you'd expect, old white conservatives ran Boston (think the Good Will Hunting crowd) even as their % of the total population shrunk. These were the most conservatives Dems this side of Pennsylvania most likely. The trick was they were showing up regularly for city council and mayoral races, so their candidates kept winning. Eventually though the dam broke and one by one they all get swept out of office.

I cast my one and to this date only Republican vote for Bill Weld when he ran against John Silber. That was about the time of the deathnell of all those Southie morons.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Hovey there is zero chance the GOP holds the Senate if Trump gets crushed. Worse yet and what I don't think you're considering is that Trump is going to drive up minority turnout to vote against him as well as anybody with an R next to their name. Already Hispanic voter registration is skyrocketing. Did you think that was happening in anticipation of a Rubio nomination?

I don't disagree. That's why I thought the Senate would be wise to negotiate with Obama on the Supreme's nomination. Obama would be happy to sell out the left just to say he put one more person on the Court.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Problem is that wont work. It is too late to register to be on the ballot in a bunch of states so such a run is meaningless. No one is going to throw money and time into a campaign this late that has no mathematical chance of winning. That means there will be no one going to the polls to vote out of spite because no one will care.

The conservatives lost their party and we all get to watch as the GOP crashes and burns.

I'm sure an existing national third party would be happy to have a high name recognition candidate on its ballot. Rand Paul could run as a Libertarian (on the ballot in 48 states) and/or Ted Cruz could run as a Constitution Party (on the ballot in 30 states) nominee. They could have a contest to see if they could outdraw each other / Drumpf. Hillary would win big in the EC but she probably wouldn't even crack 50% of the popular vote, and down-ticket Republicans would make hay.

 

[unofan]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Never voted straight ticket, but this year is going to be close. Wouldn't vote for Drumpf in a million years, Grassley is no longer a moderate, and my House rep and state representatives (all Rs) are putzes.

Normally there's some down ticket race, like State Ag Secretary or something, that I can comfortably vote GOP on. Not sure if that's up this year or not, though.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I don't disagree. That's why I thought the Senate would be wise to negotiate with Obama on the Supreme's nomination. Obama would be happy to sell out the left just to say he put one more person on the Court.

This could still happen; there is no question Obama wants to cement his legacy with a third justice.

I would like the Democrats to urge him to promise (in secret if need be) to withdraw Garland if Hillary wins the election. The GOP should not be allowed to both have it cake by blocking and then eat it by taking the best deal they can get during the actual lame duck. As funny as that exposure of their hypocrisy would be, it's not worth having an older centrist when Hillary and a friendly Senate could move in a liberal Thomas.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Never voted straight ticket, but this year is going to be close. Wouldn't vote for Drumpf in a million years, Grassley is no longer a moderate, and my House rep and state representatives (all Rs) are putzes.

Normally there's some down ticket race, like State Ag Secretary or something, that I can comfortably vote GOP on. Not sure if that's up this year or not, though.

Until I moved to MD there was always a downticket Green or even Libertarian in NY, MA, CA, NC or OR that got my vote. For whatever reason those state parties are horrible here (in all honesty all the state parties in MD are a joke), so I've been voting straight ticket Democratic for a decade now. On the one hand it feels lame; on the other hand it's kinda fun to actually win sometimes. I think between 1982 and 1988 I didn't back a single winning candidate at any level (I never vote for unopposed candidates regardless of party).

 

[joecct]

Until I moved to MD there was always a downticket Green or even Libertarian in NY, MA, CA, NC or OR that got my vote. For whatever reason those state parties are horrible here (in all honesty all the state parties in MD are a joke), so I've been voting straight ticket Democratic for a decade now. On the one hand it feels lame; on the other hand it's kinda fun to actually win sometimes. I think between 1982 and 1988 I didn't back a single winning candidate at any level (I never vote for unopposed candidates regardless of party).

It's tough to lose a state wide race as a Dem in Maryland. The federal races are now the same - unless you're in MD-1.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

This could still happen; there is no question Obama wants to cement his legacy with a third justice.

I would like the Democrats to urge him to promise (in secret if need be) to withdraw Garland if Hillary wins the election. The GOP should not be allowed to both have it cake by blocking and then eat it by taking the best deal they can get during the actual lame duck. As funny as that exposure of their hypocrisy would be, it's not worth having an older centrist when Hillary and a friendly Senate could move in a liberal Thomas.

In theory this is a concern but the more I thought about it GOP dysfunction won't let it happen. They haven't even held hearings on the guy. There's no way they do that after the election and including the Christmas break. Especially when I believe you'd need unanimous consent to move things along quicker. I also don't picture them putting him up for a vote without a hearing. The only way Garland gets on the court is if 1) Obama makes a recess appointment and he serves for a few months, or 2) Hillary agrees to renominate him next year, and I'm not sure she will.

 

[unofan]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

As soon as the GOP stupidly made its play, they've been playing with fire. If they hold up Garland for essentially 11 months under the pretext that "The people deserve a voice" then Hillary should nominate the libbiest lib that ever libbed, especially if the Dems gain hold of the Senate.

If the GOP doesn't act hypocritically at that point and allows the vote, great. If they all of a sudden filibuster, then the Dems would be well within their right to go nuclear, which frankly would not be a bad thing, either.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

And Kasich is dropping out too per CNN

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

It's tough to lose a state wide race as a Dem in Maryland.

Tony Brown managed it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

And Kasich is dropping out too per CNN

So it's official: we have our Silvio Berlusconi.

 

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Thought he'd stay in long enough to try to take third place, or at least take in the Cali food scene.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I'm gonna hafta start watching RT again.

In its early days, RT mostly offered a Kremlin-friendly diet of international coverage, feeding the Obama-bashing, America-in-decline narrative with C-list commentators who couldn’t get an airing elsewhere on cable TV. But that was before Donald Trump—whose unlikely mutual admiration for Russia’s strongman president has been one of the stranger subplots of this American political season.

The blustery billionaire has praised Putin as a strong leader, spoken of closer ties with Moscow and mused about whether NATO is obsolete. At the foreign policy speech Trump delivered in Washington on April 27, the Russian ambassador to the United States was sitting in the front row. As Trump has risen, RT has gotten much more interested in the U.S. presidential campaign. Tune in to Ed Schultz and his colleagues these days and you’ll find a presidential race featuring Hillary Clinton as a malevolent warmonger, Bernie Sanders as an insurgent hero—and Donald Trump as a foreign policy savant.

If you haven't had the pleasure you owe it to yourself to watch RT's "news" broadcast, which makes Fox looks the model of equanimity and professionalism. It's firehose propaganda for Russia in general and Putin in particular. I can easily see them buddying up to Drumpf as "our man in Washington." I'm sure Vlad sees him as a guy he can easily manipulate and create feedback loops to terrify the French and Germans. Good times.