Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

1137138140142143332

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'd like to think that gerrymandering is seen as a problem by everyone except incumbents, and I'm canvassing opinion to test that theory. There's nothing inevitable about gerrymandering. The solution, in broad brush strokes, is to have districts drawn up by non-partisan (or, at least, bi-partisan) bodies in a transparent manner. Ireland's Constituency Commission is one example. That's fair.

    Agreed. There are significant efforts to end the corruption of gerrymandering. Last year there was an important Supreme Court decision regarding gerrymandering in the state of Arizona.

    The state tried to introduce an independent commission but was then blocked by the republicans.

    The case went to the Supreme Court and was upheld (in other words the Independent Commission could proceed) by a 5-4 opinion. The conservative justices voted against it (of course) with one moderate (Kennedy) voting with the liberals.

    Its an important decision because it negates any challenges to California's recently formed Independent Commission and it opens the door for challenges to the more extreme red states like Texas.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_State_Legislature_v._Arizona_Independent_Redistricting_Commission


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,326 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    jeez, I don't think so at all.

    Cruz was always the favourite here, he threw the kitchen sink at Iowa.

    The narrative will be of a Trump loss, but it was always likely.
    Next time Trump will win well in NH & the media spin changes again....

    Since last July all we have heard about is Trump.
    And as time went on everyone expected him to crash, but he didn't.
    The statments became more outrageous and the poll numbers kept going up, there was no fall.

    Until last night when the first real votes were cast.
    And he ended up just ahead of the establishment guy.
    Accepting that Iowa may be a big evangelical state that suited Cruz, Trump was still unable to take support from Rubio.

    As I said more than once before, its soft support.

    He may be leading in NH, but what is going to energise the so called support and get them out ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Citizens United will be long remembered as the decision where a conservative majority on the Supreme Court voted that Corporations are people.

    From the Conservative judges opinion:
    "We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
    "The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy."

    The Citizens United decision is a perfect example of why a presidents appointments to the court are so important.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84,021 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    despite their methodology in that contested district, the fact that they reached a mathematically correct number of votes from both sides shows whoever did the counting on the HRC side likely didn't mess anything up: they must have simply observed and counted the undecideds and O'malleys coming in, while the Sanders side chose to full recount. I don't see the problem.

    A razor thin win indeed though, 6 coin tosses, and a win by .2% is hardly a win at all. She netted just one delegate more than Sanders will from Iowa. A year ago polling had 64% Clinton, 7% Sanders, and he was deemed "undetectable". The coronation has turned into a real horse race; Sanders took the majority of votes under age 40 (and 40s were contested middle ground).

    12669570_917787598316451_1036334482082806209_n.jpg?oh=aa9f0f0b6fa017730e354e058051b16b&oe=5730AD1C

    Sanders is calling this the political revolution that people said would need to happen for him to have any chance. Seems legit.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    What did the 6 coin tosses signify, delegate win? What if they all went to sanders what would have the result been?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,504 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    K-9 wrote: »
    I don't think Romney was classed as a loon, just a bit out of touch.

    McCain was fine, Palin did the main damage there.

    Agreed. I honestly think VP choices sunk both candidates.

    Palin was the worst VP candidate in the history of the Union, no contest.

    Romney picked Ryan to solidify his base support, but I think Ryan's odd mix of faux libertarianism and staunch Catholicism put off independents.

    When I posted earlier about fine, upstanding people in the GOP, McCain was the first that came to mind. I agree with very little what he says, but have the utmost respect for him. Trump shouldn't have gotten s single vote for a veteran after what he said about about McCain. I know some Navy vets who despise Trump because of it.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 716 ✭✭✭Red King


    McCain is a war mongering lunatic and his choice of Palin just illustrated his poor decision making.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    What did the 6 coin tosses signify, delegate win? What if they all went to sanders what would have the result been?

    The coin tosses were in districts which had an uneven no. of delegates but the candidates were tied in the amount they received, eg in a district with 11 delegates, 5 went to Hillary, 5 to Bernie and the remaining 1 was in the coin toss. It sounds ridiculous and I think they'd be better off getting rid of that delegate's vote and declaring it a tie, but that's caucuses for you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    There's plenty on here who'll do the exact same thing to Democrats or liberals.

    McCain is a Republican whom I respect. Just because some clown makes a lame attack on him doesn't mean the rest of us left-leaning posters are culpable for what he said.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Brian? wrote: »
    When I posted earlier about fine, upstanding people in the GOP, McCain was the first that came to mind. I agree with very little what he says, but have the utmost respect for him.

    Yes. He was an old school republican and when he picked palin from the "Tea party" faction as his VP it was supposed to unite the divisions that were forming within the party.

    I remember the comments after the election about how this should be a wake up call for the RNC to clean up their divisions, but instead the tea party has grown in strength.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    McCain is a Republican whom I respect

    Yes. And he was responsible, along with democrat russ feingold, for the (gasp!) bipartisan campaign finance reforms that were thrown out by the (conservative majority) Supreme court decision in Citizens United.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 716 ✭✭✭Red King


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    So is it your position that he is not a war mongerer?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    And of course, there's always someone to dig up a Trump quote:

    c330f279-14b0-4f71-863b-cdae15e952d8.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭matthew8


    Pretty neutral result for the democrats, Clinton would have been slight favourite so a slight win isn't a big deal. It's very likely that Sanders wins NH by a fair bit and then the big question is can he break out of his New England, predominantly white base, as there are a lot of states in the South that will come up soon after that are heavily Clinton, in large part because of her popularity with black voters, who make up a very large proportion of the democratic party in the South.

    Big shake up for the republican party though, Cruz really had to win this state, it would arguably be his ideal state, but it keeps him in with a good shout. I feel it is a big blow to Trump though, he was polling ahead of Cruz and always talks about being a winner, so this has to be a blow. Huge result for Rubio, he's the front runner now and there's a good chance that establishment voters who supported Bush and Kasich could get behind him now.

    Unless the wheels truly come off the Trump campaign he should still win New Hampshire, the big thing will be for Rubio to get at least 20% of the vote and nail himself down as the establishment candidate. Ideally he can beat Cruz too and take the wind out of his sails.

    Like others on here I can't believe I'm rooting for Rubio as republican nominee. I don't mind Ted Cruz but it's a bit concerning that everyone in the senate hates him. Rubio seems like a complete lightweight with no substance, but he's the lesser of 3 evils right now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    matthew8 wrote: »
    It's very likely that Sanders wins NH by a fair bit and then the big question is can he break out of his New England, predominantly white base,

    I heard a factoid mentioned on the news this morning that a Democratic Party candidate from a neighbouring state has never lost in a New Hampshire primary, except for John Kerry when he lost to Howard Dean, who was also from a neighbouring state.

    Bernie will most likely win NH.

    As you say the south and the rest of the country will be very different.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84,021 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    What did the 6 coin tosses signify, delegate win? What if they all went to sanders what would have the result been?

    Sanders would have won. They were only separated by 1.8 state delegate equivalents (699.57 to 697.57). Had the coin tosses been split 50/50, he would have won also.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 84,021 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Red King wrote: »
    McCain is a war mongering lunatic and his choice of Palin just illustrated his poor decision making.

    Was he though?

    I know what lost him my vote in 2008 - "Maybe 100 years" (staying in Iraq), but ultimately was he just playing the public bluff? Obviously the US didn't want to be in the quagmire anymore but one thing is true, if you tell insurgents you're leaving in 2 years, aren't you just going to dig in your heels for a few more years and wait for the withdrawal?


  • Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Hillary already has about 4% of all delegates pledged from the superdelegates. Assuming the rest go the same way she'll have 9%ish, leaving Bernie needing to win 50/91% of the primary/caucus elected delegates, or about a 55-45 win. He has no chance alas.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,740 ✭✭✭eire4


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.



    Must have mis read your post. I wasn't talking about Sanders. I was just saying a lot who are opposed to TPP are against it because it is seen by some as a corporate power grab at the expense of national governments and thus is not in the best interests of the vast majority of American people on that basis alone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Anyone know if has been established for sure whether Cruz is even eligible to be president since he was born in Canada?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,740 ✭✭✭eire4


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.





    If Sanders was somehow to do the all but impossible and win the Democratic nomination and then go on and win the presidential election I find it hard to believe that would not mean a good election down ticket for Democrats as well. Given how gerrymandered the house is while in that scenario Republicans would lose some seats as they did in 2012 it is all but impossible for the Republicans to lose control of the house in this election. The senate however would likely flip back to Democratic control given how many Republican seats are up for grabs in the scenario of a Sanders presidential win.
    Beyond that would Sanders more major proposals be things he could actually get done. No not in a conventional sense but at least he would be trying and I would imagine he would be very aggressive about mobilizing public opinion against congress if for instance congress blocked him breaking up the big banks. Does anybody really think Clinton is going to even try and deal with the too big to fail banks? A lot of people do not think she will reign them in at all or even try.
    One of the things that has caught my attention with Clinton is one of her main points against Sanders is he cannot get much of his agenda made into law. Maybe so but she has never actually discussed or debated whether his many of his ideas are good or bad.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,814 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    20Cent wrote: »
    Anyone know if has been established for sure whether Cruz is even eligible to be president since he was born in Canada?

    Meh. The whole birther thing was an embarrassment when it was tried on Obama; it would be an embarrassment if anyone pulled it on Cruz.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,740 ✭✭✭eire4


    Isn't there Congress elections this year as well as the presidental one? Given that their approval rating is at a pretty disastrous 11%, the situation could well change there.



    Sadly the pathetic approval rating means very little. House districts are so badly gerrymadered all over the country that it would taken something unheard of for Democrats to take control of the house in this election.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,740 ✭✭✭eire4


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes, until they don't. There will be elections every two years during what could be an eight-year presidential term. Well, no. Gerrymandering is, as I'm sure you'll agree, a problem that needs fixing in its own right, not just for the purposes of implementing anyone's agenda.

    Or, at least, any one politician's agenda. It would certainly go some way towards aligning both parties' agendas with the desires of the American people. Cheerfully. I assume, in turn, you'll acknowledge the evidence that a single-payer system can indeed dramatically reduce medical bankruptcies?



    No question solving the gerrymandering problem with districting is vitally important. Sadly there is no major movemnet on making that happen on a nation wide basis. Reality is both parts of the corrupt monopoly on power in DC indulge in gerrymandering. It is just that Republicans are much better at winning elections at the state level. They control 36 state legislatures and a similar number of governorships so they have had a much bigger opportunity to indulge in gerrymandering. But no question both parties are corrupt when it comes to this issue.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Although the SC has never really defined what the Constitution means in its definition, it's pretty much agreed that anyone born as a citizen is allowed. I think even McCain was born abroad too.

    This whole thing was started by Trump, who keeps adding to the fire but naver accusing him of anything.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,740 ✭✭✭eire4


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    If you're not seeing the fraud I suggest looking harder. The info is there if you want to look.

    I don't like the way you ask these questions to try and catch me out on hypocrisy. I personally don't know how it would ever be resolved without some final redistricting that would inevitably be gerrymandered. In a two party system my main problem with gerrymandering would be that it protects the two party system rather than benefiting one or the other in the long run.



    Solving gerrymandering is quite simple you take the ability to draw the districts away from partisan committess in which it currently is and give it to outside independant committees.
    Last year for instance in Arizona thanks to a ballot initiative approved an independant commission made up of 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans to draw district lines. Republican state legislators sued but ultimately lost in the supreme court. Now while personally I would rather see a truly independant districting commission this ballot initiative in a state which has Republicans solidly in control in the state house and senate as well as governor is at least a step in the right direction.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement