View Topic

Well, we've already established that if the Republican party has half of a brain they'll nominate Kaisich.  He's the only one in that race who isn't an open racist or bigot.  The other candidates are CRAZY in the Republican primary.  Cruz and Carson want a religious war against the Middle East, Rubio wants to forced raped women to carry babies to term and break off relations with Cuba again, and Trump wants to build walls, "great great powerful wonderful healthcare" and "make our army so strong that no one will mess with us." 

I'd be genuinely concerned for the future of the world if any of them became President of the United States...

Well, with Republicans, you're going to have some irreconcilable stances on abortion, gay rights, etc. that are going to offend our overwhelmingly liberal sentiments here in Wintreath.    I don't really think every Republican candidate is an outright BIGOT like Trump, Cruz, Carson.

Unfortunately "future of the world" is no overstatement. Goddamn America and the fallout your politicians' actions have on every other country.

I honestly can't say I like any of your candidates very much, but to vote for the lesser of the multiple evils you have lurking around, I'd probably go for Sanders in your shoes. He seems to be well-intentioned, at the least. I just worry that he'll be an idealistic fool.

On the Republican side, Trump will be the nominee, even if the establishment is still in denial about that. The problem is that they didn't take him seriously and assumed that he would do something to take himself out of the contest, and now it's a case of too little too late. Even worse, all the remaining people in the race believe they're in the best position to beat him, and are willing to fight even if it fractures the anti-Trump vote. Some are even planning to fight for the nomination at a potential brokered convention in the event Trump has the most delegates but not a majority, which regardless of the outcome would be a disaster for the Republican party.

On the Democratic side, Clinton remains the favourite, but I wouldn't say she's any more or less so than before. Sanders won enough states to at least stay a viable candidate, and he has the money and support to fight on. His problem is that he's failed to gain much support with African-Americans, and they've powered most of Clinton's victories in the south. The African-American community has long had a positive impression of the Clintons, and she's campaigned on continuing President Obama's legacy, which helps with that group as well.

As for third parties, I'm not sure if I posted it here or just on the IRC, but a number of leftest parties, including the Green Party, are preparing to promote themselves to Sanders supporters in the event that he loses the nomination. It's not that they can win this election, but if a party can get at least 5% of the vote they can qualify for federal funds in the next election, so in a way it's important to them as well. The issue with third parties is that the two main parties have erected significant barriers for third parties and independents to get on the ballot, such as requirements to turn in petitions with a large number or signatures. The two parties are still willing to come together to preserve their joint self-interests and keep alternatives out of the process.

ACTUALLY Sanders' losses aren't that damaging. IIRC he's actually posed to win a lot of States now, as Super Tuesday was known to be a bit of a loss to him...

As for third parties, I'm not sure if I posted it here or just on the IRC, but a number of leftest parties, including the Green Party, are preparing to promote themselves to Sanders supporters in the event that he loses the nomination. It's not that they can win this election, but if a party can get at least 5% of the vote they can qualify for federal funds in the next election, so in a way it's important to them as well.

God, that worries me. Spoiler effect be damned.

Echoing the flexibility of the parties, I feel the Democratic Party can more easily accommodate its growing socialist wing than it is to completely divide the party over it. The same probably can't be said about the Tea Party movement, seeing as it's seemingly already too late.

The formation of a new party system is imminent.

The formation of a new party system is imminent.

You can rest assured that this'll be a re-aligning election, of course!!

And depending upon who you ask, it's either wonderful or horrible...

Quite similar to the Progressive Party Election when Teddy Roosevelt decided to run 3rd party!!  

The formation of a new party system is imminent.

You can rest assured that this'll be a re-aligning election, of course!!

And depending upon who you ask, it's either wonderful or horrible...

Quite similar to the Progressive Party Election when Teddy Roosevelt decided to run 3rd party!!

And there was massive upheaval, the political situation of the US was forever changed and we still feel the effects today.

Oh wait, all that happened when Teddy Roosevelt ran was that he came in second.

I don't think you're suddenly going to see a major third party rise overnight, or even four years from now, but I think more people are going to search for a party that speaks to them even if it doesn't have a shot at the presidency, especially Bernie Sanders's supporters...they've already shown that they're willing to support a long-shot candidate that speaks to them, and I think the Clinton campaign has made a major miscalculation in assuming that his supporters will fall in line and support her in the general election. Some probably will, but others who consider her a liar or a scheming politician won't, and others will remember the way her and her supporters dismissed them as hopelessly idealistic people that don't understand how the world really works. To them, the Green Party, who essentially agrees with most of Sanders's positions, may very well speak to them.

On the Republican side, either way you're going to have a faction that's deeply dissatisfied with the state of the party at the end of the primaries, and depending on which side it is either the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party may speak to them...assuming Trump himself doesn't lose and start his own third-party run. He's got the money and popularity to do it.

Most political pundits say that Hillary will generally be in better shape in the general election. They predict that more Sanders supports are likely to support Clinton than GOP voters are to support Trump. If Trump wins the GOP nod, some even say that some "establishment" voters may cross over and vote for Hillary for the presidency in an attempt to save the Republican Party from Trump.

Some thoughts after primaries yesterday (Michigan, Mississippi, Idaho (Republican), and Hawaii (Republican).

In spite of the predictions and wishes of the Republican establishment, or perhaps because of them, Trump is still the person to beat, having won three of the four states that held Republican primaries. Even worse for the establishment, their candidate Rubio failed to win any delegates at all from three of the states. Looks like it'll be a Trump-Cruz contest by the end of the month, and that thought is sure to give the establishment real heartburn.

On the Democratic side, Sanders's "upset" victory in Michigan means he remains a viable candidate for at least the rest of the month, but more importantly gives him a template for winning vital states like Illinois and Ohio, which hold votes later this month. Most concerning for Clinton, he did much better with African-Americans in Michigan than he had been in the deep south, while her southern firewall is withering as she runs out of states there to run the board with (she did win Mississippi 84%-16%, for example).

The next important primary date is March 15th, when Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio vote. I think for Sanders to remain a viable candidate, he must win at least two of those states, and one must be either Illinois or Ohio. It could also very well be the Republican establishment's last, best chance to stop Trump before their convention.

Why I hate open primaries: Seven percent of GOP voters in Michigan's primary last night were self-declared Democrats. They were all probably trying to play spoiler to Donald Trump, which nevertheless failed miserably. The funny part about the polls in the state is that the Democratic race had Clinton up by twenty-one percentage points, so all the anti-Trump Democratic voters were probably Clinton supporters because they assumed that she had the election in the bag, so to speak.

Meanwhile, I'm worried about how that will play out in my home state primary (side note: I'm in the precarious situation where I will turn 18 after the April 5 Wisconsin primary but before the November 8 general election, so I will be able to vote for the general election but not the primary, because Wisconsin does not have a provision allowing 17-year-olds like me to do so). However, the effect may in fact turn out to be the opposite due to the fact that Sanders will take a resounding lead there. Either that or Sanders supporters will be concerned enough to receive as many delegates as possible that they'll run up the lead as much as they can simply because they can't afford not to.

Regardless, the principle still applies: primaries should not allow party members to cross over to the other side for "strategic" purposes. If you support a candidate, vote for that candidate! Let the party voters have their say in who receives the nomination, not whoever can afford to give their vote to a candidate the other party has an easier chance of beating. Given the only way to solve that is to allow voters to register with a party, a process that doesn't exist in either Wisconsin or Michigan. As well, independent voters could still sway an election anti-candidate strategic voting rather than pro-candidate voting, unless the primaries were fully closed, which would only punish those who don't wish to conform to a party line.

I think that open primaries are actually kind-of fun because of that.  Independents aren't disenfranchised.  And I don't think that the people hard-line enough to vote in the Republican primary and not the Democratic one are probably not Hillary supporters.  The progressive voting block is generally the type that likes to pull stunts like that to ensure a less radical candidate/more radical candidate, depending upon what their goals are (winning the election or damage control when the other party wins). 

As Wintermoot pointed out, the states left on the Democratic side aren't part of Hillary's southern firewall, and Bernie will easily carry the Great Plains, the name "Clinton" is being tarnished here.  And there are still a lot of states here to caucus—Dakotas, Utah, Wyoming, Illinois, etc.  I also think that Bernie will trounce Clinton in WA and OR, and probably also in CA, too.  That's the progressive stronghold of America, and Clinton does have a lot of corporate ties to big business. 

Also California has like several hundred delegates up for grabs IIRC

Oh, I'm not in favour of disenfranchising independents; I just want semi-closed primaries so blocks of voters can't pull shenanigans by voting for their least favourite candidate on the other side, thereby playing spoiler effect to the candidate they support. Semi-closed primaries specifically include independents, but only have them choose one primary in which to vote. I realize that this isn't a perfect alternative, and that independents can still play these kinds of strategic voting games, but it still abates the kind of politics that makes voting more about the party than about the candidates therein.

the name "Clinton" is being tarnished here.

See, that's the thing I'm worried about. What if Sanders doesn't win the election and Clinton does? How will Sanders supporters react to the election then, and would they vote for Clinton, or instead lock in a third-party vote for Jill Stein? It seems like more than in elections prior, many Sanders supporters openly attack Clinton, making it more difficult to support her in the general election if she wins. This "Bernie or bust" movement may cost progressives the election this year if Clinton becomes the nominee.